Reply to Tulsi Gabbard 2020

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Tulsi Gabbard 2020"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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

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

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.  [/quote]

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

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

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.

[/quote]

You are nuts. [/quote]

Ok, I see you still have nothing to say of substance. Look, if you can provide an informed critique of her foreign policy views, why you prefer other candidates, and your own view on military intervention in the ME, go for it. I am all ears, and always learning. [/quote]

Omg. Her meeting with Assad and inability to condemn him is crazy. If you are ok with that, you are nuts, too, so no further discussion is warranted. It doesn’t really matter.  No way does she get the nomination. She is anti-gay and sympathetic to Assad. Crazy. [/quote]

She is not "sympathetic to Assad." Her viewpoint was that US bomb strikes were likely to create more instability and civilian deaths, while being totally ineffective to actually stop future chemical attacks. This view is shared by actual experts: https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-09-26/what-you-need-know-about-chemical-weapons-use-syria

To the extent she initially voiced skepticism about Assad's responsibility ... my guess is she does not now. And in the immediate aftermath, skepticism is appropriate for a country that went to war based on fake WMDs. Remember that?

Anyway, curious about what you think about her other stances on Syria and Yemen?[/quote]

+1
Smart and solid. Thanks for pushing back against the stupid![/quote]

LOL. No. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics