Tulsi Gabbard will win the Democratic nomination in 2020.

[Maxwell]

sh**t, i'd prefer some washed up hack like Nina Turner over Tulsi Gabbard.

[Mister Mets]

She'd have a shot, but she wouldn't be a top-tier contender.

Her advantages are that she's a new face for a party interested in that, and can make inroads to Sanders supporters as well as the people who want to see the first female President. She's a military veteran willing to buck the party, kind of a much younger female John McCain.

Her disadvantages is that her main elected office is going to be eight years in the minority in the House of Representatives, from one of the states furthest away from DC and New Hampshire, which complicates campaigning. She's also not Christian (or Jewish for that matter) which is going to be an issue. She's not known as a leader on any particular issue.

[OneJ]

I don't trust Gabbard so far. Her Islamophobic "stance" alone raises eyebrows.

[Green Line]

I hope so.  She would win in a landslide.  It's #TulsisTurn

[Blair]

There's absolutely no guarantee that Gabbard would even be better on economic issues than Booker - Gabbard gets her money from SHELDON ADELSON, and has voted with him based on that funding.

Gabbard has fooled so many people by affiliating with Bernie Sanders, it really was a genius move politically.

To sound like a complete snob, it just reminds me how many people don't have a political viewpoint that expands more than 6 months in the past. Like the people who begrudge Warren for not endorsing Sanders

[Confused Democrat]

When did Syria and Russia become the single most important issue for red avatars on this board? I'm not saying it isn't important, because it is, but why are so many of you all of the sudden single issue voters when it comes to this?

All this fear mongering about Tulsi putting Muslims in interment camps and being best friends with Putin and Assad is hilarious.

What is so hard for Democrats to understand about her views on the Middle East and terrorism? You may not agree with them, but they are perfectly rational.

She believes that the fight against terrorism must be both military and ideological. Sounds reasonable to me. What ideology are we fighting against? The ideology shared by ISIS, Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations known as ‘Islamism.’

Islamism is defined as "Islamic militancy or fundamentalism."

That doesn't sound like something we should be supportive of.

Now you may disagree with her labeling of these terrorists as "Islamic" or "Islamist," but when have you ever agreed with a candidate 100%? You may think it's akin to a dog whistle, but she doesn't see it that way, and it's not hard to understand her point of view.

Calling these terrorists "Islamic" or "Islamist" shouldn't be a deal breaker.

She also doesn't believe overthrowing Assad is a good idea, and it's kind of had to knock her for this view after Iraq and Libya. Here's a quote from her:

"People said the very same thing about Saddam Hussein, the very same thing about Moammar Gadhafi, the results of those two failed efforts of regime change and the following nation-building have been absolute, not only have they been failures, but they've actually worked to strengthen our enemy,"

Not an unreasonable statement.  

She's spoken out against Trumps rhetoric towards Muslims.

She rejected Dr. Ben Carson’s statement that no Muslim should be president of the United States of America.

She condemned violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States by cosponsoring H.Res.569

She spoke at the Reason Rally regarding promoting religious freedom and pluralism.

She’s spoken multiple times including, on the House floor, in favor of vetted refugees from Muslim-majority Iraq and Afganistan.

So this isn't as black and white as a lot of the users in this thread would like you to believe. This is a complicated topic, and Tulsi's views on the matter are quite nuanced.

You're allowed to disagree with her on this front, but it hardly disqualifies her from the winning the Democratic Nomination.



 

 

[henster]

I don't see her as a 'hawk' or 'neo-con' she was opposed to disastrous regime change policies in Iraq, Libya, & Syria. She also supported the Iran deal so she is to the left of Chuck Schumer in that regard. If anything her FP lines up more with Rand Paul/Ron Paul. I think her FP views would actually be quite popular with millennials and her military service gives her a lot of credibility.

[henster]

Ds should not follow Hillary's lead on FP views, I think if you polled most Dems they'd agree with Tulsi/Bernie view regarding the ME.

[Confused Democrat]

Ds should not follow Hillary's lead on FP views, I think if you polled most Dems they'd agree with Tulsi/Bernie view regarding the ME.

I'm not siding with the Clinton foreign policy in regards to the Middle East. But I'm also not adopting the RT perspective that Assad is the best of a bad situation or that Russia and Iran's intervention hasn't led to mass slaughter resulting from the total disregard all three of these regimes (plus the rebels and militants) have demonstrated towards basic human rights. Russia, Syria, Iran, the rebels, and the militants all deserve to be internationally condemned for their actions in this bloodbath. None of them are in the right.

By Gabbard being one of only 4 Congress people to vote against a resolution condemning Russia is abhorrent. Do I believe we, as a nation, have the obligation to play a central role in world affairs, in collaboration with our NATO partners and the UN, to uphold human rights and democracy around the world? Absolutely. Isolationism and Putin friendly nonsense have become disturbingly common in our country.

You either overthrow Assad or you don't.

Which is it?

[Oakvale]

Worth noting she voted against a motion condemning Russia's bombing of Syria; and was one of only 4 house members to do so (or some stupidly small number)

Who cares? Toeing the RT line on foreign policy and spouting Breitbart rhetoric about Islam is perfectly acceptable to the left today so long as you endorsed Sanders and are supposedly economic populists.

To be fair I don't think it's even the "left" per se who like her so much as deplorable far-right fiends. Maybe a handful of brain-damaged Bernie Bros.

Needless to say if she were to be nominated I would fly to America and actively campaign for President Trump's re-election on the grounds that Trump is merely influenced by the far-right while Gabbard is of the far-right.

[Confused Democrat]

Needless to say if she were to be nominated I would fly to America and actively campaign for President Trump's re-election on the grounds that Trump is merely influenced by the far-right while Gabbard is of the far-right.

How in the heck is Gabbard "of the far-right?"

She's just more isolationist when it comes to foreign policy. That hardly makes her "of the far right."

[JA]

Ds should not follow Hillary's lead on FP views, I think if you polled most Dems they'd agree with Tulsi/Bernie view regarding the ME.

I'm not siding with the Clinton foreign policy in regards to the Middle East. But I'm also not adopting the RT perspective that Assad is the best of a bad situation or that Russia and Iran's intervention hasn't led to mass slaughter resulting from the total disregard all three of these regimes (plus the rebels and militants) have demonstrated towards basic human rights. Russia, Syria, Iran, the rebels, and the militants all deserve to be internationally condemned for their actions in this bloodbath. None of them are in the right.

By Gabbard being one of only 4 Congress people to vote against a resolution condemning Russia is abhorrent. Do I believe we, as a nation, have the obligation to play a central role in world affairs, in collaboration with our NATO partners and the UN, to uphold human rights and democracy around the world? Absolutely. Isolationism and Putin friendly nonsense have become disturbingly common in our country.

You either overthrow Assad or you don't.

Which is it?

We don't need to be picking sides in a war where all sides are guilty of atrocities. If any of them gain power (which, at this point, it's hard to see how al-Assad loses), the others will suffer immensely as the winner will assume they can do whatever they want. There's no winning in this war. The best we can do is pressure all sides act in accordance with international law and punish them when they violate that. It's not much, but it's really all that can be done.

[Confused Democrat]

Ds should not follow Hillary's lead on FP views, I think if you polled most Dems they'd agree with Tulsi/Bernie view regarding the ME.

I'm not siding with the Clinton foreign policy in regards to the Middle East. But I'm also not adopting the RT perspective that Assad is the best of a bad situation or that Russia and Iran's intervention hasn't led to mass slaughter resulting from the total disregard all three of these regimes (plus the rebels and militants) have demonstrated towards basic human rights. Russia, Syria, Iran, the rebels, and the militants all deserve to be internationally condemned for their actions in this bloodbath. None of them are in the right.

By Gabbard being one of only 4 Congress people to vote against a resolution condemning Russia is abhorrent. Do I believe we, as a nation, have the obligation to play a central role in world affairs, in collaboration with our NATO partners and the UN, to uphold human rights and democracy around the world? Absolutely. Isolationism and Putin friendly nonsense have become disturbingly common in our country.

You either overthrow Assad or you don't.

Which is it?

We don't need to be picking sides in a war where all sides are guilty of atrocities. If any of them gain power (which, at this point, it's hard to see how al-Assad loses), the others will suffer immensely as the winner will assume they can do whatever they want. There's no winning in this war. The best we can do is pressure all sides act in accordance with international law and punish them when they violate that. It's not much, but it's really all that can be done.

The question I posed to you wasn't a question dealing with "picking sides." The argument a lot of you here appear to be making is that taking the position of "do not overthrow Assad" means you are somehow sympathetic to the Assad regime and his human rights violations.

Tulsi believes that Assad is morally reprehensible and often refers to him as a brutal dictator, but she also believes that overthrowing Assad would create more devastation, human suffering, and refugees while strengthening terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. Keeping Assad in power is, in her eyes, the best option out of a slew of terrible options for now.

How exactly do you suggest we punish Assad?

[Maxwell]

sh**t, i'd prefer some washed up hack like Nina Turner over Tulsi Gabbard.

Admittedly, I don't know that much about Turner, but from what I've read about her, she seems like a fairly solid FF. What exactly is bad about her?

Nina Turner strikes me as someone whose political career was pretty washed up and found an opportunity for a revival. That being said, unlike Gabbard, Turner's principles strike me as fairly within the Democratic/liberal norm.

[JA]

Ds should not follow Hillary's lead on FP views, I think if you polled most Dems they'd agree with Tulsi/Bernie view regarding the ME.

I'm not siding with the Clinton foreign policy in regards to the Middle East. But I'm also not adopting the RT perspective that Assad is the best of a bad situation or that Russia and Iran's intervention hasn't led to mass slaughter resulting from the total disregard all three of these regimes (plus the rebels and militants) have demonstrated towards basic human rights. Russia, Syria, Iran, the rebels, and the militants all deserve to be internationally condemned for their actions in this bloodbath. None of them are in the right.

By Gabbard being one of only 4 Congress people to vote against a resolution condemning Russia is abhorrent. Do I believe we, as a nation, have the obligation to play a central role in world affairs, in collaboration with our NATO partners and the UN, to uphold human rights and democracy around the world? Absolutely. Isolationism and Putin friendly nonsense have become disturbingly common in our country.

You either overthrow Assad or you don't.

Which is it?

We don't need to be picking sides in a war where all sides are guilty of atrocities. If any of them gain power (which, at this point, it's hard to see how al-Assad loses), the others will suffer immensely as the winner will assume they can do whatever they want. There's no winning in this war. The best we can do is pressure all sides act in accordance with international law and punish them when they violate that. It's not much, but it's really all that can be done.

The question I posed to you wasn't a question dealing with "picking sides." The argument a lot of you here appear to be making is that taking the position of "do not overthrow Assad" means you are somehow sympathetic to the Assad regime and his human rights violations.

Tulsi believes that Assad is morally reprehensible and often refers to him as a brutal dictator, but she also believes that overthrowing Assad would create more devastation, human suffering, and refugees while strengthening terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. Keeping Assad in power is, in her eyes, the best option out of a slew of terrible options for now.

How exactly do you suggest we punish Assad?

Considering al-Assad isn't responsive to direct Western pressure, the best way to control him is indirectly, similar to how we pressure North Korea via China. That's why we've been pressuring Russia so much on their relationship with the al-Assad regime and their actions in that country. Personally, I'd like to see the current sanctions on Russia expanded and the noose tightened. Iran shouldn't be spared either, we should use sanctions on them as well. This is not to make them change their position in regards to Syria, only to punish them for their human rights violations in Syria and to make them put pressure on al-Assad to stop his.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Needless to say if she were to be nominated I would fly to America and actively campaign for President Trump's re-election on the grounds that Trump is merely influenced by the far-right while Gabbard is of the far-right.

How in the heck is Gabbard "of the far-right?"

She's just more isolationist when it comes to foreign policy. That hardly makes her "of the far right."

Well she does seem to channel Shiv Sena when convenient.

[Mister Mets]

sh**t, i'd prefer some washed up hack like Nina Turner over Tulsi Gabbard.

Admittedly, I don't know that much about Turner, but from what I've read about her, she seems like a fairly solid FF. What exactly is bad about her?

I could see others wanting someone whose highest claim to fame isn't losing a race for minor statewide office (Ohio Secretary of State) by 14 points.

[Miles]

Good, sign me up (one of my top choices other than JBE).

[SATW]

Honestly, Gabbard and Cuomo are two of the only democrats who I could see myself supporting in a general election over many GOP candidates.

[Sbane]

Needless to say if she were to be nominated I would fly to America and actively campaign for President Trump's re-election on the grounds that Trump is merely influenced by the far-right while Gabbard is of the far-right.

How in the heck is Gabbard "of the far-right?"

She's just more isolationist when it comes to foreign policy. That hardly makes her "of the far right."

Well she does seem to channel Shiv Sena when convenient.

Do you even know what the Shiv Sena is? How the hell does she "channel" them? She is all about the rights of the Marathi working class? LOL

[Hindsight was 2020]

How someone who takes money from Sheldon Adelson gets more love from online liberals than Booker amazes me

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

... SS moved on from straight Marathi supremacy in the 80's. They're just saffron nationalists nowadays. Maybe RSS would have been a better comparison now that I think about it more - their activists are known to love her...

[Confused Democrat]

How someone who takes money from Sheldon Adelson gets more love from online liberals than Boomer amazes me

As far as I can tell, you're just straight up lying. Show me where Adelson has donated money to Tulsi.

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, RSS does make more sense. You do have to understand though that RSS is not exactly anti-Muslim or any other religion. They just view Hinduism as the religion of India and people practicing any other religion in India are "foreign". Disgusting as that viewpoint may be, it is not exactly relevant when talking about Tulsi Gabbard because she isn't ethnically Indian.

[Xing]

Doubtful. I think she'd have problems winning over just about any contingency in the Democratic Party.