Tulsi in Iowa, impresses many.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

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.

[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.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

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.

In fact, the reason the USA is now against Putin so much is BECAUSE of Putin's backing of Assad. That's why the USA Government became so anti-Putin.

If Putin tomorrow decided to support removing Assad all of a sudden Russia would be our BFFs again.

[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.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

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.

Now the military industrial complex is really just a dove in disguise? Also doesn't gel with the fact you said in the 90s (when the Vietnam war was way more relevant) were "warhawkish" with North Korea.

See why I am skeptical of your explanations?

Now we got George W. Bush speaking out against Trump - once again, the neocons are scared.

What they want now is war with Russia, because Putin backs Assad.

[Shadows]

That 1980s letter he signed just mentioned husband and wife at a time when gay marriage wasn't an issue, so I don't think it really can be taken as opposition to gay marriage. And in 2006, leaving it to the states was the view of most who supported SSM since Congress was still trying to pass a constitutional amendment to ban it.

As I said, he was never explicitly for gay marriage until 2009, yet people act as if he was a hero about this.

If he was then in the 1980s he would have put it at the forefront. Sanders got people to believe a lot about him that simply isn't true.

If he can do it Tulsi can. The only difference is Tulsi is actually anti-establishment unlike Sanders. Sanders was treated with kid's gloves in 2016. Tulsi will not be.

I pray if she does run she beats the media.

I know you are a troll. But  - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAFlQ6fU4GM - This is Sanders fighting an attack on gay soldiers by a homphobic Republican Congressman. This is 1995.

Fast Forward to 1996. He was one of the few to vote against DOMA, a homophobic bi-partisan legislation supported by Democrats & Republicans & the Clintons.

And he has taken part in gay parades since the 80s. It is true that there is nothing to say that he supported SSM in the 90s or early 2000s but his record is fairly stellar. He came out for SSM earlier than most, including Clinton (who was the one of the last), voted the right way for Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Sanders  has generally been an ally for the gay community, atleast since the 90s even if he hasn't endorsed SSM back then.

[they don't love you like i love you]

"Tulsi Gabbard supported gay marriage before Hillary Clinton" is an inane and pointless comparison. In 2012 Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Secretaries of State by tradition do not speak on domestic or local issues, since they are irrelevant to their job, and can be seen as pushing an agenda which is not supposed to be what the office does. Hillary didn't even speak at the 2012 DNC. Neither did John Kerry in 2016, despite being a former nominee and the last Democratic nominee before the then sitting President. If Hillary had stayed in the Senate, it's a no brainer as to if she would've endorsed gay marriage in 2012, if not sooner.

It's a pointless comparison anyway, because Hillary has said she won't run in 2020. So Tulsi Gabbard, if she runs (which I doubt) should not be compared to Hillary Clinton on this, but rather the other Democrats running.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Also despite the source, this is actually a really good article: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tulsi-gabbard-president-sanders-democratic-party

and I have never seen anyone refute it.

[Shadows]

"Tulsi Gabbard supported gay marriage before Hillary Clinton" is an inane and pointless comparison. In 2012 Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Secretaries of State by tradition do not speak on domestic or local issues, since they are irrelevant to their job, and can be seen as pushing an agenda which is not supposed to be what the office does. Hillary didn't even speak at the 2012 DNC. Neither did John Kerry in 2016, despite being a former nominee and the last Democratic nominee before the then sitting President. If Hillary had stayed in the Senate, it's a no brainer as to if she would've endorsed gay marriage in 2012, if not sooner.

It's a pointless comparison anyway, because Hillary has said she won't run in 2020. So Tulsi Gabbard, if she runs (which I doubt) should not be compared to Hillary Clinton on this, but rather the other Democrats running.

The point is it is fairly hypocritical for Clinton supporters to blast her on this issue when they supported Clinton on this issue without questions (with her opposition to SSM till 2013 & support for the homophobic DOMA). Gabbard was 29 or 30 when she supported SSM, in 2012. She was brought up in a homophobic household, she went to the Middle East & her views changed. She has since been a part of multiple pro-gay legislation in the House. Clinton got the approval of the HRC, multiple gay organizations.

If past actions are a disqualifier then - 

Clinton should be disqualified for the Iraq War which killed millions
Joe Biden should be disqualified for the Iraq War which killed millions.
Tim Kaine should not be a VP Candidate because of his anti-abortion history.

This whole talk of Gabbard is a way to "punish her" for supporting Sanders. Howard Dean & Neera Tanden have talking funding a primary against Gabbard. This is not about  Gabbard being the 2020 Nominee. She is atleast 10-12 years away if ever & Sanders/Warren/Merkley will be the progressive candidate. This is about punishing people for supporting Sanders (like Perez is doing at the DNC).

[Lechasseur]

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.

In fact, the reason the USA is now against Putin so much is BECAUSE of Putin's backing of Assad. That's why the USA Government became so anti-Putin.

If Putin tomorrow decided to support removing Assad all of a sudden Russia would be our BFFs again.

I think they want North Korea too but Syria's their priority. They also want to take out Iran. Otherwise this.

[Lechasseur]

the more I read about Tulsi, the more I like her.

How can anyone Democrat get mad at Bush over Iraq then be against Assad?

This too

[IceSpear]

"Tulsi Gabbard supported gay marriage before Hillary Clinton" is an inane and pointless comparison. In 2012 Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Secretaries of State by tradition do not speak on domestic or local issues, since they are irrelevant to their job, and can be seen as pushing an agenda which is not supposed to be what the office does. Hillary didn't even speak at the 2012 DNC. Neither did John Kerry in 2016, despite being a former nominee and the last Democratic nominee before the then sitting President. If Hillary had stayed in the Senate, it's a no brainer as to if she would've endorsed gay marriage in 2012, if not sooner.

It's a pointless comparison anyway, because Hillary has said she won't run in 2020. So Tulsi Gabbard, if she runs (which I doubt) should not be compared to Hillary Clinton on this, but rather the other Democrats running.

The point is it is fairly hypocritical for Clinton supporters to blast her on this issue when they supported Clinton on this issue without questions (with her opposition to SSM till 2013 & support for the homophobic DOMA). Gabbard was 29 or 30 when she supported SSM, in 2012. She was brought up in a homophobic household, she went to the Middle East & her views changed. She has since been a part of multiple pro-gay legislation in the House. Clinton got the approval of the HRC, multiple gay organizations.

If past actions are a disqualifier then - 

Clinton should be disqualified for the Iraq War which killed millions
Joe Biden should be disqualified for the Iraq War which killed millions.
Tim Kaine should not be a VP Candidate because of his anti-abortion history.

This whole talk of Gabbard is a way to "punish her" for supporting Sanders. Howard Dean & Neera Tanden have talking funding a primary against Gabbard. This is not about  Gabbard being the 2020 Nominee. She is atleast 10-12 years away if ever & Sanders/Warren/Merkley will be the progressive candidate. This is about punishing people for supporting Sanders (like Perez is doing at the DNC).

Punish her? lol. I couldn't care less that she endorsed Bernie, except to the extent that it is literally the only reason for her current "political fame." I'd consider voting for Bernie in the 2020 primary, depending on who else is in the race and how the campaigns/debates go. I'd never vote for Gabbard.

[AtorBoltox]

Why does it not throw up any red flags for people here that Bannon loves her?

[they don't love you like i love you]

"Tulsi Gabbard supported gay marriage before Hillary Clinton" is an inane and pointless comparison. In 2012 Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Secretaries of State by tradition do not speak on domestic or local issues, since they are irrelevant to their job, and can be seen as pushing an agenda which is not supposed to be what the office does. Hillary didn't even speak at the 2012 DNC. Neither did John Kerry in 2016, despite being a former nominee and the last Democratic nominee before the then sitting President. If Hillary had stayed in the Senate, it's a no brainer as to if she would've endorsed gay marriage in 2012, if not sooner.

It's a pointless comparison anyway, because Hillary has said she won't run in 2020. So Tulsi Gabbard, if she runs (which I doubt) should not be compared to Hillary Clinton on this, but rather the other Democrats running.

The point is it is fairly hypocritical for Clinton supporters to blast her on this issue when they supported Clinton on this issue without questions (with her opposition to SSM till 2013 & support for the homophobic DOMA). Gabbard was 29 or 30 when she supported SSM, in 2012. She was brought up in a homophobic household, she went to the Middle East & her views changed. She has since been a part of multiple pro-gay legislation in the House. Clinton got the approval of the HRC, multiple gay organizations.

If past actions are a disqualifier then - 

Clinton should be disqualified for the Iraq War which killed millions
Joe Biden should be disqualified for the Iraq War which killed millions.
Tim Kaine should not be a VP Candidate because of his anti-abortion history.

This whole talk of Gabbard is a way to "punish her" for supporting Sanders. Howard Dean & Neera Tanden have talking funding a primary against Gabbard. This is not about  Gabbard being the 2020 Nominee. She is atleast 10-12 years away if ever & Sanders/Warren/Merkley will be the progressive candidate. This is about punishing people for supporting Sanders (like Perez is doing at the DNC).

If that's the reason then why is no one talking about primarying Keith Ellison or Jeff Merkeley?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Why does it not throw up any red flags for people here that Bannon loves her?

...it does? Just read this very thread. Most Democrats don't like her, and most of her defenders are Republicans.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

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

Well, she has railed against "homosexual extremists" on multiple occasions so I don't trust her "evolution" on that issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Against civil unions? Really? Even Dubya supported those in 2004!

She has some problematic stances on foreign policy. Such as constant Assad apologism and buying into conspiracies about how he never used chemical weapons and it was a false flag.

And the cult around her is annoying. As if she's some martyr who got turned into stone by Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Medusa g

aze just because she endorsed Bernie and VOLUNTARILY resigned from the DNC.

She still endorsed SSM before the last Democratic Presidential nominee did.

Assad like Saddam is a bad person, but that doesn't justify a war. We have plenty of bad people (like the House of Saud) that are our "allies".

Yeah nice try. Hardly any Democrats opposed civil unions, much less consistently used hateful slurs like "homosexual extremists." Hell, even most Republicans didn't go that far.

Tulsi Gabbard has more sense than a good number of Democrats whose names I see here. 

[Lechasseur]

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

Well, she has railed against "homosexual extremists" on multiple occasions so I don't trust her "evolution" on that issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Against civil unions? Really? Even Dubya supported those in 2004!

She has some problematic stances on foreign policy. Such as constant Assad apologism and buying into conspiracies about how he never used chemical weapons and it was a false flag.

And the cult around her is annoying. As if she's some martyr who got turned into stone by Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Medusa g

aze just because she endorsed Bernie and VOLUNTARILY resigned from the DNC.

She still endorsed SSM before the last Democratic Presidential nominee did.

Assad like Saddam is a bad person, but that doesn't justify a war. We have plenty of bad people (like the House of Saud) that are our "allies".

Yeah nice try. Hardly any Democrats opposed civil unions, much less consistently used hateful slurs like "homosexual extremists." Hell, even most Republicans didn't go that far.

Tulsi Gabbard has more sense than a good number of Democrats whose names I see here. 

Absolutely

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

I know you are a troll. But  - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAFlQ6fU4GM - This is Sanders fighting an attack on gay soldiers by a homphobic Republican Congressman. This is 1995.

Fast Forward to 1996. He was one of the few to vote against DOMA, a homophobic bi-partisan legislation supported by Democrats & Republicans & the Clintons.

And he has taken part in gay parades since the 80s. It is true that there is nothing to say that he supported SSM in the 90s or early 2000s but his record is fairly stellar. He came out for SSM earlier than most, including Clinton (who was the one of the last), voted the right way for Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Sanders  has generally been an ally for the gay community, atleast since the 90s even if he hasn't endorsed SSM back then.

He voted against the DOMA in 1996, but his wife stated We’re not legislating values. We have to follow the Constitution,” Jane Sanders said. “And anything that weakens the Constitution should be (addressed) by a constitutional amendment, not by a law passed by Congress.”

And in 2006, he straight up said gay marriage should be up to the states: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4550754/sanders-opposed-federal-marriage-equality-2006

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I said, if Bernie can hide his past, so can Tulsi.

Hell I have had Berniebros threaten violence against me for revealing the truth about his past. So he not only got people to buy into his lies, but they're  devoted followers.

[politics_king]

If you look at my first post, it's about Tulsi Gabbard, I've always been a fan, I think she's genuine and the smear campaign against her is nuts. We all come from a background where we've made mistakes or have family, friends or colleagues that have done questionable things which could be associated with our thinking. And we've changed our minds on things too.

Now I went with a Gabbard/Perez 2020 ticket theme on my early posts, I completely change my mind on that now. I don't think Perez is suited for National politics, I think he may have found his place but he's doing some questionable things at the DNC but at the same time the Democratic Party is in an interesting place. The Old Guard is going against the New Guard and eventually the New Guard is going to win. Just look at the Republican Party.

She plays smart politics, when she was going up against the DNC, she probably wasn't being heard and she was coming from the "Bernie-wing" of the party, or like minded thinking. She made a calculated move to endorse but she had to resign to do it because of DNC rules. It's a gutsy political move to make and I believe it worked for her.

Her ideas on Syria, are misguided in a sense, but her mindset is in the right place. Nobody can accuse Assad of being a decent human being, he's a murderous dictator but his regime is fighting people who are not Saints. If you dig deep enough in the internet, the "Moderates" and ISIS are beheading children, they have videos. The chemical warfare by Assad is dangerous and very scary. This is where Tulsi has gotten herself into trouble.

But as any person will tell you, the Middle East is a very complicated place. I like to believe the Western influence is slowly growing but it is a warzone, the entire region of the Middle East it's just a functioning societal warzone. One of my closest friends is a Staff Sgt. in the Army and he's a very liberal man with a minority background. He's a classic, brave, United States soldier who always tells me, "My job is to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic."

It's great way of expressing our Freedoms and how he defends our Freedoms through the ultimate sacrifice. His life. He did a tour in Afghanistan and when he came back, it was horrific, I was afraid for him of what he seen, did, and what he lost in those Wars. His brothers and sisters in arms, the enemies he killed and believe me, some of them are completely heartbreaking because he was on the defense and others where commands came in and his superiors followed them.

He was a Combat Medic and when you really learn about that job, it's to me, one of the most honest parts of the field. Now he's still there and works at a station in the United States. Which is great and he's gotten better over the years. But the "Scars of War" is such a true quote of harmony. Because hearing about it from him and others, it's a very grounding way to view this courageous profession whether you believe it is right or wrong.

So, getting back to the topic at hand. I think Tulsi Gabbard knows this, and has that experience, now people keep trying to throw at her that she has Islamophobia". You could say this about one of my closest friends but they've seen the warzone and they know it. Now if she really was this person then...

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/806440310616125440?lang=en

Why does she endorse Keith Ellison for DNC Chair? Some will say she's an opportunist, etc. But honestly, she's apart of the "Bernie-wing" or "Progressive" wing on the party. She's one of the pushers of the agenda to make the NEW Democratic Party. I've personally always liked her and if you really go to her site and read what she's about. I think you'd be for... the majority of her stances, for it. That's my piece on this subject and hopefully it's back on track after the off-topic railroad happened a page ago until now.

[Shadows]

"Tulsi Gabbard supported gay marriage before Hillary Clinton" is an inane and pointless comparison. In 2012 Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Secretaries of State by tradition do not speak on domestic or local issues, since they are irrelevant to their job, and can be seen as pushing an agenda which is not supposed to be what the office does. Hillary didn't even speak at the 2012 DNC. Neither did John Kerry in 2016, despite being a former nominee and the last Democratic nominee before the then sitting President. If Hillary had stayed in the Senate, it's a no brainer as to if she would've endorsed gay marriage in 2012, if not sooner.

It's a pointless comparison anyway, because Hillary has said she won't run in 2020. So Tulsi Gabbard, if she runs (which I doubt) should not be compared to Hillary Clinton on this, but rather the other Democrats running.

The point is it is fairly hypocritical for Clinton supporters to blast her on this issue when they supported Clinton on this issue without questions (with her opposition to SSM till 2013 & support for the homophobic DOMA). Gabbard was 29 or 30 when she supported SSM, in 2012. She was brought up in a homophobic household, she went to the Middle East & her views changed. She has since been a part of multiple pro-gay legislation in the House. Clinton got the approval of the HRC, multiple gay organizations.

If past actions are a disqualifier then - 

Clinton should be disqualified for the Iraq War which killed millions
Joe Biden should be disqualified for the Iraq War which killed millions.
Tim Kaine should not be a VP Candidate because of his anti-abortion history.

This whole talk of Gabbard is a way to "punish her" for supporting Sanders. Howard Dean & Neera Tanden have talking funding a primary against Gabbard. This is not about  Gabbard being the 2020 Nominee. She is atleast 10-12 years away if ever & Sanders/Warren/Merkley will be the progressive candidate. This is about punishing people for supporting Sanders (like Perez is doing at the DNC).

If that's the reason then why is no one talking about primarying Keith Ellison or Jeff Merkeley?

Ellison & Merkley were asking Bernie to give up when he was negotiating with the Clinton campaign. They are as establishment as they get while staying a progressive populist. Clinton supported Perez behind close doors & Merkley doesn't even have a spot in the Senate Leadership. So they won't get major help.

But Gabbard toucher a raw nerve. She went hard against Clinton when Bernie was going soft on her foreign policy blunders. She went & said the Clinton campaign intimidates & threatens people, as they did with her. And Wikileaks showed these emails as well. She refused to immediate endorse Clinton, continued criticizing her for foreign policy blunders.

They also didn't even let Nina Turner speak at the Convention. Everyone knows, from Wikileaks & otherwise that Clintons often go after dissidents & purge them from the party. Why on earth are Neera Tanden & Howard Dean asking for a primary against when they are okay with Iraq War supporters or corrupt people like Menendez. Anyways, to say one if not ready to support Gabbard for President is a fair point, but the hatred, smear & slander campaign against is ridiculous.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I would honestly like to see Gabbard primaried for her House of Representatives seat.

[AN63093]

Gabbard is probably my most liked candidate from the Dem side, at least from those that are being discussed in an at least somewhat serious way, and there's a decent chance I'd vote for her over Trump in 2020 if she was the nominee.  That being said, her chances at the nomination are pretty minuscule, no matter how many people were "impressed" by her in IA.  She simply does not have enough appeal among the demographic groups required to win the nomination.  There is a narrow band of support in the party that does like her a heck of a lot, but I have yet to see any evidence that this faction has any wider influence in the party.

[Lechasseur]

Gabbard is probably my most liked candidate from the Dem side, at least from those that are being discussed in an at least somewhat serious way, and there's a decent chance I'd vote for her over Trump in 2020 if she was the nominee.  That being said, her chances at the nomination are pretty minuscule, no matter how many people were "impressed" by her in IA.  She simply does not have enough appeal among the demographic groups required to win the nomination.  There is a narrow band of support in the party that does like her a heck of a lot, but I have yet to see any evidence that this faction has any wider influence in the party.

This

[henster]

Her one big mistake was meeting up with Assad it rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, she can spin it off as her trying to be diplomatic. Otherwise she has been doing a decent job of trying to get Bernie's base behind her ahead of 2020. I think she will be a monster at small donor fundraising and surprise a lot of people.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Her one big mistake was meeting up with Assad it rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, she can spin it off as her trying to be diplomatic. Otherwise she has been doing a decent job of trying to get Bernie's base behind her ahead of 2020. I think she will be a monster at small donor fundraising and surprise a lot of people.

The question is how much power does Clinton still have?

If Clinton still has some power Tulsi may be doomed due to superdelegates.