Tulsi in Iowa, impresses many.

[Beet]

I knew it. Tulsi Gabbard will be the Democratic nominee, if not her than Kamala Harris.

At least she's started to speak out in favor of diplomacy on North Korea. But given her background and shady connections I just don't trust her. Also, she could use some teeth whitening strips.

[Beet]

I knew it. Tulsi Gabbard will be the Democratic nominee, if not her than Kamala Harris.

At least she's started to speak out in favor of diplomacy on North Korea. But given her background and shady connections I just don't trust her. Also, she could use some teeth whitening strips.

It's far too early to say that. We don't even know if she'll run, and 90% of Democrats probably don't even know who she is right now. Same for Harris.

She has the "hype" factor. Although in her case it isn't all hype as she actually did do something newsworthy. But let's just say she knows how to promote herself. She has the "magic". Harris also does, to a similar extent, but from a more establishment oriented angle. So far those are the only two candidates with the "magic" factor. "Magic" factor candidates always become supercharged. You can always tell from the social media response, and live speech/rally response.

What's with all the hate? She is one of my favorite politicians.

Lots of reasons. She still has good relations with her very conservative roots, and one gets the sense she only switched to a Democrat because it's important in Hawaii politics to be a Democrat, and she saw how "Muslims disrespected women" during her tour in Iraq. Her ties with the BJP, especially Modi during the time he was heavily criticized for the Gujarati riots. There is a whiff of Islamophobia around her. As late as age 24 she was still opposed to gay rights, which is something very unusual for her generation. Then, there is her secret visit to war criminal Assad. It's one thing to oppose intervention in Syria, a lot of people do, but going out of her way to visit a guy who gassed kids? And her whole tone of it was just fanatical. There is just something off about her. There always is with these super-charged self-promoters. Whether it be total failures like Weiner or successes like Obama, whatever it is, they never turn out to be what they present themselves to be. Whenever I get the sense from a politician that they are a super suave self-promoter I don't trust them. Sadly though, these are the types that Americans love.

[Beet]

Firstly, I've always believed that Russia has posed a threat to the US, and I'm neither a Democrat nor a neoconservative.
Secondly, I think the evidence is clear that Assad has used  chemical weapons against his own people. this does not mean that I believe we should start another adventure in the Middle East, but if something is not done about this by the international community and especially the US, he will continue to slaughter his own people unchecked and that is unacceptable.

"I am not a neoconservative"

Immediately spouts neocon propaganda.

u wot m8?

You're pro-Assad yet want to go "all out" in a war against a nuclear power, which would kill millions, and wish we had done that "in Vietnam." You have no right to accuse others of being "neocons."

[Beet]

You're pro-Assad yet want to go "all out" in a war against a nuclear power, which would kill millions, and wish we had done that "in Vietnam." You have no right to accuse others of being "neocons."

1. I am saying IF we go to war with North Korea, we can't half ass it. If we are going to go war we cannot go easy. Vietnam was a slaughterhouse for American troops. I'd prefer to NOT to have went to Vietnam but since we did we shouldn't have been so soft.

2. North Korea actually hates us. Assad or Saddam barely care(d) about us.

Neocons = / = North Korea anyway.

The neocons originally wanted war in Asia in the 1990s. They only switched to the Middle East after 9/11. North Korea, Assad, and Saddam only hate us to the extent they perceive we present a threat to them. And we went very hard on Vietnam - dropped more bomb tonnage than in all of WW2. Didn't do anything. If we had tried to invade North Vietnam it would have turned into an even bigger slaughterhouse with Chinese intervention.

[Beet]

The neocons originally wanted war in Asia in the 1990s. They only switched to the Middle East after 9/11.

What do you mean?

In the 1990s PNAC, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld were part of the "Blue Team" advocating a hawkish stance towards China.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She's not saying there is no military solution. Steve Bannon, rightly, said that. Even Trump's initial instinct was to talk with the North Koreans, until the military-industrial complex convinced him otherwise.

[Beet]

In the 1990s PNAC, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld were part of the "Blue Team" advocating a hawkish stance towards China.

She's not saying there is no military solution. Steve Bannon, rightly, said that. Even Trump's initial instinct was to talk with the North Koreans, until the military-industrial complex convinced him otherwise.

So my question is that you know why we invaded Iraq and are against Assad, why do you say Trump is a neocon?

"A Clean Break" doesn't mention North Korea or China once.

I never said Trump was a neocon. But the neocons still have influence in the military-industrial complex and therefore in his advice and decision making.

[Beet]

In the 1990s PNAC, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld were part of the "Blue Team" advocating a hawkish stance towards China.

She's not saying there is no military solution. Steve Bannon, rightly, said that. Even Trump's initial instinct was to talk with the North Koreans, until the military-industrial complex convinced him otherwise.

So my question is that you know why we invaded Iraq and are against Assad, why do you say Trump is a neocon?

"A Clean Break" doesn't mention North Korea or China once.

I never said Trump was a neocon. But the neocons still have influence in the military-industrial complex and therefore in his advice and decision making.

They want Syria, not North Korea.

The fact neocons are so against Trump shows me they don't have as much influence as one would think.

It doesn't make sense to say the reason we didn't go full out with Vietnam was because of China, but now the same people who made those decisions all of a sudden want to go to war with North Korea despite it most likely leading to a full war with China.

The decision-makers were more cautious in the 60s since they were people who had actually seen major war upfront and knew the costs personally. The worst war most people have experienced in the present generation is Iraq, which a nuclear war would not even be in the same league. If you look at the age breakdown in polls, those age 65+ are the most dovish on North Korea, there's a very good reason for that.