Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Let's Tell-all about Tulsi
#21
(03-27-2019, 01:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trump used the illegal immigrant issue to stoke fears and get elected. He never intended to do anything about the issue that solves any problems.

Bernie is doing the right thing by adopting Hillary's SJW issues as well as continuing to emphasize that the economy is stymied by our rule-by-the-rich 1% system. He does have leadership qualities and might win. Remember no USA presidential election is decided on issues, or who is dino and who is rino and who is true blue or red. It is decided by which candidate Americans think is a real leader. One scholar on Panetta's periodic show on PBS pointed out that a candidate who wins tells a story. Trump had one to tell and Hillary did not.


-- Eric don't insult Bernie like that. He is NOT an SJW, but a true advocate of human rights. Has been 4 decades. Back while the hildabitch was a Goldwater Girl. And he thinks our wars of choice a/b stopped. Most importantly he's a man of integrity,unlike that cheating bitch
Heart  Bernie/Tulsi 2020    Heart
Reply
#22
(03-28-2019, 09:57 AM)Marypoza Wrote:
(03-27-2019, 01:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trump used the illegal immigrant issue to stoke fears and get elected. He never intended to do anything about the issue that solves any problems.

Bernie is doing the right thing by adopting Hillary's SJW issues as well as continuing to emphasize that the economy is stymied by our rule-by-the-rich 1% system. He does have leadership qualities and might win. Remember no USA presidential election is decided on issues, or who is dino and who is rino and who is true blue or red. It is decided by which candidate Americans think is a real leader. One scholar on Panetta's periodic show on PBS pointed out that a candidate who wins tells a story. Trump had one to tell and Hillary did not.


-- Eric don't insult Bernie like that. He is NOT an SJW, but a true advocate of human rights. Has been 4 decades. Back while the hildabitch was a Goldwater Girl. And he thinks our wars of choice a/b stopped. Most importantly he's a man of integrity,unlike that cheating bitch

From my point of view, of course, it's not an insult, because I don't think of Hillary that way; no one should. The charges against her were all false. Republican propaganda; no-one should fall for it. That doesn't mean all her policies were good...
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#23
(03-27-2019, 01:54 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(03-27-2019, 01:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trump used the illegal immigrant issue to stoke fears and get elected. He never intended to do anything about the issue that solves any problems.

Did you read what I wrote in another post?  Let's look at why I don't want illegal aliens in the US.  Illegal aliens suppress wages which affects workers' wages. Next, companies that hire illegal aliens have an unfair cost advantage. That means employers who follow the rules pay the price. That is exactly why I say, go after unscrupulous employers.  Here is another thing I'd do.  I'd force employers to validate the citizenship or legal status with Realid. They'd have to justify each and every salary tax deduction against Realid. I'd then subject them to ruthless audits. If there is non compliance, that's where my fine of $1,000,000 per offense comes into effect along with that 20 year jail term.  I'm sure a few smackdowns would get employers in shape in no time. I'd also verify citizenship/legal status for social benefits.  That way, there's no privacy invasion on anyone. The cops wouldn't have to do traffic stops and check legality that way.

I think the better answer is to make sure every employer pays proper minimum wages to all employees, regardless of where they come from. But if you want to force employers to do that, maybe that would work. Not giving medical care to illegals is dangerous for all of us, though.

Quote:Oh, and trump wants to make it worse by again, screwing around in Latin America (Venezuela). So, again, Eric, why hasn't the MSM called him out on policies that make for even more refugees, huh?

I know; who knows what damage he will do. Of course Maduro and Chavez already ruined the country; Trump is making it worse to try to force Maduro out of power. Not working so far; just making things worse.

Quote:Also, why haven't I heard anything from them about the US turning Honduras into a shithole under Obama?  That and it's of course Shillery doing her usual dirty work.

See! Again, I have to rely on foreign news sources because the MSM is just fucking worthless. I done gave up them.  Pravda got nothing on these waste of biomass.

I know about the Honduras mess, pretty much. I can't give up on the MSM because at least they give me 15 minutes a night of superficial facts. If we want in-depth coverage of things inclidng what the PTB don't want us to see, then we have to go to public or foreign media or whatever we can find on-line, and exercize a lot of judgement there as well!

Which sometimes you don't, if you think the war against Assad is a US war (like Tulsi the liar says), or if Hillary did anything of which she was accused (apart from some mistaken policies of hers like the Honduras matter, although of course she can only be blamed for part of that mess).

Quote:
Quote:Bernie is doing the right thing by adopting Hillary's SJW issues as well as continuing to emphasize that the economy is stymied by our rule-by-the-rich 1% system.

Really? I haven't heard him mess around with non *gender binary, white males cause all problems, and stupid new pronouns.  If someone doesn't want to use the ready handy pronouns fine.  Here is my pronoun for certain SJW stuckups. If you want a personal pronoun, fine, and here it is (S)he (H)e (IT) = SHIT.

Like Marypoza, you put all these false allegations upon her, which of course Bernie NOR Hillary don't do. But it's good Bernie is using these issues just as Hillary did, because various ethnic and other groups face a lot of injustice in the USA these days, especially with Trump stoking the fires. It is absolutely necessary to campaign against that shit. To get nominated and win, Democratic candidates need to have all the outsider ethnic groups on their side. The pronoun stuff is irrelevant to Hillary, and I use (s)he and stuff but some people I know take that "shit" too far. But it doesn't matter to me if they do. I don't care.

Quote:
Quote:My horoscope scores indicate who can win; you should all know who they are by now. There's not very many of them, and only one (Bernie, a crap shoot at best) has announced. We may be in deep doo doo.




R U shure? At least, you'd need to get a much larger sample size. Most medical studies have a few thousand samples. The proof is in the math, man. And, maybe if the math works, we can just draft the person with the best score. I think it would be hard to do any worse than what we got now.

I don't think you have read my article or seen my video, or at least not all of it. I studied the largest possible sample: all the credible candidates who have run for president in USA history. I had to check and recheck and recheck my math to get it all right.

What we've got now would be hard to do any worse; agreed. However, his 9-4 score indicates he is a skilled candidate. He told a good story, and Hillary did not. That's different from being a good president! The Drumpface is not invincible, but only a candidate with a good score can beat him. I can't predict that either Bernie or Joe (both score 14-7) will beat him; only that they might. The odds of all the indicators involved slightly favor Trump in such a race, but it's a crap shoot. It will depend too on how badly the people think Trump has screwed up. But in 2016 they knew ALL about him, and still voted for him, partly because Hillary was a weaker candidate (score 9-11 but with fortunate Jupiter probably rising), and because of all the false accusations made against her. But I fear that the same thing could happen again. We know how bad Trump is, but if the Dems put up a weak candidate against him, as indicated by my scoring system, Trump still has an excellent chance to win. And none the announced candidates except Bernie can beat him!

Even though I despise Tulsi, her score as a skilled candidate might be the best among those who cannot beat Trump: 11-6. She's not getting any traction yet as a candidate so far; probably because she is not well-known and only a young congresswoman.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#24
(03-28-2019, 03:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(03-28-2019, 09:57 AM)Marypoza Wrote:
(03-27-2019, 01:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trump used the illegal immigrant issue to stoke fears and get elected. He never intended to do anything about the issue that solves any problems.

Bernie is doing the right thing by adopting Hillary's SJW issues as well as continuing to emphasize that the economy is stymied by our rule-by-the-rich 1% system. He does have leadership qualities and might win. Remember no USA presidential election is decided on issues, or who is dino and who is rino and who is true blue or red. It is decided by which candidate Americans think is a real leader. One scholar on Panetta's periodic show on PBS pointed out that a candidate who wins tells a story. Trump had one to tell and Hillary did not.


-- Eric don't insult Bernie like that. He is NOT an SJW, but a true advocate of human rights. Has been 4 decades. Back while the hildabitch was a Goldwater Girl. And he thinks our wars of choice a/b stopped. Most importantly he's a man of integrity,unlike that cheating bitch

From my point of view, of course, it's not an insult, because I don't think of Hillary that way; no one should. The charges against her were all false. Republican propaganda; no-one should fall for it. That doesn't mean all her policies were good...

-- as far as I can tell none of them were, especially the one a about starting a war with Russia. But my point was Bernie has been a human rights advocate 4 decades & he walks the walk. He adopted none of her bogus shit, which she was only spouting 2 get votes anyhow.
Now alot of this stuff was based on issues that Bernie was already talking about. When Bernie had 2 take a break from the campaign trail to get hernia surgery the joke was that the hildabitch would soon announce that she was undergoing hernia surgery as well
Heart  Bernie/Tulsi 2020    Heart
Reply
#25
(03-29-2019, 09:40 AM)Marypoza Wrote:
(03-28-2019, 03:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(03-28-2019, 09:57 AM)Marypoza Wrote:
(03-27-2019, 01:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trump used the illegal immigrant issue to stoke fears and get elected. He never intended to do anything about the issue that solves any problems.

Bernie is doing the right thing by adopting Hillary's SJW issues as well as continuing to emphasize that the economy is stymied by our rule-by-the-rich 1% system. He does have leadership qualities and might win. Remember no USA presidential election is decided on issues, or who is dino and who is rino and who is true blue or red. It is decided by which candidate Americans think is a real leader. One scholar on Panetta's periodic show on PBS pointed out that a candidate who wins tells a story. Trump had one to tell and Hillary did not.


-- Eric don't insult Bernie like that. He is NOT an SJW, but a true advocate of human rights. Has been 4 decades. Back while the hildabitch was a Goldwater Girl. And he thinks our wars of choice a/b stopped. Most importantly he's a man of integrity,unlike that cheating bitch

From my point of view, of course, it's not an insult, because I don't think of Hillary that way; no one should. The charges against her were all false. Republican propaganda; no-one should fall for it. That doesn't mean all her policies were good...

-- as far as I can tell none of them were, especially the one a about starting a war with Russia. But my point was Bernie has been a human rights advocate 4 decades & he walks the walk. He adopted none of her bogus shit, which she was only spouting 2 get votes anyhow.
Now alot of this stuff was based on issues that Bernie was already talking about. When Bernie had 2 take a break from the campaign trail to get hernia surgery the joke was that the hildabitch would soon announce that she was undergoing hernia surgery as well

As far as I can tell, statements like that about Hillary are all bogus. She articulated well a good program for us. If it was not all that we wanted, that's only because she was being more practical about what could get passed by the Republicans. Bernie will have to deal with them too.

And "the one about starting a war with Russia" was also just something that people SAID about her. There was never anything in her policies about starting a war with Russia at all. And she was a diplomat, and would not have done this.

To beat Trump, the Democrats and progressives will have to work and come together now. To beat Trump and the GOP is essential if we want to move forward instead of backward now.

Maybe Hillary was too "bitchy" and so she wasn't the right choice. So let's learn, and this time choose a likable candidate, as well as one who might at least do some of the right things, instead of the guy who does NONE of the right things EVER.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#26
Since Tulsi is getting more notice in the upcoming debates, and is still favored by Berniebros and Berniesisters as their favorite VP choice, it's time to resurrect this thread and get it back on topic. Time to reveal the truth and the facts about Tulsi again. If people point to Biden's past record, and say it invalidates anything he says now, then Tulsi should not be let of the hook for HER past record, which is even more dismal than Joe's.

Her voting record and co-sponsorship record in congress is less progressive than even the infamous Hillary-supporting former head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and by quite a bit. She supports drone wars that kill thousands of civilians, and she supports Putin's war-criminal bombing campaign in Russia that killed thousands of civilians. She said the revolution and uprising of 2011 of the people of Syria against their monster dictator (and monster is a polite term for him; apologies that I can't think of a worse one) was an invasion of US troops in a war of regime change. How utterly disrespectful and insulting to a people who so courageously rose up and gave their lives in a futile struggle for freedom and dignity! AND she advocated that the USA BOMB Syria in the hopes of killing some al nusra fighters there. She opposed the Iran nuclear deal, and went on every TV show she could find to defend the phrase "radical Islam" and support the wars against Islam. That's why she supported Israel's attacks on Palestinians too. She is a Hindu nationalist who supports right-wing ruler Modi. Not only that, she is a reluctant recent convert away from an opponent of homosexuals and LGBTQ rights and gay marriage.

Here's one credible article on her:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/...-explained

....As early as January 2015, she started going on every cable channel that would have her — including Fox News — and bashing Obama’s policy on terrorism. She sounded indistinguishable from a Republican presidential candidate.

“What is so frustrating ... is that our administration refuses to recognize who our enemy is,” she said in a January 2015 interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “And unless and until that happens, then it’s impossible to come up with a strategy to defeat that enemy. We have to recognize that this is about radical Islam.”

The problem with this argument, according to both the Obama administration and most terrorism experts, is that “radical Islam” paints with too broad a brush. The term implies that jihadist militants are part of a unified ideological movement, rather than a series of discrete groups that are often at war with each other. It’s also insulting to the vast majority of Muslims around the world. President George W. Bush’s counterterrorism team refused to use it for these reasons.

This overwhelming focus on the threat from terrorism culminated in what’s now her most infamous policy position: quasi-support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the dictator responsible for the outbreak of the Syrian civil war and the conflict’s worst atrocities.

Gabbard argued, along with a small minority of foreign policy analysts, that the best way to defeat ISIS in Syria was for the US to align itself with Assad’s regime. She argued that the US should cut funding to the rebels fighting Assad, even sponsoring a bill in Congress to cut off US support. In the fall of 2015, when Russia began its bombing campaign in Syria, Gabbard celebrated it as a win for counterterrorism.


Tulsi Gabbard

@TulsiGabbard
Bad enough US has not been bombing al-Qaeda/al-Nusra in Syria. But it’s mind-boggling that we protest Russia’s bombing of these terrorists.


In fact, Russian forces were mostly targeting Syrian rebel groups overall rather than al-Qaeda-aligned rebel groups specifically. The goal was not narrow counterterrorism but rather defending a Russian-friendly regime that was (at the time) losing the war.

But there’s an internal logic here, one that the Kremlin itself has argued publicly. If you’re focused solely on the threat from the jihadist elements inside the Syrian opposition to the American homeland, to the exclusion of moral concerns about Assad’s regime, then it makes a grim kind of sense to align oneself with the Syrian and Russian governments.

This appears to be how Gabbard, who once described Assad as “brutal,” could support Russia’s intervention on his behalf — even going so far as to unfavorably compare Obama to Putin:


Tulsi Gabbard

@TulsiGabbard
Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 and must be defeated. Obama won’t bomb them in Syria. Putin did. #neverforget911


In January 2017, she traveled to Syria and met with Assad personally, blindsiding the Democratic leadership in Congress. After returning to the US, she went on CNN and parroted the regime’s line that there was “no difference” between the mainstream anti-Assad rebels and ISIS.

By this point, Democratic leadership considered her disloyal. “Rep. Gabbard loses me and, I think, many others when she claims to support peaceful values and policies that protect civilians and still engages with and even defends a murderous dictator, Bashar al-Assad,” Loren DeJonge Schulman, a senior NSC official in the Obama administration, told me. “There is no excuse for this. The hypocrisy of these actions is astonishing. One can be antiwar without being pro-murderous dictator, a fact that seems obvious.”

When Assad’s forces used chemical weapons against Syrian civilians in April 2017, Gabbard said she was “skeptical” that Assad was responsible, aligning herself with conspiracy theorists against both US intelligence and the overwhelming majority of independent experts.

Assad was not the only foreign authoritarian Gabbard praised for fighting terrorism. She issued a statement celebrating Egyptian strongman Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s “great courage and leadership in taking on ... extreme Islamist ideology” — despite Sisi taking power in a coup and massacring more than 800 peaceful protesters in a single day.

She also proposed a policy of US special forces raids around the world and even expressed a willingness to authorize torture of terrorism suspects if she were president. She referred to herself in one interview as a “dove” on regime change but a “hawk” on terrorism, neatly summarizing her actual positions.....
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#27
more from the Vox article:

For Tulsi Gabbard, politics is a family business. Her mother, Carol Gabbard, was on Hawaii’s State Board of Education; her father, Mike Gabbard, was a political activist and Honolulu City Council member, best known in Hawaii for being one of the state’s leading opponents of LGBTQ equality. He founded an organization called Stop Promoting Homosexuality that opposed not only marriage equality but the very idea of tolerance for homosexuality itself.

“Homosexuality is not normal, not healthy, morally and scripturally wrong,” he said in a 1992 interview, in which he also blamed the spread of AIDS on the repeal of sodomy laws.

Mike Gabbard’s opposition to LGBTQ rights (as well as abortion) seemed to stem from his religious background. Born in American Samoa, he is both Catholic and a member of an obscure offshoot of the Hare Krishna sect called the Science of Identity Foundation. The group’s leader, a self-described guru named Chris Butler, has condemned homosexuality, once arguing that it led to “an increasing number of American women [keeping] dogs for sexual purposes.’”

Tulsi Gabbard grew up in Butler’s movement, which has faced allegations of cult-like practices. She told the New Yorker’s Kelefa Sanneh that he shaped her Hindu identity, speaking of her “gratitude to him for the gift of this wonderful spiritual practice that he has given to me.”

Her early political career reflected both Butler’s views and her father’s. She worked for her father’s organization, which supported the use of “conversion therapy” to try to turn kids straight. She once blasted “homosexual activists” for trying to “force their values down the throats of the children in our schools.” During her successful run for the Hawaii Legislature in 2002, when she was just 21 years old, she vowed to pass a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage.

Despite her conservative social views — she also opposed abortion — Gabbard was a Democrat, albeit not one likely to succeed on the national stage.....
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#28
Tulsi a progressive? Not according to her record. Here she is only #69 on an ideology scoring list of 200 Democrats in congress, with #200 as most progressive.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members...t/ideology

On this list of progressives, she is only ranked #153, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz is #117!

https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?...=down#tilt
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#29
(06-17-2019, 03:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Tulsi a progressive? Not according to her record. Here she is only #69 on an ideology scoring list of 200 Democrats in congress, with #200 as most progressive.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members...t/ideology

On this list of progressives, she is only ranked #153, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz is #117!

https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?...=down#tilt

Uh, it depends on the criteria selected for issues, Eric. I drilled down to the issues and found the supporting data wanting.  However, I've been checking on Tulsi myself.  The more I see, the more I like her. 

For example. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world...59586.html

So, again, she's dead set against wars of choice and gets called a Putin puppet like Trump. Sorry, but Russiagate is a huge nothingburger. I do say it's important as well to have some sort of emotion free line of communications with Russia, China, Iran, etc. Just because some country isn't one of US's poodles doesn't mean it's smart to just blow them off and accuse them constantly of doing bad things. Said countries have their own interests, prerogatives and the like. I'm also plumb damn sick of the MSM fake news about Iran as of late. Stupid Neocons are at it again with their false flags and false narratives. As I see it, Assad is no worse than Bibi. Putin is certainly better than shrub for the world. Even with Xi, we have nothing to say with all that blood on our hands from our failing wars of choice. As for the site you had, perhaps it's some assortment of multiculturalism/SJW stuff?  If so, all of that has 0 priority with me. In fact, I'm going to redirect all DNC donations to her. Cool 

And guess what, I have a secret. Trump is a 50/50 sort of deal. I despise his tax cuts and appointees. However, he's doing something I like even if he doesn't even realize he's doing it.  That is to say, every trade policy he's made is destroying neoliberalism on a long term time period. Those tariffs and sanctions over time are forcing other countries to abandon the dollar.  I wish I can, I wish I may, hope the dollar system collapses and takes the entire neoliberal order with it and makes my day./
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#30
The more I see, the more clear the data is, the less I like her. The record could not be more clear.

Time to remove prejudice, and see her as she is.

She is the worst of the Democratic candidates for president, the worst possible choice for VP, and not a progressive at all, but only a deceived and deceiving warmonger moderate.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#31
(06-18-2019, 08:56 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(06-17-2019, 03:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Tulsi a progressive? Not according to her record. Here she is only #69 on an ideology scoring list of 200 Democrats in congress, with #200 as most progressive.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members...t/ideology

On this list of progressives, she is only ranked #153, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz is #117!

https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?...=down#tilt

Uh, it depends on the criteria selected for issues, Eric. I drilled down to the issues and found the supporting data wanting.  However, I've been checking on Tulsi myself.  The more I see, the more I like her. 

For example. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world...59586.html

Tulsi and Bernie supporters want to dredge up Biden's past, even though he's talking a different line now.

The same should be applied to Gabbard. She is a war hawk, if past is prologue. She supports drone wars, and bombing, as long as they are against targets she likes. She called for the US to bomb "terrorists" in Syria, and supported Putin's bombing of Syria, which killed thousands of innocent civilians, and was not directed at terrorists, but against the moderate rebels against Assad. She opposed the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump pulled out of and is destroying. So Tulsi's statements that we should not be saber rattling against Iran now, is hollow indeed.

If you "drilled down" into the evidence, but came up empty, then you need to drill again. Everything is clear; the evidence is unimpeachable.

Quote:So, again, she's dead set against wars of choice and gets called a Putin puppet like Trump. Sorry, but Russiagate is a huge nothingburger. I do say it's important as well to have some sort of emotion free line of communications with Russia, China, Iran, etc. Just because some country isn't one of US's poodles doesn't mean it's smart to just blow them off and accuse them constantly of doing bad things. Said countries have their own interests, prerogatives and the like.

There is plenty of evidence that Roger Stone, and other Trump aides and friends, contacted Russia for dirt on Hillary and other fake news that would help Trump. Trump Jr. eagerly set up a meeting to receive this information, and Trump himself asked for it in a campaign speech. Russiagate is not a nothingburger. The only reason Mueller didn't press charges is because, he said, the evidence was destroyed by the Trumpists.

Russia is a horrible country that loves its murderous, lying dictator Putin, who literally owns half the country. They are invading Ukraine, threatening Eastern Europe, and are bombing Syria in war crimes that Tulsi applauds and supports. That makes Tulsi a war criminal too. And she is a Putin puppet, no doubt. If elected VP or president, she would revert to her support for authoritarian dictators, tyrants and monsters and her support for wars on Islam.

And her statement, recorded again in this article from the left-wing magazine The Nation,
https://www.thenation.com/article/tulsi-...ign-islam/
is so despicable that I cannot describe my disdain:

"Writing in The Nation in 2016, Gabbard said that she wanted “to give voice to the millions of Americans, including my fellow veterans, who desperately want to end our country’s illegal, counterproductive war to overthrow the Syrian government,” which risked allowing “ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups…to take over all of Syria.” "

The US did NOT invade Syria, and the enemies of Assad are the people who rose up in 2011 to depose their tyrant, but were shot down and bombed by the tyrant, period. Anyone who doesn't know that is seriously deceived, and has no regard for people or for their freedom from genocide. I'm damn sick of the conspiracy theory that conflates the honest, democratic rebels of Syria starting in 2011 with the jihadists who came in to help them because no-one else would, in around 2013, or with the horrible Islamic State that took advantage of the chaos to capture eastern Syria in 2014, and have now been mostly defeated there.

quoting The Nation article:
"The Hawaii congresswoman’s anti-interventionism masks an affinity for authoritarians, nationalists, and Islamophobes.... Taken together, Gabbard’s positions represent almost everything a left foreign policy should avoid."

These are direct quotes, which no amount of your drilling can erase:

"Gabbard doesn’t actually oppose military intervention, or the abusive tactics used to prosecute the “war on terror,” as long as they’re directed against those she identifies as Islamic extremists. She summarized her philosophy neatly in 2016, telling West Hawaii Today that “when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk. When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.”

Gabbard is a staunch supporter of the United States’ counter-ISIS campaign, but her view of the fight goes much further. During a visit to India in 2014, she told an interviewer that the United States had failed in its “very clear” mission to defeat “Islamic extremism”—the fight she said led her to enlist after the September 11 attacks—and that we needed “to focus all of our efforts and energy” and “root out this evil wherever it is.” When pressed on whether torture could be part of those efforts, Gabbard didn’t reject it, saying some believed it worked. Invoking the fantastical scenario of a ticking nuclear time bomb, Gabbard said that if she were president, she “would do everything in my power to keep the American people safe.” If there was a gap between Gabbard’s philosophy and the forever war, it was hard to spot."

TULSI IS A WAR CRIMINAL!

Quote: I'm also plumb damn sick of the MSM fake news about Iran as of late. Stupid Neocons are at it again with their false flags and false narratives. As I see it, Assad is no worse than Bibi. Putin is certainly better than shrub for the world. Even with Xi, we have nothing to say with all that blood on our hands from our failing wars of choice. As for the site you had, perhaps it's some assortment of multiculturalism/SJW stuff?  If so, all of that has 0 priority with me. In fact, I'm going to redirect all DNC donations to her. Cool 

All the sites I quote are bonifide news organizations, to which intelligent people go, rather than to the fake conspiracy theories that have 0 priority with me, which repeat the lies that the rebels are just terrorists, which is what the worst monster of our time calls them, and wants fools like Tulsi to believe. Ridiculous! Horrible! You get a big bird crow award for succumbing to these lies.

[Image: 62743053-big-crow.jpg]

Noone has put forth any evidence otherwise than that Iran attacked those ships; certainly not Tulsi. None of this justifies any attack on Iran; Tulsi is right now about that. But the MSM is not to be knocked; they are not taking sides, just quoting the idiot Pompeo and others who say what they think about the situation. Was it a mine? Was it a projectile? Different stories are made, but no-one seems to have proven that Iran did either of them. But the USA says it has the evidence. Let's see it.

Quote:And guess what, I have a secret. Trump is a 50/50 sort of deal. I despise his tax cuts and appointees. However, he's doing something I like even if he doesn't even realize he's doing it.  That is to say, every trade policy he's made is destroying neoliberalism on a long term time period. Those tariffs and sanctions over time are forcing other countries to abandon the dollar.  I wish I can, I wish I may, hope the dollar system collapses and takes the entire neoliberal order with it and makes my day./

Trump is a 0 0 deal. He is the Orange Orangutan fake president. The destruction of neo-liberalism can only be accomplished by voting the neo-liberals out of office, including the biggest neo-liberal of all, Mr. T; and not by destroying the dollar. That's silly; we all depend on a stable currency. Another great depression will likely just result in the second fascist after Trump to take over, because Americans are dunces that can be fooled by any conspiracy theory and any demagogue that comes down the pike. It won't work, Rags. I have no faith that a collapse of the American financial system will bring down neo-liberalism. It will just make our inequality and our ownership by the .1% even worse, just like the 2008 one did. You are welcome to your apocalyptic beliefs though; who knows.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#32
(06-19-2019, 02:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(06-18-2019, 08:56 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(06-17-2019, 03:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Tulsi a progressive? Not according to her record. Here she is only #69 on an ideology scoring list of 200 Democrats in congress, with #200 as most progressive.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members...t/ideology

On this list of progressives, she is only ranked #153, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz is #117!

https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?...=down#tilt

Uh, it depends on the criteria selected for issues, Eric. I drilled down to the issues and found the supporting data wanting.  However, I've been checking on Tulsi myself.  The more I see, the more I like her. 

For example. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world...59586.html

Tulsi and Bernie supporters want to dredge up Biden's past, even though he's talking a different line now.


Quote:Wow, such a big postie. Big Grin    I think everyone will be dredging everyone's past up. For, example, look at all the ammo folks have for Trump. You know play clips of his 2016 campaign stops and what he tweets now and note the differences.


The same should be applied to Gabbard. She is a war hawk, if past is prologue. She supports drone wars, and bombing, as long as they are against targets she likes. She called for the US to bomb "terrorists" in Syria, and supported Putin's bombing of Syria, which killed thousands of innocent civilians, and was not directed at terrorists, but against the moderate rebels against Assad. She opposed the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump pulled out of and is destroying. So Tulsi's statements that we should not be saber rattling against Iran now, is hollow indeed.


Quote:It's a Civil war.  All sides and proxies are responsible.  I again disagree with "moderate rebels".
"Moderate rebels = Al Quada.  So that means that we're supporting a branch of Al Quada who for now have decided to not attach Western interests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front

So folks who believe in "moderate rebels" get yup, here it  is  *sucker fish award

[Image: 1280px-Northern_hogsucker_Hypentelium_nigricans.jpg]

If you "drilled down" into the evidence, but came up empty, then you need to drill again. Everything is clear; the evidence is unimpeachable.


Quote:I did?  I read the article you presented. She may indeed support assorted policies that achieve goal X. I just do a trade off of OK, how bad are the policies? If the price of some disagreements on said policies is less than the benefits of X happening, then I give it a mental green light. So, on Syria, she and I pretty much have the same view.  Meddling is stupid, so don't do it.  Now, as you say, if she likes drones, then I think that is stupid and should not be done.  So, of course are there other options who want to both get out of our current wars and adopt my idea of pragmatism.  The first thing to do is decide what end goal is in achievable metrics. Next, get a real cost and time frame. No more wars for profit. Profit shouldn't be a goal. So what's it gonna cost. With that just use the Powell doctrine and go from there. IOW, everyone has to pay, not just the folks who signed up.
Of course I also think "feel good" wars are stupid. If you have a better option, links please.


Quote:So, again, she's dead set against wars of choice and gets called a Putin puppet like Trump. Sorry, but Russiagate is a huge nothingburger. I do say it's important as well to have some sort of emotion free line of communications with Russia, China, Iran, etc. Just because some country isn't one of US's poodles doesn't mean it's smart to just blow them off and accuse them constantly of doing bad things. Said countries have their own interests, prerogatives and the like.

There is plenty of evidence that Roger Stone, and other Trump aides and friends, contacted Russia for dirt on Hillary and other fake news that would help Trump. Trump Jr. eagerly set up a meeting to receive this information, and Trump himself asked for it in a campaign speech. Russiagate is not a nothingburger. The only reason Mueller didn't press charges is because, he said, the evidence was destroyed by the Trumpists.
Quote:Where is the evidence you cite? And would it not be high level expertise to hide said evidence from all of our spy agencies, like 17 of them?


Russia is a horrible country that loves its murderous, lying dictator Putin, who literally owns half the country. They are invading Ukraine, threatening Eastern Europe, and are bombing Syria in war crimes that Tulsi applauds and supports. That makes Tulsi a war criminal too. And she is a Putin puppet, no doubt. If elected VP or president, she would revert to her support for authoritarian dictators, tyrants and monsters and her support for wars on Islam.
Quote:Actually Russia is a country that got invaded and suffered a lot in 2 wars [WWII, and Napoleon].  Since Russia has been invaded, Russia can get paranoid at times. Russia also got screwed by the West after the USSR collapsed. Russians didn't like austerity and Putin is the one who broke the chains. I'd guess that is part of why he's popular. As for Crimea, NATO was gonna put a base there. So, would you be comfortable if China and Russia put some bases on Cuba?  Something to think about, eh?

And her statement, recorded again in this article from the left-wing magazine The Nation,
https://www.thenation.com/article/tulsi-...ign-islam/
is so despicable that I cannot describe my disdain:

"Writing in The Nation in 2016, Gabbard said that she wanted “to give voice to the millions of Americans, including my fellow veterans, who desperately want to end our country’s illegal, counterproductive war to overthrow the Syrian government,” which risked allowing “ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups…to take over all of Syria.” "

The US did NOT invade Syria, and the enemies of Assad are the people who rose up in 2011 to depose their tyrant, but were shot down and bombed by the tyrant, period. Anyone who doesn't know that is seriously deceived, and has no regard for people or for their freedom from genocide. I'm damn sick of the conspiracy theory that conflates the honest, democratic rebels of Syria starting in 2011 with the jihadists who came in to help them because no-one else would, in around 2013, or with the horrible Islamic State that took advantage of the chaos to capture eastern Syria in 2014, and have now been mostly defeated there.


Quote:Here's the definition of "invade". "
Definitions
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
  • intransitive verb To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
  • intransitive verb To enter as if by invading; overrun or crowd:
  • intransitive verb To enter and proliferate in bodily tissue, as a pathogen.
  • intransitive verb To encroach or intrude on; violate.
  • intransitive verb To make an invasion.
from The Century Dictionary.
  • . To go into or upon; enter.
  • To enter or penetrate into as an enemy; go or pass into or over with hostile intent, as in a military incursion.
  • Hence To come into or upon as if by a hostile incursion; make an attack upon.
  • To intrude upon; infringe; encroach on; violate: as, to invade the privacy of a family.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.
  • transitive verb obsolete To go into or upon; to pass within the confines of; to enter; -- used of forcible or rude ingress.
  • transitive verb To enter with hostile intentions; to enter with a view to conquest or plunder; to make an irruption into; to attack.
  • transitive verb To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate.
  • transitive verb To grow or spread over; to affect injuriously and progressively.
  • intransitive verb To make an invasion.


quoting The Nation article:
"The Hawaii congresswoman’s anti-interventionism masks an affinity for authoritarians, nationalists, and Islamophobes.... Taken together, Gabbard’s positions represent almost everything a left foreign policy should avoid."

I don't see anywhere she said stuff like "Assad is my friend and we should stop bombing his country".  Perhaps she's like me, that is to say, indifferent. The logic there is that the US should refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of other nation states, unless there is an existential threat.

These are direct quotes, which no amount of your drilling can erase:

"Gabbard doesn’t actually oppose military intervention, or the abusive tactics used to prosecute the “war on terror,” as long as they’re directed against those she identifies as Islamic extremists. She summarized her philosophy neatly in 2016, telling West Hawaii Today that “when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk. When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.”

Gabbard is a staunch supporter of the United States’ counter-ISIS campaign, but her view of the fight goes much further. During a visit to India in 2014, she told an interviewer that the United States had failed in its “very clear” mission to defeat “Islamic extremism”—the fight she said led her to enlist after the September 11 attacks—and that we needed “to focus all of our efforts and energy” and “root out this evil wherever it is.” When pressed on whether torture could be part of those efforts, Gabbard didn’t reject it, saying some believed it worked. Invoking the fantastical scenario of a ticking nuclear time bomb, Gabbard said that if she were president, she “would do everything in my power to keep the American people safe.” If there was a gap between Gabbard’s philosophy and the forever war, it was hard to spot."

TULSI IS A WAR CRIMINAL!

Actually, she thinks like a war criminal. And yes, that's a mainstream view. So, who doesn't have this view and also supports no interference in other nation states as well. ?  Bernie may or may not.

Quote: I'm also plumb damn sick of the MSM fake news about Iran as of late. Stupid Neocons are at it again with their false flags and false narratives. As I see it, Assad is no worse than Bibi. Putin is certainly better than shrub for the world. Even with Xi, we have nothing to say with all that blood on our hands from our failing wars of choice. As for the site you had, perhaps it's some assortment of multiculturalism/SJW stuff?  If so, all of that has 0 priority with me. In fact, I'm going to redirect all DNC donations to her. Cool 

All the sites I quote are bonifide news organizations, to which intelligent people go, rather than to the fake conspiracy theories that have 0 priority with me, which repeat the lies that the rebels are just terrorists, which is what the worst monster of our time calls them, and wants fools like Tulsi to believe. Ridiculous! Horrible! You get a big bird crow award for succumbing to these lies.

[Image: 62743053-big-crow.jpg]
Quote:Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh shuckings!  I get a birdie award and for the first time even. I feel so special. You know what they say.  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Blush


Noone has put forth any evidence otherwise than that Iran attacked those ships; certainly not Tulsi. None of this justifies any attack on Iran; Tulsi is right now about that. But the MSM is not to be knocked; they are not taking sides, just quoting the idiot Pompeo and others who say what they think about the situation. Was it a mine? Was it a projectile? Different stories are made, but no-one seems to have proven that Iran did either of them. But the USA says it has the evidence. Let's see it.


Quote:How about they try doing journalism instead of being prissy paid parrots of say Pompeo?  Why no analysis of why Pompoe pumps puffy platitudes instead of stating actual policy. And how about stories with investigations like how it used to be?  For example , ask puffball Pompeo, show us the beef. If he says it's classified, that means that Pompeo is for sure lying his tongue off.


Quote:And guess what, I have a secret. Trump is a 50/50 sort of deal. I despise his tax cuts and appointees. However, he's doing something I like even if he doesn't even realize he's doing it.  That is to say, every trade policy he's made is destroying neoliberalism on a long term time period. Those tariffs and sanctions over time are forcing other countries to abandon the dollar.  I wish I can, I wish I may, hope the dollar system collapses and takes the entire neoliberal order with it and makes my day./

Trump is a 0 0 deal. He is the Orange Orangutan fake president. The destruction of neo-liberalism can only be accomplished by voting the neo-liberals out of office, including the biggest neo-liberal of all, Mr. T; and not by destroying the dollar. That's silly; we all depend on a stable currency. Another great depression will likely just result in the second fascist after Trump to take over, because Americans are dunces that can be fooled by any conspiracy theory and any demagogue that comes down the pike. It won't work, Rags. I have no faith that a collapse of the American financial system will bring down neo-liberalism. It will just make our inequality and our ownership by the .1% even worse, just like the 2008 one did. You are welcome to your apocalyptic beliefs though; who knows.

Hmmmm.... So if Americans are dunces who can fall for conspiracy theories and demagogues then why are they smart enough to vote neoliberals out of office ?
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#33
(06-20-2019, 08:53 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Hmmmm.... So if Americans are dunces who can fall for conspiracy theories and demagogues then why are they smart enough to vote neoliberals out of office ?

Good question. They may not be. But giving them a depression won't be enough to make them smarter.

Why did you post the definition of invasion? It does not change Tulsi's mistaken conspiracy theory that the US invaded Syria to overthrow Assad.

If there was any incursion of US troops into Syria, it was to fight the IS in the east, and it had Gabbard's full blessing and support. Do you still get these two situations mixed up?

It is hard to follow which comments are yours. Your quoting method needs work.

Most Democratic candidates have better foreign policies than Gabbard, as I have outlined. And just saying "it was stupid to meddle in Syria" does not make it so. Supporting democratic rebels, who are resisting a genocidal tyrant with aid and supplies they have asked for, may not be stupid. Denying the fact that these people exist, and that Assad is the worst tyrant on the planet by far today, is stupid. Disagreement with this, is not valid or factual.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#34
Other than most politicians, Tulsi knows how war today looks like.
Reply
#35
(06-20-2019, 11:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(06-20-2019, 08:53 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Hmmmm.... So if Americans are dunces who can fall for conspiracy theories and demagogues then why are they smart enough to vote neoliberals out of office ?

Good question. They may not be...

Case in point: a woman and US citizen, who has been harassed and even imprisoned by ICE as "a potential illegal immigrant", voted for Trump in 2016, and says she will again, never mind the nearly 2-year struggle to get DHS off her back due entirely to Trump policies.  Memes die hard -- especially the ones born in anger.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#36
(07-12-2019, 07:44 PM)Hintergrund Wrote: Other than most politicians, Tulsi knows how war today looks like.

And if she likes the war, then she likes the way it looks; and it doesn't matter how many civilians are killed in the war crimes she advocates.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#37
(07-15-2019, 05:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(07-12-2019, 07:44 PM)Hintergrund Wrote: Other than most politicians, Tulsi knows how war today looks like.

And if she likes the war, then she likes the way it looks; and it doesn't matter how many civilians are killed in the war crimes she advocates.

What war crimes does she advocate?   Well, I suppose she voted to confirm Haspel to the CIA
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#38
(07-15-2019, 09:33 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(07-15-2019, 05:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(07-12-2019, 07:44 PM)Hintergrund Wrote: Other than most politicians, Tulsi knows how war today looks like.

And if she likes the war, then she likes the way it looks; and it doesn't matter how many civilians are killed in the war crimes she advocates.

What war crimes does she advocate?   Well, I suppose she voted to confirm Haspel to the CIA

As I mentioned many times, she supported and advocated Putin's bombing of civilians in Syria in and around Aleppo, which Putin did and she applauded. She also wanted the USA to bomb them, and she supported the drone wars.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#39
(07-15-2019, 10:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(07-15-2019, 09:33 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(07-15-2019, 05:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(07-12-2019, 07:44 PM)Hintergrund Wrote: Other than most politicians, Tulsi knows how war today looks like.

And if she likes the war, then she likes the way it looks; and it doesn't matter how many civilians are killed in the war crimes she advocates.

What war crimes does she advocate?   Well, I suppose she voted to confirm Haspel to the CIA

As I mentioned many times, she supported and advocated Putin's bombing of civilians in Syria in and around Aleppo, which Putin did and she applauded. She also wanted the USA to bomb them, and she supported the drone wars.

Do you have a source for the above allegation?

Now in other news,

https://twitter.com/hashtag/KamalaHarris...wsrc%5Etfw

You see, now it's things like this that make support of Tulsi worthwhile.  It seems that Kamala had a jailbird rent to own scheme going.
How tacky, keeping folks in the clink for longer than their supposed to.  Can't have that kind of corruption.

https://kprcradio.iheart.com/featured/wa...king-weed/
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#40
(08-02-2019, 12:54 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(07-15-2019, 10:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(07-15-2019, 09:33 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(07-15-2019, 05:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(07-12-2019, 07:44 PM)Hintergrund Wrote: Other than most politicians, Tulsi knows how war today looks like.

And if she likes the war, then she likes the way it looks; and it doesn't matter how many civilians are killed in the war crimes she advocates.

What war crimes does she advocate?   Well, I suppose she voted to confirm Haspel to the CIA

As I mentioned many times, she supported and advocated Putin's bombing of civilians in Syria in and around Aleppo, which Putin did and she applauded. She also wanted the USA to bomb them, and she supported the drone wars.

Do you have a source for the above allegation?

Now in other news,

https://twitter.com/hashtag/KamalaHarris...wsrc%5Etfw

You see, now it's things like this that make support of Tulsi worthwhile.  It seems that Kamala had a jailbird rent to own scheme going.
How tacky, keeping folks in the clink for longer than their supposed to.  Can't have that kind of corruption.

https://kprcradio.iheart.com/featured/wa...king-weed/

I'm sure I have posted my source above, somewhere. But yes she did a good takedown job on Kamala. Tulsi is trying to stay on the debate stage. She is a talented candidate; just wrong on some things and not what she claims to be.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)