Go back to the beginning of this thread.
Tulsi “likes dictators” mainly insofar as she doesn’t believe in invading countries to install new US-friendly governments. That’s why she gets support from anti-war & anti-imperialist voters.
It’s not necessarily clear what she likes or doesn’t like, as her positions on US foreign intervention are somewhat ambiguous. On one hand she apparently opposes regime change, but she also said that the US should do whatever it can to intervene to destroy ISIS-like organizations. It’s also not clear that she really understands the Middle East as a region, despite having served as a solider. She refers to the Middle East as theocracies when in reality, except for Iran, they’re mostly secular nation-states. Not sure that’s the kind of person I want in charge of US foreign policy, particularly given her jaundiced views on the Middle East and the Muslim world.
Hey, check out the high-profile endorsement she just got!
I Have started reading the thread. So far I am not seeing the source material for the claims that she is pro discrimination. That seems contradicted by what little I have found of what has come from her own mouth.
Pro India is a potential positive for the US. They are the largest democracy in the world, and, well, the details matter but it would be nice on a surface level to not constantly antagonize friendly nations for a while.
I was impressed that she could get up there in a lei and talk about Hinduism and still come across as so (soldier) confident, positive, and compelling. With the obsessive coverage any president will get even if they aren’t an orange, pussy grabbing con man, seeing this kind of behavior in the WH would be a huge breath of fresh air.
I like it that Warren is such a white collar crime hawk and still have her as a possibility, but I wish she behaved more like Gabbard. Warren sometimes reminds me of an excited bird, which could cost her.
I haven’t been this impressed with another candidate yet. I though she had poise in spades and exuded leadership. It is striking that she has scars on only half of her face- the way she uses it reminds me a little of the hypnotic power of Sarah Sanders’ unfocused eye ( I like Sanders, except for being a human firehose of bs.) The effect is kind of, “Are you getting tired of watching this long speech? Well, I have a whole. nother. Face!”
Is she anti gay? That would be bad. She says she grew up that way because of her dad and changed her mind. Personally, my own dad was anti everything, and I did not turn out the same. Maybe Gabbard could be a good transitional leader as the country becomes more accepting.
Is she from a cult? I don’t know. I kind of think Mormonism is a cult, yet that is down the list of my objections to Romney. So far anyway I don’t have those objections to Gabbard. Unless she pulls of her mask and is actually a crazy person, I am going to stick with “no religious test for office.”
Doesn’t want to topple Assad? We toppled Hussein and look what a shit show that was. And who would know that better than a veteran? Maybe she is right.
Who cares what Gaetz says about anything?
I would like to see her debate Bernie. Also, Warren, Harris, Booker, Gillibrand, Biden, and probably others. I still think she put on a fantastic performance. OK, off to finish reading this thread. I am open to further objections to Gabbard, of course.
In short, she seems to align with the hawkish right/Republicans when it comes to fighting terrorism and the Middle East in general, verging on open bigotry against Muslims, by my reading. She used the same sorts of criticism of the Iran nuclear deal (a truly amazing accomplishment of foreign policy, in my opinion) that the Republicans made, which were mostly based on a false understanding of the facts – lending some legitimacy to Trump’s incredibly stupid dismantling of that treaty, which makes it much easier for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Similarly, she used the same sorts of criticism against Obama on his rhetoric regarding terrorism, insisting like so many Republicans that he must use the phrase “radical Islam” when talking about terrorism. I strongly disagree with this because it’s being used to tar and “other” Muslims as a whole, implying the entire religion is “radical” or “extreme” – not only is this bigoted, in my opinion, but it runs counter to the best way to fight terrorism. In order to fight and defeat those terrorists around the world who happen to be Muslim, we’ll need the cooperation and friendship of the vast majority of moderate and peaceful Muslims around the world. Such rhetoric provides no help to anyone except the extremists, who want all Muslims to see the US as anti-Islam.
She’s fought against efforts to be more compassionate and welcoming to Muslim refugees (but she agreed with carving out exceptions for Christians). She’s also praised brutal dictators like El Sisi in Egypt, just because they happened to reserve some of their brutality for extremists. She’s been praised by the likes of Breitbart and Steve Bannon for her stance on terrorism and her singling out of Islam. She’s repeatedly praised Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who, before riots that killed hundreds of Muslims, stated that Muslims needed to be taught a lesson. Altogether this leads me to suspect that she bears some personal ill will towards Muslims.
This doesn’t mean I wouldn’t support her over Trump – I certainly would… every Democrat, even ones like Gabbard that I have major concerns about, is nigh-infinitely better than Trump. I agree with her on many issues – especially her economic policies, broadly speaking. But based on the above concerns, I doubt I’ll support her over some of the other Democrats running, who don’t appear to have these close ties to bigoted policies and politicians.
“In short, she seems to align with the hawkish right/Republicans when it comes to fighting terrorism and the Middle East in general”
Yeah that’s a hell of a mischaracterization. Obama and Clinton were much more closely aligned with hawkish Republicans when it came to fighting terrorism and the Middle East in general. They supported regime change in Libya along with McCain et al. They supported and administered a ramp up in Afghanistan like McCain et al. They supported the jihadist rebels in Syria like McCain et al. They launched a war in Yemen along with McCain et al.
Gabbard has problems, but one of them is not that she is aligned with hawks on Middle East strategy. I also find it rich that Clinton supporters are now worried about problems in the Middle East. We will see who the Gabbard bashers end up supporting. I bet it won’t be a pure peacenik, but rather a hawk like Clinton and Obama.
You can tell when someone is more worried about how the terror war is marketed than how it is implemented. Obama was much worse on expanding the terror war than Gabbard would ever be. He kept a kill list with American citizens on it, for goodness sake.
It’s there. Look for it. No point in repeating what’s been said above.
The underlying issue is that the Democrats need someone who can lead an effective fight against Republican obstructionism (which will still be a problem even if the Democrats do well in the 2020 elections – perhaps even more than ever, as the Republicans get desperate).
Her “both sides are to blame for the shutdown” idiocy demonstrates her to be someone who will come down with the heebie-jeebies and the collywobbles and the saffron spinosis and the bone spurs and Ghu knows what else when faced with that battle.
Well, at least you can’t credibly accuse her of hating Jewish people. From your own article:
(ICUMI: Trump today claimed that the Democratic Party is anti-Semetic.)
It is problematic in its own way. But she is definitely standing up for both Israel and Adelson, not what you’d expect from a Democrat who ostensibly rejects Jewish people. If that’s the line for 2020, Gabbard is bullet proof to it. Also, her position on terrorists is defensible. They really are Islamic Extremists (ISIS et al anyway). Obama preferred more delicacy on that point, but Gabbard literally deployed to the war.
I don’t think the article scores a point on her military policy. Instead of invading countries to topple their leaders like we did in Iraq, killing and maiming our soldiers while spending trillions for the privilege, she would restrain herself to blowing up terrorists with drones. Kind of like Obama. It’s bad, it can kill civilians, but it kills only a small % of civilians compared to the 100s of thousands killed and the millions displaced by the invasion technique. Can/will it be abused? Hah! I hope not, but probably, no matter who wins. An “I love everyone” religious philosopher might be our least bad choice on this front.
Gabbard focuses on the costs to us rather than the cost to foreigners. Gasp! Maybe she just didn’t express her every last thought, or maybe is so dastardly she considers the effect of policy on Americans before other groups.
Still, I see the thrust here- she doesn’t have the political pedigree some of the other candidates possess. Bernie Sanders has been the same thing for decades. Biden has warts (maybe he should make Warren his running mate if he is serious about reversing his support for the financial industry) but also a long, distinguished history as a Democrat. Same with many others, while Gabbard emerges from a Hawaiian Hindu world with strong connections to far-right figures and came around to the Dem cause relatively later in life- it was her 20s, and she’s what, still in her 30s?
She remains anti-gay marriage but now thinks the government should not be “theocratic” like Middle Eastern regimes in enforcing religious morality. Ok, that sure sounds like the correct government policy, no? Me, I can relate, I oppose abortion (though not for religious reasons) but don’t think the government should ban it. What do you want?
I want to encourage everyone to watch some Gabbard video. That town hall was a good performance, um, I only just noticed her, I am only now waking up to the 2020 campaign. It’s pragmatic to cut me some slack, but I like her. Take a look at what she can do in person. She met with Assad. And Trump. And GOP think-tankers. And listened to Netanyahu’s address to Congress. She reaches out, she champions progressive D positions, and I can’t think of who has more raw charisma. She might repair America’s image world-wide, while promoting pro-America policies at home.
I do hope she makes it to the debate round.
This doesn’t appear to address any of the criticism I have for her, but whatever.
Has she been contributing to a Koch Bros. related think tank? I haven’t been able to verify that.
There are many more from the seamy right wing than Gaetz, not to mention Russia, who are intrigued by Gabbard. I think she looks pretty good on the surface as well. I have serious reservations about how she might allow herself to be compromised and if there are limits of the sources of manipulation she would tolerate.
Regarding the idea that Gabbard doesn’t really “like dictators,” just doesn’t believe in invading other countries, Mother Jones would disagree:
“Shortly after her visit, Gabbard defended Assad against evidence that he was behind a chemical weapons attack on his own people in the spring of 2017.”
"In December 2013, Gabbard opposed a House resolution calling on Modi to protect ‘the rights and freedoms of religions minorities.’”
From Tulsi Gabbard Is Running for President. Can She Shake Her Ties to Dictators and Nationalists? – Mother Jones. There are a number of quotes from other sources in this article which also strongly suggest that Gabbard does indeed have a soft spot for at least some dictators.
On another note, I find the claim that Gabbard is charismatic to be…intriguing. I’ve seen her in a couple of interviews and she seemed very uncharismatic–rather boring as a matter of fact, not the sort of candidate whose personality would seem to loom large. I think she’s quite attractive, but of course that’s not the same thing.
I’m definitely with iiandyiiii (and others) --this seems like a deeply flawed candidate.
Netanyahu ≠ Judaism.
Hinduvta ≠ India.
She obviously has an authoritarian streak. I don’t trust her one bit.
Gabbard is… weird. But I’m a sucker for mavericks so I’m intrigued too. She also has pretty great charisma and a super resume. But I also acknowledge that her downsides are pretty huge. She could be a very successful President or an utter disaster.
Well, on the question of Islamic extremists, it seems clear that she can tell the difference between the multitudes of peaceful Muslims and the extreme fringe. I can’t say what is behind her wanting to identify the enemy specifically as Islamic extremists, the way GOPers wanted to under Obama. The question always seemed like a bit of mania to me- they really Are Islamic extremists, yeah I can see not wanting to declare war on Islam but really, both sides of the debate are right and other things are far more important.
Now that some time has gone by, it is hard to see her standing up to the more accomplished Democrats. Warren, Harris, Bernie, Biden all have a lot to point to in their bids for President. Successful ex governor Hickenlooper is more prepared to be prez, prob others. Gabbard is more off to a good start, career-wise, but probably not ready yet.
[minor note]
At the 1:23 mark in this video I see Gabbard with 5% in the January 15-16 Harris poll. I became concerned: With a showing like that, why wasn’t she treated as a front-runner? She’s omitted altogether from most summaries.
I did some research. She received 5 out of 515 votes in that poll for 1%. Some transcriber substituted the votes (5) for the percent (1).
To quote Roseanne Roseannadanna: “Never mind.”
[Nitpick]
You mean Emily Litella.
[/Nitpick]
Ooops! :smack: In an effort to make amends, here’s a little-known(?) clip from Emily or Roseanne or whatever-her-name-was. She had pretty legs and knew how to dance.
She doesn’t like dictators so much as she appears to like stability and life. Those in opposition to her seem to prefer exerting power over lands ruled by dictators and bending them to meet western values.