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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are nuts.

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.

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.

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?

You guess she doesn’t now? LOL. Well, great! By all means then. Just like now she isn’t anti-gay.

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

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are nuts.

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.

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are nuts.

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.

Who has a sign for MLK, 50.5 years after his assasination, stuck into his or her lawn?

Why do I not believe you supported ”Maverick” McCain against Trump scum, yet have a shiny brand-new interest in supporting Gabbard, despite your not nromg a registered Democrat? Others, too, are always learning, and since you’re so sincere and highly informed and sincere, and not at all interested in whipping bullshit around, I’m sure your response will be wholly on point.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are nuts.

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.

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.

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.

You are nuts.

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.

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.

You are nuts.

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.

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

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.

You are nuts.

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.

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.