Why is there so much hate here directed at Gabbard? I just can't figure it out ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never ever support Gabbard. She is an apologist for one of the worst dictators and human rights violators in the modern world at the moment (perhaps only topped by NK and systematic re-education camps being run by the Chinese in their muslim areas.)

The Syrian revolution started as a peaceful protest movement within Syria, as had been occurring in most other countries during the Arab Spring.

Assad chose to respond violently to the peaceful, non-violent protests when they started drawing hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters. He used violence because he knew that he could not hold onto power otherwise.

Cynically, he also used torture, disappearance and mass execution. Please see the numerous stories and documentations by Cesar - a police photographer who escaped Syria with tons of documentation of Assad's torture regime. Here is just one story about him -- https://www.goalglobal.org/stories/post/what-are-the-caesar-photographs.

Gabbard supports Assad and has met personally with him. During last week's democratic debate, she repeatedly described the Syrian revolution as a "regime change war" started by the Americans. Nothing could be further than the truth. Syrian citizens wanted to change their own society and were met by the ruthless hand of a dictator who would maintain his own personally power by any means necessary (which includes not just torture but barrel bombs and the use of chemical weapons against civilians and the systematic bombing of civilian hospitals.)

That is why I hate her and will never vote for her. She is either stupid or so cynical as to profit politically from association with a brutal dictator.

Look, just because the Syrians were repressed by Assad does not mean that the US invading is a good thing.

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.

Thank you for this refresher PP. You changed my stance on this a bit. This is truly sad all around.

[Anonymous]

Who the hell is on this site boosting this crap? Tulsi is a loony attention whore and an unwitting Russian asset. She is polling at <1% nationally. Stop playing into the hands of these Putin puppets! The did it last election and they'll do it again in 2020.


Don't feed the trolls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never ever support Gabbard. She is an apologist for one of the worst dictators and human rights violators in the modern world at the moment (perhaps only topped by NK and systematic re-education camps being run by the Chinese in their muslim areas.)

The Syrian revolution started as a peaceful protest movement within Syria, as had been occurring in most other countries during the Arab Spring.

Assad chose to respond violently to the peaceful, non-violent protests when they started drawing hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters. He used violence because he knew that he could not hold onto power otherwise.

Cynically, he also used torture, disappearance and mass execution. Please see the numerous stories and documentations by Cesar - a police photographer who escaped Syria with tons of documentation of Assad's torture regime. Here is just one story about him -- https://www.goalglobal.org/stories/post/what-are-the-caesar-photographs.

Gabbard supports Assad and has met personally with him. During last week's democratic debate, she repeatedly described the Syrian revolution as a "regime change war" started by the Americans. Nothing could be further than the truth. Syrian citizens wanted to change their own society and were met by the ruthless hand of a dictator who would maintain his own personally power by any means necessary (which includes not just torture but barrel bombs and the use of chemical weapons against civilians and the systematic bombing of civilian hospitals.)

That is why I hate her and will never vote for her. She is either stupid or so cynical as to profit politically from association with a brutal dictator.

Look, just because the Syrians were repressed by Assad does not mean that the US invading is a good thing.

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.

Thank you for this refresher PP. You changed my stance on this a bit. This is truly sad all around.

PP, this rant was obviously propaganda. Don’t be a sucker for a horribly failed strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Who the hell is on this site boosting this crap? Tulsi is a loony attention whore and an unwitting Russian asset. She is polling at <1% nationally. Stop playing into the hands of these Putin puppets! The did it last election and they'll do it again in 2020.


Don't feed the trolls.

Unless you’re pro-war, she’s not ‘loony’.

And if you’re so worried posts and comments about over-hyped, under polling candidates, check out the pro-Klobuchar folks.

[Anonymous]

Have we talked about how the New York Times misquoted Hillary who actually said that Gabbard is being groomed by Republicans as a third-party candidate?

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/new-york-times-changes-story-admitting-they-misquoted-clinton-saying-russians-were-grooming-tulsi-gabbard/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have we talked about how the New York Times misquoted Hillary who actually said that Gabbard is being groomed by Republicans as a third-party candidate?

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/new-york-times-changes-story-admitting-they-misquoted-clinton-saying-russians-were-grooming-tulsi-gabbard/

“Misquoted Hillary”? Now that’s funny!

[Anonymous]

https://twitter.com/CGasparino/status/1187406236301570051

SCOOP:
@TulsiGabbard breaks bread with Wall Street fat cats at @huntandfishnyc; event sponsored by Dem fundraiser
@robertwolf32 as she is said to weigh third-party run more now @FoxBusiness @TeamCavuto dotcom story to come

Tulsi? A third party spoiler? NO!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never ever support Gabbard. She is an apologist for one of the worst dictators and human rights violators in the modern world at the moment (perhaps only topped by NK and systematic re-education camps being run by the Chinese in their muslim areas.)

The Syrian revolution started as a peaceful protest movement within Syria, as had been occurring in most other countries during the Arab Spring.

Assad chose to respond violently to the peaceful, non-violent protests when they started drawing hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters. He used violence because he knew that he could not hold onto power otherwise.

Cynically, he also used torture, disappearance and mass execution. Please see the numerous stories and documentations by Cesar - a police photographer who escaped Syria with tons of documentation of Assad's torture regime. Here is just one story about him -- https://www.goalglobal.org/stories/post/what-are-the-caesar-photographs.

Gabbard supports Assad and has met personally with him. During last week's democratic debate, she repeatedly described the Syrian revolution as a "regime change war" started by the Americans. Nothing could be further than the truth. Syrian citizens wanted to change their own society and were met by the ruthless hand of a dictator who would maintain his own personally power by any means necessary (which includes not just torture but barrel bombs and the use of chemical weapons against civilians and the systematic bombing of civilian hospitals.)

That is why I hate her and will never vote for her. She is either stupid or so cynical as to profit politically from association with a brutal dictator.

Look, just because the Syrians were repressed by Assad does not mean that the US invading is a good thing.

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.

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.

Ah, the stains let this stand but not a deservedly vulgar response to it.

[Anonymous]

I don't think its fair to call Tulsi an attention whore. She is no different than Eric Stahlwell giving running for an office a shot to boost her future prospects. She isn't even polling at 1% so her campaign is going nowhere.

[Anonymous]

She skipped another Iowa event this evening to go on Hannity and parrot the "best of" GOP talking points for the day.

She also teased a third party run.

Ya, Hillary was spouting BS.

[Anonymous]

She's against military adventurism and pointless, endless wars.

That's all I care about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She's against military adventurism and pointless, endless wars.

That's all I care about.

She’s against war like a child, but without the sincerity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She's against military adventurism and pointless, endless wars.

That's all I care about.

She doesn't make sense. Donate to amnesty international, but don't waste your vote on someone who is going to sell you down the river. Notice how trump withdrew troops to leave the kurds to die - but has deployed a huge number of troops to saudi arabia? Don't be naive. Trump's moves were obvious to anyone with their eyes open. Gabbard's are too. Pay attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's against military adventurism and pointless, endless wars.

That's all I care about.

She’s against war like a child, but without the sincerity.

If you don’t pair that insight with harsh regular criticisms of the Obama administration, HRC, and any of the current Democratic Presidental candidates, you’re obviously clueless and/or pathological.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's against military adventurism and pointless, endless wars.

That's all I care about.

She doesn't make sense. Donate to amnesty international, but don't waste your vote on someone who is going to sell you down the river. Notice how trump withdrew troops to leave the kurds to die - but has deployed a huge number of troops to saudi arabia? Don't be naive. Trump's moves were obvious to anyone with their eyes open. Gabbard's are too. Pay attention.

PP, you’re an obvious case of not paying attention.

Amnesty international has always been a joke, donating to them is like lighting your money on fire.

Conflating Gabbard’s positions with Trump shows you’re slandering her with either dishonesty or foolishness. She said Trump had blood on his hands regarding the Kurds!