Great. I hope you'll look at her policies and make your decision in November of next year based on those policy positions regardless of who the candidates are.
Do you have no concerns about her? Does this not come out of left field a bit in terms of primary election strategy? Going after Kamala in this way doesn't strike you as a bit odd? I would say the "propaganda" is really just a supplement to the concerns I've had for some time. Which always is a bit depressing because I actually like her, and am a huge hippy myself who has very similar thoughts on regime change wars.
what's odd about "going after" an opposing candidate? also, did you listen to the podcast or just post based on tweets? tulsi stated her standard campaign lines: one of the things i'm most concerned with is that kamala harris is not qualified to be commander and chief. and i can say this from a personal perspective as a soldier. she has no background or experience in foreign policy and she lacks the temperament that is necessary for commander and chief. i've seen the cost of war first hand, i've experienced the consequences of what happens when we have presidents as we have from both political parties in the white house who lack experience, who lack that foreign policy understanding, who therefore fall under the influence of the foreign policy establishment, the military industrial complex. this is what's so dangerous. this is what we've seen occurring over time. if you look at the wasteful regime change wars that have been waged... so, context, context, context. ultimately, predicting she will support trump is silly. linked here: she is brought on around 1:33 and the comment in question begins at 1:48:23. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/throw-them-studio-bows/id1212068497?i=1000445132784
You're saying American isolationism led to WW2? How preposterous. But do elaborate. And you presumably want to prevent WW3 by . . . what? Give specifics, man: preventing WW3 is important! How's the Iraq war going for ya? Afghanistan? Prevented WW3 did they? Ah, I hear you: War is peace. (That's a quote from something.)
she's a soldier on the battlefield and in the courts. we'll see if this lawsuit filed against the overlords leads to anything. https://www.tulsi2020.com/tulsi-vs-...r&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=190725_bigtech https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/technology/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google.html
It seems you are having trouble following the back and forth. Maybe try parsing it again. Among real historians not publishing on your cousins Discord server, US isolationism of the 1930s is pretty universally judged to have been counterproductive. But Pat Buchannan apparently wrote a book about how Hitler was misunderstood and he hasn't been laughed into obscurity, so keep on tilting at windmills if it makes you happy. An interesting corollary is how much money the Nazis pumped into pro-isolationists in the US. Why does that sort of tactic sound so familiar? Useful idiots. Tons of people have difficulty with nuance. Simple all or nothing seems more comfortable. But the real world doesn't work that way. A good craftsman chooses the tool that best fits the job. I am in favor of wars to kill Nazis before they can commit genocide and install a thousand year Reich. Honestly I'm in favor of any war to kill legit Nazis no matter the circumstance. I am not in favor of wars to allow United Fruit Company to install a puppet government in Guatemala so they can keep retail prices on bananas low. If you wish to provide an example extolling the virtues of isolationism, the 1930s is pretty much the worst example in US history to make your case.
Sir, your pomposity is impressive! Now let's muck through your actual claims: "U.S. isolationism was counterproductive." So nebulous, I won't bother to respond. "Pat Buchanan wrote a book." Oh! "Nazis supported isolationism." O.K. "I am in favor of wars to kill Nazis before they can commit genocide." Ah, future crimes. Which specific wars are you in favor of today, to stop the Nazis and all? "I am not in favor of banana wars." Bravo. You forgot to give details on preventing the next "kerfuffle." And it's so important! But you glibly throw around references to Nazis and WW2, hiding in stuffy airs. I defy you to make any connection between Nazis and anyone today. Tell us one war you support right now. I don't support any of them.
I have not made a single claim with respect to today. I made a fairly innocuous point in response to a quote about isolationism in the 1930s and you've somehow managed to interpret that as a declaration that I'm out to get you. Most people eventually figure out that screaming louder than everybody else ans browbeating the entire room is not the same thing as winning an argument.
I imagine most act a little differently while not running for president, but I found the Kamala giggling funny.
I understands she is anti-war more than the other candidates. I also understand that she doesn't want to get involved in someone else civil war. I also understand that she has been lied to (Iraq war) and she's don't trust people in government because of it. But she isn't able to see the difference between being all of that and is so anti-involved in world affair that she is on Assad side? She can just ignore and not consider the mass killing of million of innocent by Assad? You don't have to be pro-Assad to be pro-not-involved / get-the-heck-out-of-there in Syria. It is so weird. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/tulsi-gabbard-bashar-al-assad-syria-democrats
