Why is there so much hate here directed at Gabbard? I just can't figure it out ?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
The electorate, including the putatively ‘diverse’ Democrats are almost all ignorant of Hinduism and Indian politics. Why don’t you Tulsi critics point to actual pro-RSS positions or actions by her and tell us what we should worry us? IME all the Tulsi hatred re: the RSS/Hindutva comes down to saying since spoke with Modi once and the RSS offered minimal support, she’s encouraging sectarian crimes. |
Anonymous
I posted a bunch of links. You can find many more, google is your friend. Reading those, you should be able to determine quite easily for yourself whether her ties with RSS go beyond speaking to Modi once and RSS offering minimal support, and the positions she has taken that overlap with RSS's views (hint, RSS does not have a conventional "conservative" ideology - theirs is basically a toxic blend of Hindu supremacy, nationalism, extreme social conservatism, and a somewhat selective/opportunistic mistrust of trade and even private enterprise). In any case, please do your own research and come to your (hopefully unbiased) judgment, including connecting the dots between the seemingly non-progressive views Gabbard has on Islam and RSS's own record on that front. All that said, my research suggests she has recently backed off a bit from her RSS friends and their support, which suggests that her dalliance with them might have been more naivete than anything else. Doesn't speak well for her sense of judgment though - and it's not just RSS, the fondness for Assad is equally disturbing if not outright disqualifying for a Democratic (or Republican) candidate for President. |
Anonymous
You’ve posted nothing suggesting she’s a Sanghi or even vaguely supportive of the RSS. If the level of closeness to the Sangh that those articles allege was indicated she supports them, then almost all nationally-known U.S. politicians are Zionist bigots and Wahabi lovers. It doesn’t work! And your nonsense line about Assad shows you’re just attempting smears. Find a new hobby, Neera. |
Anonymous
It’s good enough for me. She won’t get my support. |
Anonymous
WTF? The US has not "invaded" Syria, and the fact that Tulsi Gabbard implies so when she calls Syria a "regime change war" is part of the reason why I hate her and will never support her. The Syrian people revolted agains the dictator Assad by the hundreds of thousands in many cities across Syria. They were peacefully, non-violently protesting the Assad regime, not just Bashir but also his father, who had systematically and sometimes violently repressed the Syrian people for decades. Assad chose to meet that protest with violence. He knew it was the only way to hold onto personal power, and he knew that if he lost power that he would probably end up in exile or in prison due to his corruption and responsibility for crimes. Some people of Syria chose to resist. Large swathes of Syria become ungovernable by the Assad's government and out of his control. As is common in a civil war, the opposition was unable to unite effectively under one unified military and governmental command and control. In the chaos of the opposition, extremist groups like Nusra Front and ISIS and AQ-afilitated groups were able to seize power in small areas. Yes, it was a mistake of the Obama administration not to confront, together with the international community, Assad earlier and more strongly over his use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. Part of the difficulty was that Russia was blocking effective action in the Security Council because they hoped to gain influence in Syria, which provided them with a foothold in the Middle East they didn't have and access to a warm water port (Latakia) in the Mediterranean, which they also didn't have. As it became clear that the chaos on the opposition side was allowing the groups like ISIS to flourish and gain more $$ and followers, Obama moved to support the Kurds by providing a limited number of US troops to assist Kurdish ground forces in the fight by providing targeting intelligence and air support and assistance with logistics. The Kurds had an excellent military and governance structure which is non-sectarian, inclusive of women (i.e. both men and women are soldiers and full participants in military and civilian society). In fact, in all of Iraq and Syria, the Kurds are the only effective governance organization which has any respect for human rights and equality. The Kurds are the ones who are responsible for destroying ISIS, not Donald Trump, as he claims. Kurds lost 11,000 soldiers in the fight against ISIS and another 30,000 wounded. They essentially paid in their own blood to protect the US and Europe. That is why Gabbard's description of the Syrian war is so offensive. And, that is why Donald Trump's betrayal of the Kurds is so shameful. He has cast this shame on the American people as well by making our military and government complicit in what will be the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds by the Turks in the past few weeks and coming months. The Turks have clearly stated their intention to remove by force or exclusion all Kurds from a zone of Syria that the Turks intend to occupy. The Turks have also indicated that in place of the Kurds, they will then resettle non-native refugees in formerly historically Kurdish areas. This has been explicitly supported by Trump. It will sow the seeds of conflict and instability for decades to come not only in the Middle East but also in Europe and the US (as ISIS resurges, having escaped from prisons, and likely allowed to flourish under Turkish and Russian areas/control.) Gabbard and Trump are idiots of the same magnitude and their idiocy stains all Americans. |
Anonymous
This. I can’t stand dealing with the liars here mischaracterizing Gabbard and prior policy so I just stepped away. Thank you. And this thread aside, Gabbard is a non-factor now and forever. She can stunt with suing Google and shrieking at Hillary but she does not matter. At all. |
Anonymous
I won't disagree that she is a non-factor. The question is, why does Hillary think she is enough of a factor to bring her up? |
Anonymous
|
Clinton was describing reality, that’s why; describing the same interference and attempted destabilization of US elections by the external support for Gabbard.
Enough. I’m not dealing with the disingenuous. You only degrade yourself with your lies and painful faux naïveté. |
Anonymous
Who pays your salary, PP? Qatar? KSA? A three-letter agency? HRC? I first thought this was another gullible fool who blindly believes the propaganda. But given your lengthy and 100% on message rant, I’d guess your someone’s scribe. Some of your elisions: -an actual war like this requires massive materiel, both CapEx and OpEx -that expensive, heavy, consumable materiel was supplied by the U.S., Israel, Turkey, KSA, Qatar, and (at least early on) the UAE -the rebels were largely Salafi Jihadis. Rojava/SDF was an exception -the largest refugee flows since WWII came from rebel-held areas and were mostly moderate Sunnis who lived peacefully under the Assads (yes, typically despised) -the tide against the Salafi groups was largely turned by Russia’s intervention -a foreign military force univited is absolutely an invasion -the Trump Administration actively worked to keep the SDF fro dealing with Assad+Russia And lumping Tulsi with drop is hilariously wrong-headed. Thanks to you, I’m going to make a substantial donation to Tulsi’s Presidential campaign. Please tell me your name so I can make it in your honor. |
Anonymous
HRC is profoundly wedded to lurid narratives about Russia, much more than the available evidence implies is warranted. Whether that’s about shame over 2016 or something else (there are rumors!), remains to be seen. |
Anonymous
Baseless, disingenuous, naive propaganda, PP. HRC and her mindless minions like you have done far more damage than Trump (a clown!) has done. And your smear machine needs new victims, hence Hillary’s anti-Tulsi tirade. |
Anonymous
| This thread is nonsensical. Nobody talks about Gabbard at all until the Gabbard groupies come here to complain that she is not being properly worshiped. She is irrelevant. |
Anonymous
I totally agree and wasn’t interested in Gabbard until Madame Hillary sunk her fangs into her. Seems like an attempt by Clinton yo make herself relevant or she is helping the DNC destabilize Gabbard. Is Sanders next on HRC’s list? |
Anonymous
+1. HRC is a Russian asset |
Anonymous
On more than one occasion her debate appearances made her the most Googled candidate. So viewers and voters actually do seem interested in spite of what entrenched interests say: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/08/01/tulsi-gabbard-most-searched-candidate-democratic-debate/1887209001/ |