Ok I just did the isidewith dot com survey. (And yes I know no one gives a ****.) Top match was Gary Johnson. Then Beto, Yang, Tulsi were pretty close. Then Harris, Warren, Sanders, Castro, Kasich. Then some drop off. Worst match? Trump. My top political party was Libertarian - my worst match was Republican. (Remember when people thought those were basically the same? Fun times.) After Libertarian it goes Peace and Freedom, Democratic, Green, Socialist, Constitution, Republican.
I also just took the Isidewith survey and I don’t want to hear anything from @glynch I got Bernie #1 believe it or not. Kinda surprised.
Thanks again. Clearly I have some reading to do regarding extraditions. Bringing this thread back on topic, after last night Tulsi "brought in more than 12,000 donors in under 24 hours, meaning that we are now just 2,300 unique donations away from our debate-qualifying goal of 130,000 unique donors" Candidates have until Aug. 28th to get 130,000 unique donors and register at least 2 percent support in four polls. Last info I've seen Tulsi has 1 qualifying poll at/above 2 percent. So, 2,300 donors and 3 more polls with just under 4 weeks to go.
Maybe Tulsi is a believer of keeping your enemies closer if this is what's going to take to keep our soldiers and America safe.
Side note here, the recent case the DNC had against the Trump campaign, Russia and Assange/Wikileaks, Trump campaign was thrown out for not being responsible, Russia was thrown out for "can't sue foreign government for espionage", and Wikileaks/Assange was thrown out because 1st amendment protections Btw, the UK can't extradite for political offenses, but he's sort of in a weird situation, where he'd be unlikely to be found guilty of criminal offenses, but might be found guilty of political, but can't be extradited for political, but could be for criminal. But there's also the whole Brexit/trade affair. the swedish case though is more of a stitch up than asap rocky.
Why do people consider a subject matter expert on foreign policy again? She was a national guard officer in a non combat role. There are literally millions of people with that level of experience in the country right now. And her education is probably in the easiest undergrad major in existence, business adminstration. I just don't think she's experienced enough and has too many hot takes about foreign policy.
Go watch the video I posted yesterday and tell me that is just “keeping your enemies close”. It’s straight up lying to cover up for Assad’s crimes. That’s not smart leadership. That’s being a puppet. Isn’t that what we hate about Trump? I’m all for diplomacy with our enemies but I’m not about helping them cover up war crimes against their own people and lying about our own government in the process which makes Americans lose faith in our military leadership. She straight up says the US and Al Qaeda are in cahoots to overthrow Assad. Al Qaeda has been the excuse Assad has given every time he uses chemical weapons in his own people. This isn’t “keeping your enemies closer” and honestly as a Congresswomen in the House she really has no business stepping into that high level of representation of the US in diplomacy. As much as those on my side despise Pompeo and wish Dems were running the state dept., that is still their role in our government. Gabbards role is to legislate. I hope youll look a little deeper like I did. It’s quite alarming.
I watched the video. Nothing she said was a lie. She did not praise or say anything particularly positive about Assad himself. The US did train and provide weapons to rebel armies who were fighting alongside Al Qaeda, and some of those weapons did end up with Al Qaeda. She did not claim that the US was purposely “in cahoots” with them, but it’s hard to deny that we were not indirectly supporting them in their campaign in Syria (which was exactly what she charged when presenting her bill). That’s a complicated conflict, and I’m not even saying her position is the right one. But it’s a legitimate position to have in our national discussion about Syria and what we should be doing there.
Let's break it down together. 0:00 - 0:30 | Scenes showing the physical toll the conflict has taken on men, women, and children, with a Gabbard voiceover about the human cost of war on US citizens 0:31 - 1:10 | Scenes showing the destruction wrought on the city overlayed with a Gabbard voiceover about the economic impact of war on the US 1:11 - 1:50 | Scenes showing various women and children playing in war-torn streets overlayed with Gabbard's speech on the House floor promoting her "Stop Arming Terrorists Act" 1:51 - 2:59 | An interview with a local priest who demonstrates the difference between rebel and state ordinance/weapons, continues further explaining that the rebels are against the Westernization (paraphrasing hard here) of their community and wish to install a retrograde Islamic theocracy, leads a prayer with a group including Gabbard 3:00 - End | Sweeping shots of the destroyed city with more voiceover from Gabbard speaking about her bill and the problems with supporting terrorists and terrorist sympathizers in the effort to oust adversarial secular governments I don't see any "YAY ASSAD" or "ASSAD DID NOTHING WRONG" going on. I see two clear messages: 1) War is teh bads and we should not be doing things to promote or continue it 2) Getting involved in foreign conflict that has nothing to do with us is often the wrong choice (especially when there is no clear ally) I find Gabbard's message to be one of anti-intervention and skepticism towards the war machine (which makes a lot of sense for a former solider), not Assad cheerleading. The folks who are quick to accuse people of being "Pro-Assad" remind me a lot of the Iraq War chickenhawks. I could give two ***** about what Russia or Assad wants. I just don't want us involved.
This is a very naive take on the mini doc with a very charitable blanket of a “war is bad” theme you can always just invoke. I just think people should watch it and draw their own conclusions. There is a lot going on under the guise of “war is bad” that misrepresents the facts. And trying to bully my take with the Neocon accusation is out of line. I’ve been very clear about that and it’s an unfair debate tactic to get the other side to back down. This also doesn’t address the fact that it is a severe liability in the general election if she ever won the nomination. If you think this won’t be a world ending scandal propagated on the right you are also naive to think they wouldn’t be hypocrites x1000.
I consider your take to be cynical. I'm happy with everyone watching it and coming to their own conclusions, as I'm confident most impartial observers will agree with me. I'm not bullying you, btw. I don't think for a second you are acting in bad faith nor am I insulting you (you and I have enough history together on the BBS that would never enter my mind). But I am warning you that I see parallels between the Iraq frontrunners and the way you speak on this subject. If you think I'm engaging with you honest intention, that should give you at least some pause.
It’s not cynical. I have some legit concerns here on top of the political liability this is in the general election. Fair enough but the neocon flag to throw on the field is an odd card to play with me. I’ve been very clear about war as are most Dems. Just look at Obama and Syria who refused even with a whole ton of pressure from both sides. I’ve been very critical of Trumps bipolar policy on Syria and it’s clear that getting more involved in Syria would be stupid. Plus it’s already essentially a Russian run nation so there is no need to start another proxy war with them. Syria is theirs... now GTFO of our elections.
What do you mean by world ending scandal? FWIW. Those of you that don't know Tom Nichols, he's a Never Trump Republican who is "an academic specialist on international affairs, currently a professor at the U.S. Naval War College and at the Harvard Extension School. His work deals with issues involving Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs."
She isn't an expert. Her views are weird. I also add that she's isn't a standout as an anti-interventionist either. Bernie is probably the most anti-interventionist of all among the field. Her anti-war/interventionist stance is about at the baseline for all DEM candidates, even to Trump. Americans are just tire of wars. Where she is different is she seem to be that partly because of her indifference views toward some of these people out there that we think are pretty "bad" people, from Assad to Narendra Modi (which makes her closer to Trump).
I was just being hyperbolic about how the Republican political media machine can blow up any scandal. I’m talking Obama tan suit scandal but with a much bigger implication. I can see the attacks now and it would dog her general election even though it would be massively hypocritical with Trumps scandals with Russia.
Okay, I see. Gabbard is an Assad supporter, murderers of billion, partner of radical islamic forces and ISIS to fight against the Free Democratic Syrian Army.
