https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...d_is_assad_an_enemy_of_the_united_states.html Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Assad Is Not Our Enemy Becuase He Doesn't Pose A Direct Threat To The U.S. Sounds to me like someone interested in keeping America out of another stupid war.
As I said, that's all good and fine. But you don't have to be Pro Assad to take this stance. Look, from my viewpoint, I have seen enough of this lady to believe she's got a twisted view. The lawsuit against Google is part of the trend. She has a distrust of power... i get it, and it's due to what she experienced. But put a check on it. I personally cannot get behind someone that tend to get pulled into conspiracy theory. That said, I would vote for her 100000000x if she's the candidate.
sure, if 500k (or whatever the actual #) vs killing of million of innocent is what really matter here
I don't see her being pro Assad. I'm still waiting for the context of the statements you put forward. This reminds me a lot of the "pro Saddam" crap we heard in 2002-03 towards anybody who didn't want to go to Iraq. Just corporate media and bought politicians doing the propaganda tango because they see dollars in another war. Let's not be that worst version of ourselves all over again. As for Google, it's not about conspiracy, it's about legal remedy and shedding light on big tech's power and influence. What Google did to her was extremely hurtful to her campaign, and they have to answer for it. There need not be a conspiracy to seek clarity and restitution for that.
That article interestingly lacks many quotes from Gabbard that actually show her to be “pro-Assad”. There is a link to an op-ed written by her about the trip, but it’s behind a paywall. It seems like a narrative was created about her by political/media elites who feel she strayed too far away from US diplomatic norms, and it has stuck.
It's not about diplomatic norms. It's that she is standing between Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Booz Allen Hamilton, and a pile of money.
There's a little of that, but I encourage you to listed to her interviews where she's pressed about Assad. It's not that she has a PRO-Assad take as if it is an endorsement, its the way she always.... I mean always... goes off on a side tangent and twists herself in knots. You don't need to go into the US's position on Al Qaeda to simply admit that Assad is a dictator that used chemical weapons on his own people. So to me, its not the substance, its the way that question continues to cause bizarre responses. Again.. I want VERY much to like Gabbard, and think either way she's got a bright future if she wants it. I just want her to get her story straight on this issue, and I want better answers as to why Russian trolls, and the right media has a fascination with her. I don't think it has to be any nefarious on Tulsi's behalf, I just want to know what is up with it? Sorry for having any sort of radar that pops up when Russia supports someone with leftist views in a consequential election. It would be malfeasance after 2016, Jill Stein, etc. to not at least ask the question.
That's fine as far as legal remedy. It's also fine to get to the bottom of why it happen. It's conspiracy theory to charge google did it purposefully because of her views. You are probably right about politicians and media to an extend, and there is a history of that. But she has refused to accept the US and international community assessments on the Assad regime as launching chemical attacks, that dated back to 2012. Listen to her recent interview in the CNN town hall meeting. She is pretty wishy washy about it and basically said, UNTIL THERE IS REAL evidence... .I don't know what she can trust - her own personal investigation there? I personally prefer the argument.. yes, there is evidence of Assad killing innocent, but that was not happening (at least to this extend) when there wasn't a civil war. The civil war needs to end. US involvement is only prolonging it. We need to get out, for our own good and for civilian there.
As you say, the criticism against her, to me, seems to not be very substantive. Maybe she doesn’t want to go in hard rhetorically against Assad at this stage because she thinks it would be counter productive to achieving peace in that region of the world. And she isn’t going to allow herself to be boxed into repeating US talking points which may potentially jeapoardize that.
Also - in the end, I want the Dem party to be able to win back some of the less crazy people that are in this third bucket that is now firmly sympathetic to Trump, and hates both parties with a vengeance. I call it the Joe Rogan party. The kind of people that listen to his podcasts that in the end voted for Trump, and consume alot of right wing media that also is infatuated with Gabbard. I want the candidate & vision for the future to look & feel fresh on ideas, and really have our act together. If we don't address the monkey in the room that there are essentially two out of three American political parties that are voting for Trump (one out of cowardice, and the other out of rebellion to the system) then we are going to be divided & weaker as a nation for a very long time. That's partly why I find Gabbard so fascinating. She certainly has the attention of the people that are drawn to this political party that also support Trump. Her world (the Joe Rogan Party) is going to help put Trump back in the White House for a second, and potentially third term if we don't figure out WTF is going on, and address it.
Tell that to your friends down here. Assad has been responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of his own people. The exact number is only an estimate because there's been a civil war going on for years, with Assad on the ropes until President Obama emboldened the Russians by not following up on his "red line" threat. The Russians, utterly ruthless under Putin, trump's pal, have turned things around for the Syrian dictator. Be a better poster, dude, and talk to your buddies here about the "fake news" they are so in love with. Thanks in advance.
I do think it lacks some substance I agree, but that doesn't mean it does NOT raise a red flag to me. Also - shes a FAR way away from the White House to worry about being boxed in during direct negotiations. As a candidate, I want her to have better more firm answers. Look at Trump as an example of how NOT to talk about foreign dictators. Competent and strong leaders call out dictators quickly, then pivot to a solution to solve the issue that drives bad behavior. On NK, Iran, Russia, etc. all of these candidates need to be skilled up enough to do this. Its presidential skill 101. Look.... Its on her to put this thing to bed, and in interviews she continues to tie herself into knots and get defensive. Kamala knew what she was doing yesterday when she threw that out there. She knew it was something that she'd get asked about and trip all over as she did. Now we are all talking about it rather than talking about her strengths. Substance as a candidate is a two way street, and if she's going to be a serious candidate she's got to learn how to have clear concise answers on this.
It's a civil war, my buddy, and guess what: we're involved. So chalk up some of those deaths to the U.S. of A. Did you ever stop to ask wtf right we have to have troops in someone else's country uninvited? Do you really want to take out more loans to illegally occupy another country? If you are so self-righteously distressed about the deaths, maybe you would want to get U.S. weapons out of there?
