You (or agent) still aren’t answering the fundamental question of why I should find these conspiracy theories about a candidate polling at 1% believable. Copy & pasting paragraphs from a Wikipedia page isn’t contributing anything to the conversation. What is there to gain by sabotaging Gabbard? I think we all agree she has no chance at the nomination. So why the need? Agent at least offered a theory on this. One I feel is a total reach. And regarding the Hillary statement, it’s called nuance. “Basket of deplorables” was a Hillary misstep not because the general spirit of what she was suggesting wasn’t true, but because she tried to quantify it. That was inaccurate, and that inaccuracy overshadowed the point she was trying to make. Same with Jill Stein and Russian interference. I don’t care how much you hate Hillary or want to pretend Russia didn’t completely undermine the 2016 election. You should at least be able to objectively acknowledge they used Jill Stein as a pawn, and could potentially do the same with Gabbard (if she decided to go third party) to undermine or election process again.
Really, it's just the headlines that are problematic. Looks like the articles show what Duke's racist and repugnant backhanded "endorsement" said and prominently feature Gabbard's rejection of the endorsement and criticism of Duke. The news element of it reflects more about Duke's place in the world than it does Gabbard. However, I do agree with you there is something pretty suspicious about the placement (especially the resurrection) of these stories with the headlines they have. Yes, I think someone is trying to destroy her. I still think she does a terrible job of handling these stories though. My guess is nobody is really worried about Gabbard getting the nomination, but they are concerned about her hostility to the military-industrial complex getting traction in liberal circles. You know liberals are susceptible to criticisms of American colonialism. So they don't want any other candidate adopting these views or having to answer why they won't adopt these views. And, they probably don't want to see this idea in the House either. So, she'll probably get a well-funded primary challenger too and she won't be in politics much longer.
Democrats have been anti-intervention since the Vietnam war and Obama also ran on it so what Gabbard is doing is nothing new or different.
The military industrial complex is and has been an issue with Democrats since the 60's,I have no idea why people think Gabbard is saying something new, are we forgetting what was happening with Democrats during the Bush years? She is not even bringing anything new to the discussion which really baffles me.
The neo-libs are controlling the narrative in the media. She is saying we should get out of Syria. So the Democrats are blasting her as a Russian asset, associating her with Trump and the far right, calling her an Assad apologist, etc. It doesn't sound like the democrats are anti-intervention. They have taken the baton from the neo-cons and now full in on the continuous wars in the middle east and Syria. Calling main stream democrats anti-intervention is ridiculous at this point.
Considering the poorly planned Syrian withdrawal, it would make sense that Gabbard focuses on attacking the media instead of policies. I’m sick of politicians with overly simply platforms that have no chance of working.
When you start using terms like neo-libs it shows me you have an agenda. Don't know if you are a ultra liberal or repeating Russian talking points. You still have not refuted the fact that Democrats have been ant-interventionist for ever or the fact that no democrats are pushing for regime change. you are the one looking ridiculous.
Sure I have an agenda - get out of stupid wars. That democrats are interventionist is prima facie true. It's un-ironic that you mindlessly repeat the "Russian talking point" talking point instead of thinking for yourself or making a coherent argument.
There is a difference between intervention and military intervention. Democrats are all over the spectrum as far as military intervention goes. In general, they are less inclined than Republicans.
Republicans aren't exactly known for their hands-off approach to war. Bush the Lesser sold us into Iraq, after all. It's something of a case-by-case basis. Despite Trump's tough-guy talk/bulls***, he seems to avoid military conflict, even if it's a mistake (abandoning the Kurds is a mistake, and highly suspect). But he would be so far in over his head if we entered a war with him as Commander in Chief. Let us not think of it.
Ehhh.... the democrats are certainly more hawkish than in the past but both parties are about equal on the intervention.
She was in medical so it explains her anti-interventionist viewpoint. She worked at the main hospital for wounded and casualties in Iraq in 2004-2005. While she wasn’t a field surgeon, she probably saw a lot of things most wouldn’t want to see. As far as her Iraq tour, she was stationed at a captured Iraqi base that had full amenities. It wasn’t as if she was camping out and avoiding bullets. As with most bases in Iraq at the time, she has to deal with constant mortar attacks. She did deploy to Kuwait later, but that’s a kush assignment. She also probably made a lot of bank on that tour as do most assigned there. Im a vet, she’s a vet, neither one of us were in combat. As long as she doesn’t try to act like she was in the heat of things, I don’t see a problem with playing up the vet line. It still should mean something to have served. Now, if she’s saying she’s a “combat-vet,” or insinuating that, I’d take issue.
Sure that is a reasonable take, but someone just argued that democrats are anti-intervention when a Democrat started military intervention in Syria and Democrats are currently defending the status quo. On top of that, its hard to name a military intervention that democrats in power at the federal level have not supported. I would argue the populist point of view across both parties is anti-interventionist. Although those that make it to the top at the federal level in politics always seem to come out in favor of more wars.
If you can't see the difference between traditional Democrat anti-interventionism and what Tulsi Gabbard is saying then I don't know what to tell you. I honestly thought was Tulsi was saying in the last debate in regards to the questions being asked was so nonsensical that I didn't know where to start. In regards to how America should handle the Kurds, Turkey, Russia, and ISIS, it is straight up nonsense to say "We have to reject REGIME CHANGE WARS"..... WTF does that even mean Tulsi??? Nobody is changing political leaders in Syria, Turkey, or Russia. Americas role in northern Syria has nothing to do with "Regime Change". Our agenda in Syria does not involve occupational forces. We are there (mostly in spirit & air support) because of our alliance with the Kurds who were fighting ISIS in ISIS controlled territory. We were there to ensure Ethnic Cleansing does not happen to an ally. Tulsi trying to make a case that Americans who support our support of the Kurdish forces with Neocon war mongers like Dick Cheney is so disingenuous I don't know what to say. The only explanation I can think of for her debate performance is that- A. She's just running such a shallow one issue campaign that she's unprepared to talk about ANYTHING outside of her one single talking point or B. She really is working on behalf of Putin to try and persuade the American public that Americas alliance with the Kurds is a bad idea & we need to support ethnic cleansing & support Russia/Assad/ and Erdogan's influence in the middle east more. As well as convincing the American people that ISIS flooding into Europe is a GOOD thing because those pesky liberal European countries got it coming. So is she really trying to change the American electorate that all the above is a smart thing for Americans to adopt or is she really just that shallow as a politician running for the highest office in the land? It HAS TO be one or the other.
I made several coherent arguments. The Democrats have been against stupid wars since Vietnam, the latest being the 2 gulf wars. Its not just prima facie true, its action-ably true and historically true. .
