Her things seem to be Peace and Love + Anti-War. But then she's not really anti-war in some of her talks. I don't yet understand her messages, but haven't care too much to understand more. But what I do see so far is not much different from most candidates --- not much details, overly general ideas, plus spending time attacking others. I prefer talk about solution first and in some details... stop wasting time complaining and attacking.
She is not anti war. She is not a war hawk looking to jump into every conflict when given the opportunity . She is correct. This has been the American position for the last 3 decades. Her positions are hard to follow for two reasons. She doesn't fall rank and file to let one party or another determine her position. Secondly, she admits she doesn't readily have the answers for everything. She is pragmatic. This alone makes her unelectable. Too many in this country are more interested in hearing impractical utopia solutions.
I edited my post to explain a bit more why I wasn't interested before seeing this reply. But I do understand some candidate that doesn't fall rank and file... for her, why I don't understand her is not because she doesn't fall rank and file (I already knew this)... it's because I haven't heard too much details and I'm so far not that interested.
She is fantastic. The media will shoot her down at every opportunity, of course, since she (alone) opposes our 'Blood for Israel' foreign policy.
I agree with her sentiment but that's not what I think should be the basis of a presidential platform.
"Stop regime-chage wars" is pretty damn specific. I know: we don't even know how many wars we're conducting in other countries right now, so it gets confusing. But Gabbard would be against, say, changing the regime in Iran or Syria by use of killing. There aren't that many countries in the world. We can figure out where we killed people today. I hope. [EDIT] DOD report: "OPERATION INHERENT RESOLVE includes casualties that occurred in Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the Mediterranean Sea east of 25° Longitude, the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea." "OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM (Other Locations), includes casualties that occurred between Oct. 7, 2001, and Dec. 31, 2014, in Guantanamo Bay (Cuba), Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Philippines, Seychelles, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Yemen. " https://dod.defense.gov/News/Casualty-Status/
Tulsi was great at the debate. The media would be going gaga over her and not Buttegieg for instance if she toed their line. Tulsi is feared and hated by the bi-partisan consensus for war and militarism. The media craves the excitement of war or possible war and great ad revenue from more viewers. In addition ome of the big media giants are part of conglomerates like GE that make products for wars.
why not mention half a million Iraqis were killed directly in the war? That's the real cost of the war, not 4000 US troops going there killed them.
Don't forget the $1,700,000,000,000 (conservative estimate) we spent. Reminder: there is only $1,700,000,000,000 U.S. currency in circulation.
So true, but Tulsi is playing a bit to the 80% who could give a crap about Iraqi lives. It is sort of like the bi-partisan support for dictators in Central America. who cater to their and our elite which make it hell for their 99%. Dems and some Repubs do cry crocedile tears when kids are in detention along our border. One step at a time. Just try to convince them not to be led around by the nose into another war. I am still remember step by step how the public was deliberately misled into supporting the Iraq War. Dubya, Cheney, the gutless slippery Colon Powell, MSNBC the "liberal" one firing any host who had guests on opposing the deceit, the NYT going along except for a tiny bit of plausible deniability. etc. Only the then weak internet alternate media opposed their case point by point in real time as they trotted out aluminum tubes hoax and Niger uranium, and Curveball and other fake Iraqi sources, which German and other intelligence said were fake etc.. Even a majority of gutless dem politicans, who knew better were afraid to oppose. More recently I saw the polls turn around on Syria intervention, which was initially strongly opposed by the post Iraq American public. In just a month or two mainstream media action had a major effect on the 90% of Americans with no skin in the war game who cheer on the "volunteer" army in action. Obama in one of his best actions did not act till the evidence came in that it was doubtful that Assad gassed the opposition. Big media from Fox, CBS etc and the slippery folks at the NYT can do it on Iran, too. Hopefully we do not have to observe this.. In a bizarre way it is up to Trump, who can give a crap about Iranian lives, and the "volunteer" army but does look at it like "how to I make money on it or can I have a successful hotel in Iran afterwards. Of course if polling shows Trump needs the war for 2020, look out.
The only one I could possibly see as a challenge in 2020. I’m not completely sold but she is far and away the best candidate.
I think Warren is far more nuanced on domestic economic issues. Both Warren and Tulsi have similar views of foreign intervention.
She has a calm sensibility that I really like and not nearly as important but worth mentioning she is easy on the eyes. She comes off as classy lady who you better not F with.
If it was $1700 to kill half a million,should we feel happier? It is like a murderer's biggest regret is the $5 dollar spent on the bullets after he committed a mass murder. That's not the correct honest angle to reflect on wars. That's what I meant. I am glad the cost was huge. It might have played a major role to stop the warmongers and saved the real lives. Trump stopped the war with Iran after knowing the cost could be 150 lives, not $200K on bombs. He has better instinct on this issue even after watching FOX news all day and having Bolton as adviser. He gets my vote on this so far.
