Tulsi Gabbard 2020

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The gay rights stuff is concerning, but the complaints about her meeting Assad are totally ignorant and uniformed. Gabbard is the only Dem in the field who actually wants to place limits on US wars abroad. Vast majority of "progressive" democrats are just totally in the dark about foreign policy and war.

No. She did a totally unauthorized trip and refuses to condemn him. It is very concerning.

Do you understand what her actual position on military intervention is? Or do you get all your foreign policy positions from Twitter?

You need to simmer down. I think she is highly problematic and will not vote for her. Her position on gay rights is awful and her inability to condemn Assad is nuts. Her military position of not intervening is not the issue. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER. If it comes down to Trump v her, I would sit out. Both are terrible. The Democratic Party can and needs to do better.

Ok, I see you are a other progressive with a shallow and totally uniformed understanding of foreign policy.

People like you are insufferable and why the Democrats have such a hard time winning elections.

People like you are why 100s of thousands of innocent civilians are killed by US bombs and starvation in Yemen, while you are fixated by whatever images of dead children in Syria on your FB feed, all the while you feel smug and virtuous about the MLK sign in your yard.

Oh look, we have another whatabout’ist edgelord from The Intercept posting here. How cute.

How do you explain this from Rep Gabbard?

https://mobile.twitter.com/CNN/status/850477149895131136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E850477149895131136&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fpowerpost%2Fwp%2F2017%2F04%2F11%2Fwhat-is-tulsi-gabbard-thinking-on-syria%2F

She initially voiced skepticism - that's true and not inappopriate in a world where the US ***went to war*** over false claims. As I posted above, her underlying viewpoint about our response that incident in Syria is serious and has a lot of merit to consider. It's not whataboutism at all to want the progressive left to have a coherent view on foreign intervention, which so far none of you PPs show. While Gabbard is problematic in some ways, her foreign policy views should push the other candidates into explaining their platforms

also if you think it's "edgelord" for a progressive to care about US intervention abroad ... I don't know what kind of topsy-turvy world you live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The next Jill Stein.

She’s an accomplished Democratic Representative who serves in the military. Your comparison is false.

I thought the comparison was false because Stein actually worked as a physician and has been an environmental activist

Gabbard, like Kamala and many other women, took the pretty girl pass to life. Don’t expect much from any of them.

OMG. Gabbard served in the military and Harris was a DA. You're a rank sexist.

So you say

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The gay rights stuff is concerning, but the complaints about her meeting Assad are totally ignorant and uniformed. Gabbard is the only Dem in the field who actually wants to place limits on US wars abroad. Vast majority of "progressive" democrats are just totally in the dark about foreign policy and war.

No. She did a totally unauthorized trip and refuses to condemn him. It is very concerning.

Do you understand what her actual position on military intervention is? Or do you get all your foreign policy positions from Twitter?

You need to simmer down. I think she is highly problematic and will not vote for her. Her position on gay rights is awful and her inability to condemn Assad is nuts. Her military position of not intervening is not the issue. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER. If it comes down to Trump v her, I would sit out. Both are terrible. The Democratic Party can and needs to do better.

Ok, I see you are a other progressive with a shallow and totally uniformed understanding of foreign policy.

People like you are insufferable and why the Democrats have such a hard time winning elections.

People like you are why 100s of thousands of innocent civilians are killed by US bombs and starvation in Yemen, while you are fixated by whatever images of dead children in Syria on your FB feed, all the while you feel smug and virtuous about the MLK sign in your yard.

Myiu really think a Trumoster has an MLK yard sign?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The gay rights stuff is concerning, but the complaints about her meeting Assad are totally ignorant and uniformed. Gabbard is the only Dem in the field who actually wants to place limits on US wars abroad. Vast majority of "progressive" democrats are just totally in the dark about foreign policy and war.

No. She did a totally unauthorized trip and refuses to condemn him. It is very concerning.

Do you understand what her actual position on military intervention is? Or do you get all your foreign policy positions from Twitter?

You need to simmer down. I think she is highly problematic and will not vote for her. Her position on gay rights is awful and her inability to condemn Assad is nuts. Her military position of not intervening is not the issue. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER. If it comes down to Trump v her, I would sit out. Both are terrible. The Democratic Party can and needs to do better.

Ok, I see you are a other progressive with a shallow and totally uniformed understanding of foreign policy.

People like you are insufferable and why the Democrats have such a hard time winning elections.

People like you are why 100s of thousands of innocent civilians are killed by US bombs and starvation in Yemen, while you are fixated by whatever images of dead children in Syria on your FB feed, all the while you feel smug and virtuous about the MLK sign in your yard.

Myiu really think a Trumoster has an MLK yard sign?

Keep up. It's so-called progressives who are ignorant about foreign policy and criticize Gabbard for being anti-war who have MLK signs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is not good. Her meeting with Assad should disqualify her.

+1000

Great to see AIPAC represented here!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am super excited about this because with her and Elizabeth Warren in the race it means Bernie might stand down.

Bernie hatred runs deep among the Dumb Clowns+Utter Morons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tulsi Gabbard, 2004, arguing against the civil unions of gay people:
“As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists.”

Only Democrat to vote against condemning the Assad regime violence against children.

No f*cking thank you.

I hope you have had the same absolute distaste for pols who help start wars with 1M+ killed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tulsi Gabbard, 2004, arguing against the civil unions of gay people:
“As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists.”

Only Democrat to vote against condemning the Assad regime violence against children.

No f*cking thank you.

She worked really hard in Hawaii to set back gay rights and now claims to be pro-gay but everyone know it is a lie. Big pass!

A


A set of events similar to the above were probably why HRC wasn't popular enough to win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The next Jill Stein.

She’s an accomplished Democratic Representative who serves in the military. Your comparison is false.

I thought the comparison was false because Stein actually worked as a physician and has been an environmental activist

Gabbard, like Kamala and many other women, took the pretty girl pass to life. Don’t expect much from any of them.

Gabbard met with Assad. Kamala Harris made a career off of kissing banker ass. Not the same thing at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The gay rights stuff is concerning, but the complaints about her meeting Assad are totally ignorant and uniformed. Gabbard is the only Dem in the field who actually wants to place limits on US wars abroad. Vast majority of "progressive" democrats are just totally in the dark about foreign policy and war.

It's even worse than "in the dark"! They slavishly follow whatever their masters tell them is a 'good war'! Sick!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The gay rights stuff is concerning, but the complaints about her meeting Assad are totally ignorant and uniformed. Gabbard is the only Dem in the field who actually wants to place limits on US wars abroad. Vast majority of "progressive" democrats are just totally in the dark about foreign policy and war.

No. She did a totally unauthorized trip and refuses to condemn him. It is very concerning.

Do you understand what her actual position on military intervention is? Or do you get all your foreign policy positions from Twitter?

You need to simmer down. I think she is highly problematic and will not vote for her. Her position on gay rights is awful and her inability to condemn Assad is nuts. Her military position of not intervening is not the issue. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER. If it comes down to Trump v her, I would sit out. Both are terrible. The Democratic Party can and needs to do better.

Did you vote for HRC, that warmonger?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The gay rights stuff is concerning, but the complaints about her meeting Assad are totally ignorant and uniformed. Gabbard is the only Dem in the field who actually wants to place limits on US wars abroad. Vast majority of "progressive" democrats are just totally in the dark about foreign policy and war.

No. She did a totally unauthorized trip and refuses to condemn him. It is very concerning.

Do you understand what her actual position on military intervention is? Or do you get all your foreign policy positions from Twitter?

You need to simmer down. I think she is highly problematic and will not vote for her. Her position on gay rights is awful and her inability to condemn Assad is nuts. Her military position of not intervening is not the issue. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER. If it comes down to Trump v her, I would sit out. Both are terrible. The Democratic Party can and needs to do better.

Ok, I see you are a other progressive with a shallow and totally uniformed understanding of foreign policy.

People like you are insufferable and why the Democrats have such a hard time winning elections.

People like you are why 100s of thousands of innocent civilians are killed by US bombs and starvation in Yemen, while you are fixated by whatever images of dead children in Syria on your FB feed, all the while you feel smug and virtuous about the MLK sign in your yard.

+1

Thanks for the sanity in the midst of the professional Democratic Party stupidity!

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is not good. Her meeting with Assad should disqualify her.

This. We need a president who clearly stands for American values

That's right, you should meet with our traditional bloodthirsty allies in the Middle East: MBS, Netanyahu, and Erdogan! How dare she go off script!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

^^^
Why are you guys who are railing against political dynasties OK with Tulsi?