1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[OFFICIAL] Tulsi Gabbard for President Thread

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Os Trigonum, Jan 11, 2019.

  1. jiggyfly

    jiggyfly Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2015
    Messages:
    21,011
    Likes Received:
    16,853
    That's all you got?

    Weak sauce.
     
  2. Agent94

    Agent94 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,698
    Likes Received:
    2,546
    Just look it up. I don't want go into the history of Vietnam and the wars since then. Sorry for the personal attack.
     
  3. jiggyfly

    jiggyfly Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2015
    Messages:
    21,011
    Likes Received:
    16,853
    Don't need to look anything up I am a history buff and a history teacher.
     
  4. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    23,888
    Likes Received:
    19,692
    Sorry but this is a ridiculous take. If you can't differentiate from whatever Tulsi is repeating over and over again with zero depth behind a blanket statement of "Regime Change Wars" and the democratic position of decreasing troops in the middle east by working through diplomacy to advance American interests... than I don't know what to tell you. Obama was BLASTED for pulling troops out when he did. Warren WILL BE BLASTED by the right for maybe doing the same if she wins the general. Trump will try to paint her as unpatriotic to the extreme for being TOO ANTI WAR.

    Even Elizabeth Warren & Bernie Sanders.... the two most anti-war liberal Democrats on that stage blasted Trump for his insane foreign policy on Syria. Warren herself said that "I don't even think we should be in the middle east at all but...." Warren and Sanders are two of the four front runners in the damn race. Saying that "THE DEMOCRATS" are controlling some pro-war narrative with the media is some tin foil hat Alex Jones type of nonsense.... which I guess is who Tulsi is trying to court in the end by going on shows like Tucker & giving blanket high level statements for complicated issues like Trump does which make no real sense but are open to conspiratorial innuendo.
     
    Rashmon, joshuaao, jiggyfly and 2 others like this.
  5. justtxyank

    justtxyank Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    42,653
    Likes Received:
    39,216
    It's also important to note that this Tulsi-Russia thing isn't made up out of thin air and didn't begin with the recent Syria stuff. The Syria stuff dates back to 2017 when she met with Assad and has since demurred on whether he's a war criminal, etc. The Russia stuff stems from online support for her coming from twitter bots, which is confirmed, not a rumor.

    Clinton is a bad spokesperson for this issue, but no matter how much Jill Stein protests, what Clinton has said is true. The CIA, FBI, Mueller Report, Congress (including Republican Senate) have all come to the same conclusion INCLUDING that they tried to support Jill Stein as a spoiler.
     
    Rashmon, joshuaao, RayRay10 and 2 others like this.
  6. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    34,061
    Likes Received:
    13,411
    I don't see that at all, at least since 9/11. The approved the war in Afghanistan, approved the war in Iraq. When Obama ran, he criticized the Iraqi occupation but endorsed our presence in Afghanistan. Obama supported the Arab Spring (except in a couple places like Bahrain where he propped up the dictatorship), committed military assets to Libya to overthrow Gaddafi, armed proxy fighters in Syria to try to overthrow Assad, supported the pro-Western parties in Ukraine against the pro-Russian forces (for which we're still getting the blowback). The occasional criticism of Bush's adventures or peace overtures to Cuba doesn't make you anti-intervention. Trump might actually be the most anti-interventionist president we've had in modern times. I think he retreats where he shouldn't, but for all his belligerence he really truly doesn't care which assholes are running other countries so long as he has a good trade deal.
     
    durvasa and Os Trigonum like this.
  7. Nook

    Nook Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    53,805
    Likes Received:
    111,555
    First, it isn't just the Democrats defending the status quo. A majority of Republicans are defending the status quo so it really isn't a democrat versus republican issue.

    I always hear the popular view with American's is anti intervention........ yet we have consistently voted for and chosen candidates that favor some level of intervention.
     
  8. Deji McGever

    Deji McGever יליד טקסני

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 1999
    Messages:
    4,012
    Likes Received:
    949
    Rashmon likes this.
  9. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    23,888
    Likes Received:
    19,692
    Yeah. I mean the big thing for me is there's just zero depth to it with her which makes it sound more and more like propaganda. Whether intentional or unintentional. Syria is freaking complex, and has nothing to do with "US Regime Change Wars". This isn't Iraq & Saddam & Obama was very guarded against the thought of taking out Assad which he was receiving a lot of pressure to do (throw out Assad).

    When you try to offer this shallow retort on Syria is just comes off as you being purposefully misleading in order to serve Assad/Putin's interest of US pulling support for not just group troops in Syria but support for the Kurds so Assad/Putin can gain more power over that part of the region. Regime change has nothing to do with anything we are doing there, but making the issue SEEM LIKE regime change serves the interest of Putin/Assad.

    ....

    But yes to your point Hillary is also a bad spokesperson simply because she voted for the war in Iraq. But Obama's policy on Syria is really the most direct line of understanding on the "Democrat Party's" position on "Regime Change Wars".... which doesn't fall into Tulsi's blanket criticisms the least bit. She's going after Hillary simply because of this attack line tied to her vote on Iraq, but in the end she's probably public enemy #1 to Tulsi because of Putin's resentment of her following her statements about the illegitimacy of his election which will also poke at his ego & drive him crazy.
     
    joshuaao and justtxyank like this.
  10. Agent94

    Agent94 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,698
    Likes Received:
    2,546
    What is the goal in Syria? What is Americas interests in Syria? We have bombed both sides. We are against both Asad and ISIS. So really were are just pissing off everyone in the region. If you think the original goal was not regime change against Asad, then you are fooling yourself. Assad must go, Obama says
     
    MiddleMan likes this.
  11. Agent94

    Agent94 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,698
    Likes Received:
    2,546
    I said neo-lib. Of course a majority of Republicans are defending the status quo. I never said otherwise. And a great deal of democrats are against interventions. I don't know if neo-lib is the right term, but there is a small well funded group that is trying to drive the narrative. Gabbard is a one trick pony and they don't want her to get more popular.
     
  12. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    23,888
    Likes Received:
    19,692
    I started typing something and then realized if you don’t understand the basics of foreign policy beyond Tulsi’s shallow blanket statement of nonsense, I’ll never convince you of anything.

    There are a ton of goals... none of which have anything to do with “Regime Change War”.

    This support for Tulsi’s nonsense as a mechanism to attack Democrats is mind boggling until you realize only 1% of Democrats are supporting Tulsi for president. Meaning ... her supporters are mostly Trumpers who are trolling. Not one single Democrat on stage will roll out a policy of regime change wars. None of them are that stupid. I don’t see Dick Cheney, John Bolton, or Lindsay Graham on that stage. You are confusing Democrats with the Republicans who keep Trump in power.

    Also... where are you on the Trump admins obvious attempt at stoking a “Regime Change War” with Iran? Where were you when Trump hired John Bolton who is partially responsible for getting us in a Regime Change War in Iraq? I don’t remember you speaking out then??

    The Dems are not afraid of her as you alluded to. If you recall, Mayor Pete completely annihilated her when she brought up that nonsense statement. Warren herself said “I don’t believe we should even be in the Middle East”... nobody is disagreeing with the sentiment of being anti regime change.... nobody is afraid of taking on Tulsi because they all agree with it.

    It’s her bad faith tactic of injecting that statement in ANY debate question as a way to insinuate nonsense about her Dem colleagues that ticks them off as it should.

    Tulsi offers nothing of substance on the topic. Only innuendo as an attack tactic. There’s just no way to take her seriously as a real candidate.
     
    #452 dobro1229, Oct 22, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2019
    baller4life315 and RayRay10 like this.
  13. TheresTheDagger

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Messages:
    10,099
    Likes Received:
    7,741
    Since Vietnam eh? Wonder why we're using that as the point of cutoff. But I digress:
    Lets look at history:

    Carter: Authorized failed attempt at Hostage Rescue in Iran.
    Clinton: Somalia (Black Hawk Down), Serbia: Operation Allied Force. Iraq: Southern No fly zone, Cruise missile attacks on Baghdad, Operation Desert Strike, Northern No fly zone, Operation Desert Fox. Afghanistan and Sudan:Operation Infinite Reach
    Obama: Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria: All bombed and/or drone attacked during Obama's 8 years. Also, many small unit covert operations in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Pakistan.

    But tell us more about how non interventionist Dem Presidents have been. :rolleyes: *



    *(this is not to deny that Republican Presidents have also gotten the US involved in interventionist wars as well.)
     
    MiddleMan and WNBA like this.
  14. jiggyfly

    jiggyfly Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2015
    Messages:
    21,011
    Likes Received:
    16,853
    None of those are interventionist wars.

    And nobody said democrats were against any military action, you are trotting out a strawman.

    So once you stop moving the goalpost get back to me.
     
  15. dmoneybangbang

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    20,941
    Likes Received:
    12,825
    Its multiple goals, like blunting a rising Russian and Iranian alliance in the Middle East.

    Russia needs Syria for military bases for its access to warm water and not engulfed in the Black Sea with its narrow access to the Mediterranean.
     
    MiddleMan likes this.
  16. Agent94

    Agent94 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,698
    Likes Received:
    2,546
    The Iranian Russian alliance happened because we intervened in Afghanistan and Iraq and have economic sanctions on both countries. That ship sailed before we even got involved in Syria. The Russian air base in Syria didn't happen until after US involvement in the war. Do you think they want a foreign country on their soil. Try again.
     
    MiddleMan and snowconeman22 like this.
  17. jiggyfly

    jiggyfly Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2015
    Messages:
    21,011
    Likes Received:
    16,853
    Not all Democrats approved the war with Afghanistan and its the reason Hillary lost to Obama in the 1st place.

    I never said democrats were against any military intervention but the majority of the party usually is anti interventionist.

    I admit there has been a wishy washy message from Democratic leadership on foreign intervention but its certainly no overt strain of regime change in the party like has been the case for republicans.
     
  18. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    34,061
    Likes Received:
    13,411
    I'd look at this in eras instead of parties:

    Interwar period: US very isolationist, not wanting to get involved in another of Europe's wars.

    WWII: Japan gave us the provocation we needed to go kick everyone's asses. Become global hegemon.

    1948-1970s: We just go crazy getting into everybody's business to make sure nobody tries to create a utopia. Wars, coups, assassinations all over the got-damn place.

    1970s-1991: A bit disillusioned by our bad experience in Vietnam, pulled back a bit on interventions. Patted ourselves on the back when USSR collapsed under its own weight.

    1991-2001: The only world power, we didn't quite know what to do with ourselves, but sought to use the window to pluck Soviet satellites and set ourselves up before the next challenger comes.

    2001-2016: 9/11 sparks a collective insanity. Start several proxy wars to gain geopolitical positioning against Russia and China.

    2017-now: Coddle dictators and hope for good trade deals.

    In that arc, I see Gabbard as a continuation of the current foreign policy -- just let China and Russia establish their spheres of influence. But, I'm not clear on how far she goes (or Trump goes) on this thinking. I think we should scale back a bit. I don't think we should any longer try to dictate what happens in Asia or the Muslim world. But I'd like to not let in Russia or China to meddle in North or South America, Europe, Western Africa, or the Pacific Rim (e.g. Australia, Japan). So, I'm sad about the double-cross we pulled in Syria but I'm not too upset about losing influence there. I am more upset that we let Russia dabble in Venezuela. I am interested in keeping Ukraine pro-Western, and I'm happy to get rid of Turkey (no offense to the Turks, and I do hope I can still tour there because it looks beautiful).
     
  19. dmoneybangbang

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    20,941
    Likes Received:
    12,825
    And why would we want to continue to let Russians build up forces there?

    Try again.
     
  20. TheresTheDagger

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Messages:
    10,099
    Likes Received:
    7,741
    The overthrow of Libya and Khadaffi wasn't an interventionist war?
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now