Gabbard refuses to pin chemical weapons attack on Assad

[Beet]

Sheeple being led to the slaughter.

I’m curious as to whether, if the institutional Democratic Party turns up the heat on Gabbard, and complicates her reelection efforts, does that make her more or less likely to run for prez in 2020 than she otherwise would have been inclined to do?

She'll probably use it to paint herself as a victim, just like she did when two random guys said they would stop donating to her campaign.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Food for thought for anyone who thinks she can milk the Syria strike to win the nomination:

[Mr. Morden]

Food for thought for anyone who thinks she can milk the Syria strike to win the nomination:

I don't think she's going to win the nomination, but I'm confused about what that poll is supposed to prove.  I'm pretty sure Gabbard agrees that Trump lacks a clear plan for Syria, and the poll shows that a narrow plurality of Dems disapprove of the attack.  So why would Gabbard being staunchly against the attack be a loser for her?

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Food for thought for anyone who thinks she can milk the Syria strike to win the nomination:

More evidence that Americans are mislead and gullible. You didn't need anymore evidence since you elected a clown.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Food for thought for anyone who thinks she can milk the Syria strike to win the nomination:

I don't think she's going to win the nomination, but I'm confused about what that poll is supposed to prove.  I'm pretty sure Gabbard agrees that Trump lacks a clear plan for Syria, and the poll shows that a narrow plurality of Dems disapprove of the attack.  So why would Gabbard being staunchly against the attack be a loser for her?

It means that she already has lost 45%. It takes less than 10% of the rest who are either unsure or disapprove of the attack (hmmm, how many people on here are staunchly anti-her and disapprove of the attack? At least 10%?) and then also consider how many of those 48% are black or other type of voters not very inclined to her...her ceiling is pretty low.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Food for thought for anyone who thinks she can milk the Syria strike to win the nomination:

I don't think she's going to win the nomination, but I'm confused about what that poll is supposed to prove.  I'm pretty sure Gabbard agrees that Trump lacks a clear plan for Syria, and the poll shows that a narrow plurality of Dems disapprove of the attack.  So why would Gabbard being staunchly against the attack be a loser for her?

It means that she already has lost 45%. It takes less than 10% of the rest who are either unsure or disapprove of the attack (hmmm, how many people on here are staunchly anti-her and disapprove of the attack? At least 10%?) and then also consider how many of those 48% are black or other type of voters not very inclined to her...her ceiling is pretty low.

Are you dumb or just ignorant? As people learn about the strikes the poll numbers will drop like a rock, this is basically the ceiling for support. If we get into a war it will just be Iraq all over again. This will not hurt Tulsi, if anything it will backfire on the establishment.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Food for thought for anyone who thinks she can milk the Syria strike to win the nomination:

I don't think she's going to win the nomination, but I'm confused about what that poll is supposed to prove.  I'm pretty sure Gabbard agrees that Trump lacks a clear plan for Syria, and the poll shows that a narrow plurality of Dems disapprove of the attack.  So why would Gabbard being staunchly against the attack be a loser for her?

It means that she already has lost 45%. It takes less than 10% of the rest who are either unsure or disapprove of the attack (hmmm, how many people on here are staunchly anti-her and disapprove of the attack? At least 10%?) and then also consider how many of those 48% are black or other type of voters not very inclined to her...her ceiling is pretty low.

Are you dumb or just ignorant? As people learn about the strikes the poll numbers will drop like a rock, this is basically the ceiling for support. If we get into a war it will just be Iraq all over again. This will not hurt Tulsi, if anything it will backfire on the establishment.

To add to your point, an April 2003 ABC poll had 75% approving of Bush's handling of the Iraq war.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Food for thought for anyone who thinks she can milk the Syria strike to win the nomination:

I don't think she's going to win the nomination, but I'm confused about what that poll is supposed to prove.  I'm pretty sure Gabbard agrees that Trump lacks a clear plan for Syria, and the poll shows that a narrow plurality of Dems disapprove of the attack.  So why would Gabbard being staunchly against the attack be a loser for her?

It means that she already has lost 45%. It takes less than 10% of the rest who are either unsure or disapprove of the attack (hmmm, how many people on here are staunchly anti-her and disapprove of the attack? At least 10%?) and then also consider how many of those 48% are black or other type of voters not very inclined to her...her ceiling is pretty low.

Are you dumb or just ignorant? As people learn about the strikes the poll numbers will drop like a rock, this is basically the ceiling for support. If we get into a war it will just be Iraq all over again. This will not hurt Tulsi, if anything it will backfire on the establishment.

There aren't any ground troops in Syria so rather than be like Iraq this will just fade from memory. Clinton's strikes in Iraq weren't an issue in 2000, not even Ralph Nader brought them up.

[SoLongAtlas]

Food for thought for anyone who thinks she can milk the Syria strike to win the nomination:

I don't think she's going to win the nomination, but I'm confused about what that poll is supposed to prove.  I'm pretty sure Gabbard agrees that Trump lacks a clear plan for Syria, and the poll shows that a narrow plurality of Dems disapprove of the attack.  So why would Gabbard being staunchly against the attack be a loser for her?

It means that she already has lost 45%. It takes less than 10% of the rest who are either unsure or disapprove of the attack (hmmm, how many people on here are staunchly anti-her and disapprove of the attack? At least 10%?) and then also consider how many of those 48% are black or other type of voters not very inclined to her...her ceiling is pretty low.

Are you dumb or just ignorant? As people learn about the strikes the poll numbers will drop like a rock, this is basically the ceiling for support. If we get into a war it will just be Iraq all over again. This will not hurt Tulsi, if anything it will backfire on the establishment.

There aren't any ground troops in Syria so rather than be like Iraq this will just fade from memory. Clinton's strikes in Iraq weren't an issue in 2000, not even Ralph Nader brought them up.

There are many, just not a major force like in OIF.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Lmao, are warhawk liberals really gonna try to primary Tulsi?

[Sbane]

I don't see why so many here think it's a bad thing to be against military action in Syria. The country is in a very isolationist and populist mood right now. Even with a chemical attack there is widespread opposition to missile strikes. Imagine if this situation escalates where there are American troops on the ground getting killed. It will be politically beneficial for anyone to be against engagement in Syria right now.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That poll shows that a majority approves of the strikes though, and ground forces is a completely different situation and for now just a pure hypothetical.

Also once again is anyone else able to distinguish between opposing intervention and being personally friendly to Assad?

[Beet]

That poll shows that a majority approves of the strikes though, and ground forces is a completely different situation and for now just a pure hypothetical.

Also once again is anyone else able to distinguish between opposing intervention and being personally friendly to Assad?

Precisely. You oppose military intervention - fine, that's one thing. Gabbard's been slobbering all over Assad, it's like her top issue to defend the man. It's disgusting how she cares more about shilling for a war criminal than she's cared about any other issue in her entire career.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

She also voted for a Republican anti-refugee bill.