If she’s a serious candidate, my only hope is that she will submit to full transparency financially and disclose any foreign ties. See.... It is possible to care about our leaders being compromised even when it’s our “Tribe”. See how easy that is Trumpers? There have been rumors about her taking money from some foreign governments a couple years ago based on what I can recall at the time. Other than that and some of her outlier views for a Dem (war hawkish and odd responses to certain Dem issues) I think she’s interesting enough to be a serious candidate. Being a surfer is always a plus. As long as she’s not a longboarder.
To be fair, I based my assessment off of some headline I saw somewhere and nothing else. So I could be wrong. If she is a legit "non-interventionist" like Ron Paul was then that would be cool.
Initial assessment... anti-stupid middle east wars without congressional approval. Hated by far-left, Progressive cultists. I would consider voting for her.
Tulsi Gabbard isn't hated by the far left or progressives. She is a progressive. The only complaint I see from progressives is that it isn't so clear she's anti-stupid middle east wars without congressional approval. Being a hawk on the war on terrorism can mean a lot of really bad things.
She's hated by neo liberals (endless wars and wall street) and sjw nitwits (zomg anti Islam homophobe). In other words, the perfect candidate.
Well again, she might be on the forever war team with her comments on being pro-war on terrorism. We just have to wait and see what her agenda and policies will be, her place on domestic problems seem golden, but there is reason for concern on her foreign policy.
Yeah I really don't know much about her admittedly... Thus I will still consider her until more info is dug out.
I do not see Tulsi as a progressive. She is very pragmatic which is what I love about her. She doesn't blindly fall into group think mentality nor does she march and dance to the partys tune. She is not well received by the far left as they believe she is not progressive enough. She is actually more clear about her interventions in the middle east than most politicians. Not only does she demand congressional approval, she also wants plans and strategies discussed. She is a hawk on terrorism, however she is very much so against using the war on terrorism as an excuse to invade a country or topple a regime. Here is an excerpt about a recent bill passed involving Iran.
Softball questions to make her look good. Almost seemed scripted. I liked the way she responded and her overall temperament, but I’m curious how she responds when pressed on issues that would not be popular with many Dems (being against the Iran deal, her views on Russia and Syria, support for drone strikes to combat terrorism and its impact on civilian populations, and domestically her past views on gay marriage).
an essay on Gabbard today that discusses her two "political taboos": " . . . she carries two political taboos that make her a pariah among the intersectional left. Her overt and belligerent opposition to Islamism and Islamic radicalism has gotten her powerful enemies in her own party, which is increasingly seeing a bizarre morphing between left-feminist and Islamist factions. Consider her meeting with Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, in a fact-finding mission no normal political operative would advise to someone who harbors even a remote hope of running for the presidency of the United States. "In a terrible, tone-deaf choice, Gabbard went to Syria, and then met Assad, as she wanted to stall off another reckless intervention in the Middle East. Even though her exact words were 'there’s no doubt Assad is a brutal dictator,' it’s hard to tell why she thought it politically prudent to meet with the authority in a region that is essentially tribal and feudal in nature. She was butchered by both liberal interventionists and Islamist interventionists opposed to any secular dictator in the Middle East. "This particular episode made a wound that would be hard for her to heal during the savage primaries unless she goes on offense first. Interestingly, though, for all the accusations from the left that she’s a closeted right-winger, she recently tweeted to President Trump about cutting Saudi Arabia off, thereby showing at least that she is consistent in her position. She previously blasted President Obama in a similar fashion and introduced a bill called Stop Arming Terrorists Act. "Her social conservatism is also raising questions in the predictable circles. Recently, she wrote a scathing op-ed against her own state senator for being discriminatory and judgmental about Catholics in public service. In a time when the left is increasingly opposed to not just Christianity in the public offices but also practicing Christians, her raking fire against the annoyingly grandstanding senators of her own party caused shockwaves." http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/16...andidacy-exposes-huge-democratic-party-rifts/
Those issues don't bother me so much. I'd like to know more about her position on Iran wrt nuclear disarmament, and how we should handle that. I read somewhere that she was opposed to the Iran nuclear treaty. Also, what is her position on selling arms to states like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, etc. who could use them in a manner we do not approve of. Does her position of non-interventionism apply there?
Question for the folks who are ok with Gabbard meeting Assad: how did you feel about then-candidate Obama's willingness to meet with the leaders of Iran and North Korea? Has your thinking evolved on this issue now that President Trump has met with Kim Jong Un? I know 2008 was a long time ago, but Obama's statements about meeting hostile foreign leaders were red meat for the GOP base during that campaign. Personally, I see very few reasons to ignore other leaders when it come to diplomacy. We can't pretend they don't exist, no matter how horrible their actions. 50 years of wishing-away the Castro regime in Cuba did not bring about its downfall. Yet, I do think there is a line between acknowledging the leadership of a country vs. welcoming them into the international community. Assad deserves to be a pariah, much like the Kim regime, who is smothered by sanctions for what he's done to his own people.
Really impressed with the Rogan podcast with her but then Pod Save America said she doesn’t like the gays. I guess that rules her out. But if she somehow got the nomination, Trump should probably just quit.
Lots of people have had honest evolving view on gays. Look at her voting record on gay issues while she has been in Congress.
I agree. If she gave a speech and just said some “I have grown as a person and my views have evolved” she will be fine. The crazy left needs to relax this election so we can get this rodeo clown out of office.
and I think she has done that... apologize for her past statements and positions wrt gays ps. what do you expect from crazy people?
She supported it, in the end, but was also critical of it, particularly in the prior years. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/01/yes-tulsi-gabbard-iran-deal-war-hawk I don't find all the critiques in the above piece terribly convincing (so she chose not to boycott a speech by Netanyahu -- so what?). But its hard to really pin down how committed she is to pursuing peaceful solutions to our conflict with Iran. Can she be easily swayed to a much more hawkish direction?
