Kamala Harris vs Tuisi Gabbard

[7,052,770]

She's a Democrat so she's not going to have a far-right voting record. But she supports the far-rightists who are in charge of India, and her supporters here are conveniently ignoring that.

Lol I don't think she's with the BJP or against the BJP, and frankly, your average American voter isn't going to care about anything having to do with India's politics and it's various political parties.

This is just another talking point perpetrated by Democratic hacks to smear Tulsi. I just don't buy it.

None of that changes the fact that Tulsi is one of the least liberal/progressive potential 2020 candidates, rated that way by multiple objective scoring systems, nor the fact that there's  a huge bizarre overlap between the people who like her and the people who didn't like Hillary because they thought she wasn't sufficiently liberal/progressive

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

dictator loving tulsi is probably worse, but either of those two pro-death figures don't stand a chance against trump.

I believe Trump would have a very hard time dealing with Tulsi Gabbard.  She would neutralize the populist appeal of Trump.  She also wouldn't have the baggage of Hillary Clinton, and I think that independents and many Republicans would find her appealing, especially if Trump's presidency continues to be a disaster.

The white working class voters who flipped Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania didn't vote for Trump because they loved Trump.  They voted for him because they hated Hillary and they decided that Trump was a marginally better option.  Many of these people voted Democrat before so it's disingenuous to think that they'll never vote Democrat again.

[Beet]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

[MAINEiac4434]

She's a Democrat so she's not going to have a far-right voting record. But she supports the far-rightists who are in charge of India, and her supporters here are conveniently ignoring that.

Lol I don't think she's with the BJP or against the BJP, and frankly, your average American voter isn't going to care about anything having to do with India's politics and it's various political parties.

This is just another talking point perpetrated by Democratic hacks to smear Tulsi. I just don't buy it.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

She's a Democrat so she's not going to have a far-right voting record. But she supports the far-rightists who are in charge of India, and her supporters here are conveniently ignoring that.

Lol I don't think she's with the BJP or against the BJP, and frankly, your average American voter isn't going to care about anything having to do with India's politics and it's various political parties.

This is just another talking point perpetrated by Democratic hacks to smear Tulsi. I just don't buy it.

Reagan was a Communist!  How could Republicans vote for a far-left candidate!

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

[Confused Democrat]

She's a Democrat so she's not going to have a far-right voting record. But she supports the far-rightists who are in charge of India, and her supporters here are conveniently ignoring that.

Lol I don't think she's with the BJP or against the BJP, and frankly, your average American voter isn't going to care about anything having to do with India's politics and it's various political parties.

This is just another talking point perpetrated by Democratic hacks to smear Tulsi. I just don't buy it.

OH NO! Tulsi took a photo with an activist belonging to India's ruling party. She's also taken photos with members of India's Congress party.





It's almost like her "interest is in helping cultivate a closer relationship between the US and India, not just between the US and one political party of India."

That's a quote from her. Here's another:

"Both in India and here in the US, I have held meetings with members of both the BJP and the Congress party. I am known in America for being nonpartisan — I successfully work with Democrats and Republicans alike to get things done for the people."

Here's a picture of Hillary embracing Robert Byrd:



Hillary must be affiliated with the KKK!

[Beet]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

[Beet]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

[Confused Democrat]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

You take the view that she's "protecting Assad," even though she has said she'd call for his execution if he was found guilty of war crimes in an international court, and I take the view that she's trying to protect our troops by not thrusting the US into another regime change war.

[Beet]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

You take the view that she's "protecting Assad," even though she has said she'd call for his execution if he was found guilty of war crimes in an international court, and I take the view that she's trying to protect our troops by not thrusting the US into another regime change war.

Then why hasn't she spoken out against military strikes on North Korea? I would be happy to support her if she was equally vocal on that, as it would prove my fears about her favoritism toward Assad wrong.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

Tulsi Gabbard, as an Iraq War veteran, understands better than most Americans the pitfalls of American intervention in the Middle East.

[Beet]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

Tulsi Gabbard, as an Iraq War veteran, understands better than most Americans the pitfalls of American intervention in the Middle East.

So everyone who is an Iraq war veteran can't be questioned or disagreed with on foreign policy in the Middle East? Adam Kinzinger is an Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran and supports intervention.

[Mr. Morden]

I think it's a totally respectable position to say that the US should take no military action against Assad, because the alternative is worse.  Meeting with him also isn't necessarily something that I'm against.  My problem with Gabbard is more that she went to Syria and spoke with a bunch of Syrians in Assad-controlled territory (and thus, presumably people vetted by Assad), then came back and repeated Assad-approved propaganda about how all the rebels are the same, without any consideration of the fact that she might have been getting a skewed perspective by only talking to people in government-held territory.  I discussed this back in January:

Assad is the lesser evil compared to ISIS

He's still, y'know, evil.

He's a horrible person, no doubt, but I'd rather have him run things than ISIS.

But Gabbard hasn't simply said he's better than ISIS.  She's gone on a trip to Syria in which she (apparently) only visited Assad-controlled territory, and talked to Assad-approved Syrians, then came back to the US, seemingly believing everything they said.  No acknowledgement in her commentary of Assad's crimes, or that Assad might be manipulating the stories she was hearing on this trip.

E.g., here is what she concluded after talking to the make-believe opposition in Damascus:

Btw, Gabbard just posted this account of her trip to Syria:

https://medium.com/@TulsiGabbard/the-syrian-people-desperately-want-peace-e308f1777a34#.2jc43o76k

And she has a new op/ed piece which covers much of the same ground:

https://gabbard.house.gov/news/in-the-news/op-ed-us-must-stop-helping-terrorists-fighting-syria-s-government

It seems she met with the pretend opposition (the Assad stooges who “run against him” in elections where he’s getting 97% of the vote), and they told her things like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Webnicz]

I put together my own Primary map of this matchup and I just couldn't find a single state that Gabbard would be able to pull a win over Harris except her own and by the Time of the HI primary she might be out. The only possible ay for her to gain momentum would be with a surprise victory in Iowa(with a crowded field might I add) which would give momentum to her. Sound unlikely, but the IA caucus is known for its surprises.

[Confused Democrat]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

You take the view that she's "protecting Assad," even though she has said she'd call for his execution if he was found guilty of war crimes in an international court, and I take the view that she's trying to protect our troops by not thrusting the US into another regime change war.

Then why hasn't she spoken out against military strikes on North Korea? I would be happy to support her if she was equally vocal on that, as it would prove my fears about her favoritism toward Assad wrong.

I'm sorry, have we conducted military strikes on NK? Is that an option that is seriously being considered by the administration? Has Gabbard spoken in favor of strikes on NK? Has Harris put out a statement on striking NK?

[Beet]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

You take the view that she's "protecting Assad," even though she has said she'd call for his execution if he was found guilty of war crimes in an international court, and I take the view that she's trying to protect our troops by not thrusting the US into another regime change war.

Then why hasn't she spoken out against military strikes on North Korea? I would be happy to support her if she was equally vocal on that, as it would prove my fears about her favoritism toward Assad wrong.

I'm sorry, have we conducted military strikes on NK? Is that an option that is seriously being considered by the administration? Has Gabbard spoken in favor of strikes on NK? Has Harris put out a statement on striking NK?

Obviously we haven't conducted strikes, but yes, they are loudly being considered by the administration and have for some time now. Gabbard didn't wait until actual strikes occurred in Syria to state her position. Sanders has said we should not act unilaterally or recklessly, so what is her position? No Harris hasn't put out a statement, but Harris hasn't built her identity around opposing "regime change wars" to the extent that she met personally with Assad and agrees with his government line on everything for the sake of "peace". By that standard Gabbard should meet with Kim Jong Un for peace. If her positions are based on universal principles like protecting U.S. troops as you said, and not a desire to protect certain foreign interests, she now is by no means too early to speak out.

[Confused Democrat]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

You take the view that she's "protecting Assad," even though she has said she'd call for his execution if he was found guilty of war crimes in an international court, and I take the view that she's trying to protect our troops by not thrusting the US into another regime change war.

Then why hasn't she spoken out against military strikes on North Korea? I would be happy to support her if she was equally vocal on that, as it would prove my fears about her favoritism toward Assad wrong.

I'm sorry, have we conducted military strikes on NK? Is that an option that is seriously being considered by the administration? Has Gabbard spoken in favor of strikes on NK? Has Harris put out a statement on striking NK?

Obviously we haven't conducted strikes, but yes, they are loudly being considered by the administration and have for some time now. Gabbard didn't wait until actual strikes occurred in Syria to state her position. Sanders has said we should not act unilaterally or recklessly, so what is her position? No Harris hasn't put out a statement, but Harris hasn't built her identity around opposing "regime change wars" to the extent that she met personally with Assad and agrees with his government line on everything for the sake of "peace". By that standard Gabbard should meet with Kim Jong Un for peace. If her positions are based on universal principles like protecting U.S. troops as you said, and not a desire to protect certain foreign interests, she now is by no means too early to speak out.

This is an unreasonable standard to hold her to. Strikes on NK aren't seriously being considered by the Trump administration, and if they were Tulsi would be opposed to them. It's an odd stretch to assume that her "silence" on this issue means that she's somehow supportive of military intervention in North Korea.

Is it too late for her to speak out? No, I don't think so, and I don't think she needs to speak out any time soon.

Also the only reason Sanders commented on the issue of North Korea is because he was asked about it in an interview by Jake Tapper. Sanders didn't put out a statement like you expect Gabbard to do. As far as I'm aware, no other member of congress has put out a statement about military strikes on NK because it's really not an option being considered at this point.

This whole thing seems like a giant nitpick to me.

[Maxwell]

poor Assad

[Beet]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

You take the view that she's "protecting Assad," even though she has said she'd call for his execution if he was found guilty of war crimes in an international court, and I take the view that she's trying to protect our troops by not thrusting the US into another regime change war.

Then why hasn't she spoken out against military strikes on North Korea? I would be happy to support her if she was equally vocal on that, as it would prove my fears about her favoritism toward Assad wrong.

I'm sorry, have we conducted military strikes on NK? Is that an option that is seriously being considered by the administration? Has Gabbard spoken in favor of strikes on NK? Has Harris put out a statement on striking NK?

Obviously we haven't conducted strikes, but yes, they are loudly being considered by the administration and have for some time now. Gabbard didn't wait until actual strikes occurred in Syria to state her position. Sanders has said we should not act unilaterally or recklessly, so what is her position? No Harris hasn't put out a statement, but Harris hasn't built her identity around opposing "regime change wars" to the extent that she met personally with Assad and agrees with his government line on everything for the sake of "peace". By that standard Gabbard should meet with Kim Jong Un for peace. If her positions are based on universal principles like protecting U.S. troops as you said, and not a desire to protect certain foreign interests, she now is by no means too early to speak out.

This is an unreasonable standard to hold her to. Strikes on NK aren't seriously being considered by the Trump administration, and if they were Tulsi would be opposed to them. It's an odd stretch to assume that her "silence" on this issue means that she's somehow supportive of military intervention in North Korea.

Is it too late for her to speak out? No, I don't think so, and I don't think she needs to speak out any time soon.

Also the only reason Sanders commented on the issue of North Korea is because he was asked about it in an interview by Jake Tapper. Sanders didn't put out a statement like you expect Gabbard to do. As far as I'm aware, no other member of congress has put out a statement about military strikes on NK because it's really not an option being considered at this point.

This whole thing seems like a giant nitpick to me.

This is hardly a nitpick, it concerns potential nuclear war and potential regime change war. And Gabbard has by her own choice made herself known on foreign policy as a skeptic of "regime change wars." Multiple news reports would suggest otherwise, that the administration are considering strikes.

Yes Bernie was asked about it, but Tulsi has been asked about the issue in town halls as well, and I couldn't even find any statement equivalent to Bernie's [that we should not act unilaterally or recklessly]. If you know of one and show link me to it, I would be happy to upgrade my opinion of Gabbard.

[Confused Democrat]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

You take the view that she's "protecting Assad," even though she has said she'd call for his execution if he was found guilty of war crimes in an international court, and I take the view that she's trying to protect our troops by not thrusting the US into another regime change war.

Then why hasn't she spoken out against military strikes on North Korea? I would be happy to support her if she was equally vocal on that, as it would prove my fears about her favoritism toward Assad wrong.

I'm sorry, have we conducted military strikes on NK? Is that an option that is seriously being considered by the administration? Has Gabbard spoken in favor of strikes on NK? Has Harris put out a statement on striking NK?

Obviously we haven't conducted strikes, but yes, they are loudly being considered by the administration and have for some time now. Gabbard didn't wait until actual strikes occurred in Syria to state her position. Sanders has said we should not act unilaterally or recklessly, so what is her position? No Harris hasn't put out a statement, but Harris hasn't built her identity around opposing "regime change wars" to the extent that she met personally with Assad and agrees with his government line on everything for the sake of "peace". By that standard Gabbard should meet with Kim Jong Un for peace. If her positions are based on universal principles like protecting U.S. troops as you said, and not a desire to protect certain foreign interests, she now is by no means too early to speak out.

This is an unreasonable standard to hold her to. Strikes on NK aren't seriously being considered by the Trump administration, and if they were Tulsi would be opposed to them. It's an odd stretch to assume that her "silence" on this issue means that she's somehow supportive of military intervention in North Korea.

Is it too late for her to speak out? No, I don't think so, and I don't think she needs to speak out any time soon.

Also the only reason Sanders commented on the issue of North Korea is because he was asked about it in an interview by Jake Tapper. Sanders didn't put out a statement like you expect Gabbard to do. As far as I'm aware, no other member of congress has put out a statement about military strikes on NK because it's really not an option being considered at this point.

This whole thing seems like a giant nitpick to me.

This is hardly a nitpick, it concerns potential nuclear war and potential regime change war. And Gabbard has by her own choice made herself known on foreign policy as a skeptic of "regime change wars." Multiple news reports would suggest otherwise, that the administration are considering strikes.

Yes Bernie was asked about it, but Tulsi has been asked about the issue in town halls as well, and I couldn't even find any statement equivalent to Bernie's [that we should not act unilaterally or recklessly]. If you know of one and show link me to it, I would be happy to upgrade my opinion of Gabbard.

Has she been asked about it at town halls? I'd like to see a source on that one.

Also no major news outlets are reporting that the Trump administration is considering strikes on North Korea. As far as I'm aware Bloomberg is the only outlet that has reported such a thing and their source is one unnamed person " familiar with the White House’s thinking."

[Beet]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

You take the view that she's "protecting Assad," even though she has said she'd call for his execution if he was found guilty of war crimes in an international court, and I take the view that she's trying to protect our troops by not thrusting the US into another regime change war.

Then why hasn't she spoken out against military strikes on North Korea? I would be happy to support her if she was equally vocal on that, as it would prove my fears about her favoritism toward Assad wrong.

I'm sorry, have we conducted military strikes on NK? Is that an option that is seriously being considered by the administration? Has Gabbard spoken in favor of strikes on NK? Has Harris put out a statement on striking NK?

Obviously we haven't conducted strikes, but yes, they are loudly being considered by the administration and have for some time now. Gabbard didn't wait until actual strikes occurred in Syria to state her position. Sanders has said we should not act unilaterally or recklessly, so what is her position? No Harris hasn't put out a statement, but Harris hasn't built her identity around opposing "regime change wars" to the extent that she met personally with Assad and agrees with his government line on everything for the sake of "peace". By that standard Gabbard should meet with Kim Jong Un for peace. If her positions are based on universal principles like protecting U.S. troops as you said, and not a desire to protect certain foreign interests, she now is by no means too early to speak out.

This is an unreasonable standard to hold her to. Strikes on NK aren't seriously being considered by the Trump administration, and if they were Tulsi would be opposed to them. It's an odd stretch to assume that her "silence" on this issue means that she's somehow supportive of military intervention in North Korea.

Is it too late for her to speak out? No, I don't think so, and I don't think she needs to speak out any time soon.

Also the only reason Sanders commented on the issue of North Korea is because he was asked about it in an interview by Jake Tapper. Sanders didn't put out a statement like you expect Gabbard to do. As far as I'm aware, no other member of congress has put out a statement about military strikes on NK because it's really not an option being considered at this point.

This whole thing seems like a giant nitpick to me.

This is hardly a nitpick, it concerns potential nuclear war and potential regime change war. And Gabbard has by her own choice made herself known on foreign policy as a skeptic of "regime change wars." Multiple news reports would suggest otherwise, that the administration are considering strikes.

Yes Bernie was asked about it, but Tulsi has been asked about the issue in town halls as well, and I couldn't even find any statement equivalent to Bernie's [that we should not act unilaterally or recklessly]. If you know of one and show link me to it, I would be happy to upgrade my opinion of Gabbard.

Has she been asked about it at town halls? I'd like to see a source on that one.

You want me to do research on your candidate? She's asked generally about it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ltN00P8lIs&t=29m21s

I believe this was from April 16. She speaks of sanctions, and doesn't discuss possible military action.

Here's a video of Sanders. The notable difference is Sanders adds the quote below-

http://www.salon.com/2017/04/16/watch-bernie-sanders-says-we-must-not-act-unilaterally-in-syria-and-north-korea/

“The key point here is that the United States must not act impulsively, and we must not act unilaterally,”

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bloomberg is a major news source. Also when they say "all options are on the table" isn't it implied?

[Confused Democrat]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

You take the view that she's "protecting Assad," even though she has said she'd call for his execution if he was found guilty of war crimes in an international court, and I take the view that she's trying to protect our troops by not thrusting the US into another regime change war.

Then why hasn't she spoken out against military strikes on North Korea? I would be happy to support her if she was equally vocal on that, as it would prove my fears about her favoritism toward Assad wrong.

I'm sorry, have we conducted military strikes on NK? Is that an option that is seriously being considered by the administration? Has Gabbard spoken in favor of strikes on NK? Has Harris put out a statement on striking NK?

Obviously we haven't conducted strikes, but yes, they are loudly being considered by the administration and have for some time now. Gabbard didn't wait until actual strikes occurred in Syria to state her position. Sanders has said we should not act unilaterally or recklessly, so what is her position? No Harris hasn't put out a statement, but Harris hasn't built her identity around opposing "regime change wars" to the extent that she met personally with Assad and agrees with his government line on everything for the sake of "peace". By that standard Gabbard should meet with Kim Jong Un for peace. If her positions are based on universal principles like protecting U.S. troops as you said, and not a desire to protect certain foreign interests, she now is by no means too early to speak out.

This is an unreasonable standard to hold her to. Strikes on NK aren't seriously being considered by the Trump administration, and if they were Tulsi would be opposed to them. It's an odd stretch to assume that her "silence" on this issue means that she's somehow supportive of military intervention in North Korea.

Is it too late for her to speak out? No, I don't think so, and I don't think she needs to speak out any time soon.

Also the only reason Sanders commented on the issue of North Korea is because he was asked about it in an interview by Jake Tapper. Sanders didn't put out a statement like you expect Gabbard to do. As far as I'm aware, no other member of congress has put out a statement about military strikes on NK because it's really not an option being considered at this point.

This whole thing seems like a giant nitpick to me.

This is hardly a nitpick, it concerns potential nuclear war and potential regime change war. And Gabbard has by her own choice made herself known on foreign policy as a skeptic of "regime change wars." Multiple news reports would suggest otherwise, that the administration are considering strikes.

Yes Bernie was asked about it, but Tulsi has been asked about the issue in town halls as well, and I couldn't even find any statement equivalent to Bernie's [that we should not act unilaterally or recklessly]. If you know of one and show link me to it, I would be happy to upgrade my opinion of Gabbard.

Has she been asked about it at town halls? I'd like to see a source on that one.

You want me to do research on your candidate? She's asked generally about it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ltN00P8lIs&t=29m21s

I believe this was from April 16. She speaks of sanctions, and doesn't discuss possible military action.

Here's a video of Sanders. The notable difference is Sanders adds the quote below-

http://www.salon.com/2017/04/16/watch-bernie-sanders-says-we-must-not-act-unilaterally-in-syria-and-north-korea/

“The key point here is that the United States must not act impulsively, and we must not act unilaterally,”

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bloomberg is a major news source. Also when they say "all options are on the table" isn't it implied?

You said "multiple news reports would suggest otherwise, that the administration are considering strikes."
 
That clearly isn't the case.

Every President says "all options are on the table." It's like their go to line when it comes to dealing with hostile governments.

You seem to be arguing that Gabbard is somehow in favor of military action in NK because she doesn't meet some inane standard of yours. It's absurd. You have nothing to back up such a claim. None of her statements on NK indicate that she's in favor of military intervention. What are you going on about?