I don't trust Gabbard at all. The Assad stuff -- the point of that whole tragedy is that Russia and the US are jockeying for client-states in the Middle East, and the Arab Spring gave us an opportunity to poach one of Russia's clients. It didn't work out, and much suffering was caused by half-trying. So I can understand her reticence about regime change wars. At the same time, the way she talks about it -- nope, not an enemy of ours! -- seems to ignore or be ignorant of the geopolitical tug-of-war going on. If she was president and Russia started systematically flipping countries in strategic geographies to isolate us and to limit our reach, would she just sit on her hands? But, that's not the main reason I don't trust her. She criticized the US for indicting Julian Assange, saying it was retaliation and a slippery slope toward the abrogation of the first amendment and tyranny. And I get the first amendment argument, that you don't want to put honest journalists in prison for doing their jobs. But, in my view, Assange is an enemy to the US who does not serve our interests, seeks to and has injured us, and should absolutely be in prison for a long time. And to stick up for him as if he were the functional equivalent of the Wall Street Journal is dangerously ignorant, again, of the real geopolitical struggle going on here. It seems like she is such an idealist that she would surrender the country's self-interest to conform to her moral paradigm. My impression is she's a useful idiot, just a different variety than the current president.
It sounds to me like you have a problem with her values, not that she can't be trusted (she's remarkably consistent). You either believe in staying out of unnecessary conflict and the freedom of speech/press, or you don't.
I think that's a false choice with all due respect. I agree with Gabbard on the concept, but see through her facts that paint her concept in a different light. I just posted in the debate thread so I wont repeat post, but just watch the doc video she did, and go through it through the lense of what Assad is trying to propagate. Its subtle but its bizarre when you think about a sitting US Congresswoman contributing to the narrative that Assad actually wasn't the one who murdered his own citizens & that its actually the US in alliance with Al Qaeda. You can achieve an anti-regime change stance without propping up a false Assad/Putin lie.
Not really. On values I might be aligned because I don't want the US to keep playing the hegemon. But, one of the primary functions of the president is to protect the interests of the United States of America. I don't trust her to do that.
I will add though that I trust Gabbard more than Trump to run the country despite how alarming her past has been in regards to Assad & Syria. However if she did win, just wait till the Lindsay Grahams and Marco Rubio's are then free to start criticizing Russian peace making policy again. She would be unable to govern with any sort of Republican body co-governing with this hanging over her head.
I believe it has to do with her strange past and upbringing in a what was basically a cult. Her dad was a piece of work whose beliefs fit right in with some of the mistake-in-chief supporters. That sort of crap dumped into a kid growing up does not just go away. She is cute but I don't trust her.
There are a ton of people whom I believe have policies and values that would ultimately harm the country, but I do not assume they are acting with negative intent. For me to "not trust" someone they have to lack integrity and consistency in their values and actions (or worse yet assume they are deliberately trying to cause harm). It's a poor choice of words to confuse the two concepts IMO.
Julian Assange has nothing to do with "press." He acted like a hostile foreign agent, has been indicted for breaking laws that journalists do not break, and with noted exchanges with a hostile foreign power. The fact that she sticks up for Assange, and then that she has some bots of the foreign state working on her behalf, really concern me when taken together.
Nor is he a US citizen. Since when have our laws had jurisdiction on non-citizens who commit "crimes" on foreign soil? Why not just drone the man and get it over with?
Eh, you're putting a lot of your baggage on me. Like all English words, "trust" has many and nuanced uses. I don't mean she lacks integrity (unless it is possible dereliction of duty) or consistency or that she means to cause harm. I mean that I cannot rely on her to perform at a level that I think she ought because she lacks the wisdom required. But, I'll keep using "trust" because I think it sums up the idea in the most eloquent way and I'll hope most folks can catch my meaning. Now that I've told you what I mean with the word, maybe you can as well. With that out of the way, do you have any thoughts about my intuition that she could jeopardize national interest by trying to protect the first amendment (in an inappropriate way imo) or by ceding too much international influence to our adversaries? Am I wrong to think she would? Am I wrong to think that's bad?
He's spent the last several years in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, so "droning him" would have been problematic, to put it mildly. The Ecuadorians let him do stay there until the current government of that country became fed up not only with going to the trouble (he isn't a citizen of that country, after all, not as far as I know), but of putting up with what's been reported as increasingly bizarre behavior inside the embassy by Assange. Put me in the column of people who think he should be behind bars for many, many years. Either in a prison here, a prison in the UK, or a prison in Sweden, who's trying to get him extradited there to face charges of sexual assault, or rape, or something like that. Personally, I'd rather see him extradited to the US to sit in a federal prison. If either one the other two countries want him, however, they are welcome to him, just so long as he spends years paying for what he did.
I thought the drone question was obviously hyperbolic, apparently it wasn't exaggerative enough. Nevertheless, by many accounts the dude is a scumbag. He's currently serving a 50 week sentence in a UK prison for crimes committed in the EU (fleeing bail). This is one that makes sense to me. Commit a crime, do the time. So, what crime exactly did he commit? None of the allegations I've seen, including the indictment link @B-Bob posted, state that Assange committed a chargeable felony while on US soil. This would be akin to Canada wanting to extradite a US citizen and charge them with hate speech since they don't have that protection. Since when has the US had jurisdiction on foreign soil? And as for Sweeden and the rape allegations, they're holding off... for now. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...olds-off-on-investigation-order-idUSKCN1TY1E3 edit: apologies for taking this thread further off course. It's likely that she won't make the September debates in Houston but for what it's worth she picked up 21,000+ twitter followers after last night according to 528. Second most to Yang. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-second-democratic-debate-in-5-charts/
I was going along with the gag. I didn't think you were serious. As for the crimes? Here's some of them. Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, May 23, 2019 WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Charged in 18-Count Superseding Indictment Charges Related to Illegally Obtaining, Receiving and Disclosing Classified Information A federal grand jury returned an 18-count superseding indictment today charging Julian P. Assange, 47, the founder of WikiLeaks, with offenses that relate to Assange’s alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States. Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney G. Zachary Terwilliger for the Eastern District of Virginia, Assistant Director John Brown of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division and Acting Assistant Director in Charge Timothy Dunham of the FBI’s Washington Field Office made the announcement. The superseding indictment alleges that Assange was complicit with Chelsea Manning, a former intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army, in unlawfully obtaining and disclosing classified documents related to the national defense. Specifically, the superseding indictment alleges that Assange conspired with Manning; obtained from Manning and aided and abetted her in obtaining classified information with reason to believe that the information was to be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation; received and attempted to receive classified information having reason to believe that such materials would be obtained, taken, made, and disposed of by a person contrary to law; and aided and abetted Manning in communicating classified documents to Assange. After agreeing to receive classified documents from Manning and aiding, abetting, and causing Manning to provide classified documents, the superseding indictment charges that Assange then published on WikiLeaks classified documents that contained the unredacted names of human sources who provided information to United States forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to U.S. State Department diplomats around the world. These human sources included local Afghans and Iraqis, journalists, religious leaders, human rights advocates, and political dissidents from repressive regimes. According to the superseding indictment, Assange’s actions risked serious harm to United States national security to the benefit of our adversaries and put the unredacted named human sources at a grave and imminent risk of serious physical harm and/or arbitrary detention. The superseding indictment alleges that beginning in late 2009, Assange and WikiLeaks actively solicited United States classified information, including by publishing a list of “Most Wanted Leaks” that sought, among other things, classified documents. Manning responded to Assange’s solicitations by using access granted to her as an intelligence analyst to search for United States classified documents, and provided to Assange and WikiLeaks databases containing approximately 90,000 Afghanistan war-related significant activity reports, 400,000 Iraq war-related significant activities reports, 800 Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, and 250,000 U.S. Department of State cables. Many of these documents were classified at the Secret level, meaning that their unauthorized disclosure could cause serious damage to United States national security. Manning also provided rules of engagement files for the Iraq war, most of which were also classified at the Secret level and which delineated the circumstances and limitations under which United States forces would initiate or conduct combat engagement with other forces. The superseding indictment alleges that Manning and Assange engaged in real-time discussions regarding Manning’s transmission of classified records to Assange. The discussions also reflect that Assange actively encouraged Manning to provide more information and agreed to crack a password hash stored on U.S. Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet), a United States government network used for classified documents and communications. Assange is also charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to crack that password hash. Assange is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison on each count except for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, for which he faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Tracy Doherty-McCormick, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kellen S. Dwyer, Thomas W. Traxler and Gordon D. Kromberg, and Trial Attorneys Matthew R. Walczewski and Nicholas O. Hunter of the Justice Department’s National Security Division are prosecuting the case. An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty in court. www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-charged-18-count-superseding-indictment
Fair enough. I was overreaching there as I've seen a reoccurring theme between the two in many discussions of the topic. You can see how quickly it turned into "just drone the ****er", even here. I'm not surprised that Tulsi is being supported by our geopolitical adversaries when it is convenient for them to do so. Just because her values and an item on their current agenda happen to align does not concern me, same as I was not all that concerned about Trump as some kind of plant (useful idiot yes, manchurian candidate no). It is only a matter of chance and time before we will all find ourselves aligning with outside influences at one point or another on any given matter.
Thanks for your engagement. I'm not looking to troll here. You posted the same link as Bob did in post #169. Unless I'm completely missing it, I don't see where Assange committed these crimes on US soil. He's not a US citizen so he doesn't have 1st amendment protections but he also isn't under US laws regarding the release of classified documents. I'm just trying to figure out how he's eligible to be charged? I truly don't know. Example situations: A German citizen visiting the US murders someone that person is subject to the laws of this nation and then deported after serving his sentence. This makes sense. A Chinese citizen, living in China, works with someone in the US to steal classified information does the US go after all involved parties or only the individuals in the US?
I'm just trying to make sure words mean the same thing to everyone in the discussion. You're never wrong to consider the downsides of any candidate. All I know is that my values align with hers largely on the topic of foreign policy and intervention (this also includes drone striking turds like Assange). If she/I didn't think those values and guiding principles were in the best end-game interest of the country, we wouldn't hold those values. I suspect you feel the same.
We have an extradition treaty with the United Kingdom, as well as several other countries. In other words, treaties allowing the extraditon of foreign nationals who have been charged with crimes in the US. I don't know if the UK will extradite Assange to the United States or not, but they have every right to. It's up to Britain. We can't force them to. Heck, Sweden decided a while back that they would also like to have Assange and put him on trial for entirely different reasons. So the UK can keep him, send him to Sweden, send him here. or send him somewhere else that would agree to take him. It's subject to their judicial process, of course, as Assange would be were he sent to the US or Sweden. There would be a trial, etc., to decide his fate. The United Kingdom could also decide to drop all charges they have against him tomorrow and let him stay in their country indefinitely. I think that's very unlikely to happen. We'll see.
I think I like her but I haven't really paid attention to any candidate yet. Anyone have a link to some online survey where I answer some questions and it aligns me with a particular candidate?
