Tulsi Gabbard will win the Democratic nomination in 2020.

[JA]

I absolutely won't vote for her. She's an example of the weird, as Progressive called it, alt-left, which has more in common with Trump and the alt-right than with Progressivism or even Socialism. Yeah, she may have supported Sanders in the primary and joined the protesters at Standing Rock, for which she deserves applause, but her rebuking of anyone who criticizes the number of generals being put in Trump's cabinet and her aggressive association of ISIS with Islam, essentially stealing a page from the right-wing's playbook, discredits her in my eyes. Not only that, but her associations with the Hindu Nationalist BJP are undeniable; a party which has received international condemnation for its harsh treatment and racism towards Muslims. Sorry, but I don't think our country needs two bigoted Islamophobes at the top of national party tickets.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/curious-islamophobic-politics-dem-congressmember-tulsi-gabbard

[JA]

The fact that so many of you, the people who are supposed to be the most ardent opponents of bigotry, are willing or are even enthusiastic to support an Islamophobe to head the Democratic ticket is appalling. There's photographic evidence of her open affiliation with the ruling Hindu nationalist party that's being internationally condemned for their violation of human rights and systemic discrimination against the Indian Muslim community. I guess it's ok when a Democrat is a bigot, so long as they have a D next to their name and support some progressive causes.

[JA]

The fact that so many of you, the people who are supposed to be the most ardent opponents of bigotry, are willing or are even enthusiastic to support an Islamophobe to head the Democratic ticket is appalling. There's photographic evidence of her open affiliation with the ruling Hindu nationalist party that's being internationally condemned for their violation of human rights and systemic discrimination against the Indian Muslim community. I guess it's ok when a Democrat is a bigot, so long as they have a D next to their name and support some progressive causes.

OH NO! Tulsi took a photo with an activist belonging to India's ruling party. She's also taken photos with members of India's Congress party.





It's almost like her "interest is in helping cultivate a closer relationship between the US and India, not just between the US and one political party of India."

That's a quote from her. Here's another:

"Both in India and here in the US, I have held meetings with members of both the BJP and the Congress party. I am known in America for being nonpartisan — I successfully work with Democrats and Republicans alike to get things done for the people."

Tell me again why you think she's an Islamophobe? Because that "photographic evidence" (lol) isn't convincing.

Here's a picture of Hillary embracing Robert Byrd:



Hillary must be affiliated with the KKK!

If it was merely photographic evidence of her friendliness with the Hindu nationalist party, then yes, that could be dismissed (although it'd still raise valid concerns). Rather, it's that, plus her eccentric and essentially right-wing views concerning terrorism and Islam. She has adopted the rhetoric of the right-wing on the issue. That is simply undeniable.

You can try to dismiss her bigotry for whatever reason you want, but it exists and should disqualify her as a candidate in the eyes of anyone who opposes Islamophobia and bigotry.

[JA]

The fact that so many of you, the people who are supposed to be the most ardent opponents of bigotry, are willing or are even enthusiastic to support an Islamophobe to head the Democratic ticket is appalling. There's photographic evidence of her open affiliation with the ruling Hindu nationalist party that's being internationally condemned for their violation of human rights and systemic discrimination against the Indian Muslim community. I guess it's ok when a Democrat is a bigot, so long as they have a D next to their name and support some progressive causes.

OH NO! Tulsi took a photo with an activist belonging to India's ruling party. She's also taken photos with members of India's Congress party.





It's almost like her "interest is in helping cultivate a closer relationship between the US and India, not just between the US and one political party of India."

That's a quote from her. Here's another:

"Both in India and here in the US, I have held meetings with members of both the BJP and the Congress party. I am known in America for being nonpartisan — I successfully work with Democrats and Republicans alike to get things done for the people."

Tell me again why you think she's an Islamophobe? Because that "photographic evidence" (lol) isn't convincing.

Here's a picture of Hillary embracing Robert Byrd:



Hillary must be affiliated with the KKK!

If it was merely photographic evidence of her friendliness with the Hindu nationalist party, then yes, that could be dismissed (although it'd still raise valid concerns). Rather, it's that, plus her eccentric and essentially right-wing views concerning terrorism and Islam. She has adopted the rhetoric of the right-wing on the issue. That is simply undeniable.

You can try to dismiss her bigotry for whatever reason you want, but it exists and should disqualify her as a candidate in the eyes of anyone who opposes Islamophobia and bigotry.

Again, what bigotry? Show me where Tulsi has shown herself to be an Islamophobic bigot. Having "right-wing" views concerning "radical Islamic terrorism" doesn't make a person a bigot.

I actually find her views concerning Islamism, Islam, and terrorism quite nuanced and level-headed. Her reputation as a Democrat who is "tough on terror" will probably help her during a general anyways.

Therein lies the heart of our disagreement. I do believe right-wing views concerning Islam and terrorism are Islamophobic. While the association between some parts of political Islam and terrorism are irrefutable, using the phrase "Islamic terrorism" is essentially a dog whistle and it risks public officials validating the irrational fears and prejudice many in the public have towards Muslims and Islam. It also risks further alienating our Muslim allies and those in our own country, which would only exacerbate the problem of radicalization.

[JA]

I absolutely won't vote for her. She's an example of the weird, as Progressive called it, alt-left, which has more in common with Trump and the alt-right than with Progressivism or even Socialism. Yeah, she may have supported Sanders in the primary and joined the protesters at Standing Rock, for which she deserves applause, but her rebuking of anyone who criticizes the number of generals being put in Trump's cabinet and her aggressive association of ISIS with Islam, essentially stealing a page from the right-wing's playbook, discredits her in my eyes. Not only that, but her associations with the Hindu Nationalist BJP are undeniable; a party which has received international condemnation for its harsh treatment and racism towards Muslims. Sorry, but I don't think our country needs two bigoted Islamophobes at the top of national party tickets.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/curious-islamophobic-politics-dem-congressmember-tulsi-gabbard

You need to realize that radical Islam is a problem in America. You say it all the time about Christianity, stop pandering to Muslims and say the truth.

I don't recall having said anything about Christianity on this forum, and certainly not "all the time." And I don't need to "realize" something that doesn't exist outside of paranoid minds. The reality is that you're more likely to be the victim of a crazed Christian than a Muslim.

Also, it's funny how you conclude I'm "pandering to Muslims" by simply refusing to buy into paranoid, bigoted rhetoric about them. People are treating Muslims like they treated the Communists of last century - and it's pretty appalling.

[JA]

I absolutely won't vote for her. She's an example of the weird, as Progressive called it, alt-left, which has more in common with Trump and the alt-right than with Progressivism or even Socialism. Yeah, she may have supported Sanders in the primary and joined the protesters at Standing Rock, for which she deserves applause, but her rebuking of anyone who criticizes the number of generals being put in Trump's cabinet and her aggressive association of ISIS with Islam, essentially stealing a page from the right-wing's playbook, discredits her in my eyes. Not only that, but her associations with the Hindu Nationalist BJP are undeniable; a party which has received international condemnation for its harsh treatment and racism towards Muslims. Sorry, but I don't think our country needs two bigoted Islamophobes at the top of national party tickets.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/curious-islamophobic-politics-dem-congressmember-tulsi-gabbard

You need to realize that radical Islam is a problem in America. You say it all the time about Christianity, stop pandering to Muslims and say the truth.

I don't recall having said anything about Christianity on this forum, and certainly not "all the time." And I don't need to "realize" something that doesn't exist outside of paranoid minds. The reality is that you're more likely to be the victim of a crazed Christian than a Muslim.

Also, it's funny how you conclude I'm "pandering to Muslims" by simply refusing to buy into paranoid, bigoted rhetoric about them. People are treating Muslims like they treated the Communists of last century - and it's pretty appalling.

Again, that does not mean that we take our eyes off what they are doing. Not all Muslims are saints, and not all Christians are saints, but the Democrats are making it seem like if all Christians are evil and all Muslims are good. Look at both sides.

In any group of people you have good and bad, whether they're Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, Democrat, Republican, or whatever. We shouldn'treat any group as inherently bad unless there's something clearly stated in their beliefs, which they act upon, that'd validate such treatment (like the KKK and ISIS). That also doesn't mean we target a group of people for the actions of a few.

[JA]

Palling around with David Duke on Twitter tonight. Absolutely disgusting. I hope progressives in Hawaii primary her.

I wouldn't exactly consider David Duke retweeting her to be her "palling around" with him. She didn't say a word to or interact with him in any way, from what I could find.

[JA]

I'm still surprised by how active the runtulsirun Facebook page is.  Looks like they just came out with a new logo:

Please god, no. I'd absolutely hate not being able to vote for the Democrat against Trump.

[JA]

What policy positions does Tulsi have which would make Democrats unable to support her?

Incredible war hawk.

Supports universal healthcare, is anti-TPP, wants to toughen up on Wall Street and so on.

In other words, she's the antithesis of everything the Booker crowd wants.

Sure, there are areas to disagree with her on, but at least make it genuine. She's not an over-the-top war hawk. Heck, Obama's got what, 7 wars going on now? Plus, she's said herself she wants to put an end to wars of regime change, something Hillary has voted for in the past.

At least make your disagreements with her genuine instead of lining up fake attacks.

Adopting rhetoric on Islam and terrorism that's aligned with the Breitbart crowd, even to the right of the Bush administration, isn't disqualifying to the so-called "progressives"? Aligning yourself with the RT/Breitbart/Putin/Assad/Trump side on Middle East matters isn't disqualifying to the so-called "progressives"? Sorry, but I'll take a Wall Street backed Corey Booker over this Russophile Islamophobe any day.

[JA]

I get really confused by some people on this message board. I'm a registered Independent but I'll be supporting the nominee with the best chance to defeat Donald Trump,

It doesn't really count as defeating Donald Trump unless the candidate who beats him is actually different from him.

You're out of your mind if you think Trump and Tulsi are the same.

Oh, I'm sure they have some minor managerial disagreements over inconsequential bullsh**t like what the exact tax rates should be or whatever, but at the end of the day, a gulag is a gulag.

"All Muslims now live in camps, but at least President Gabbard raised the top marginal tax rate to 36.5%. FF! "

That's a tad dramatic, but I can't deny I generally concur with your sentiments.

[JA]

What policy positions does Tulsi have which would make Democrats unable to support her?

Incredible war hawk.

Supports universal healthcare, is anti-TPP, wants to toughen up on Wall Street and so on.

In other words, she's the antithesis of everything the Booker crowd wants.

Sure, there are areas to disagree with her on, but at least make it genuine. She's not an over-the-top war hawk. Heck, Obama's got what, 7 wars going on now? Plus, she's said herself she wants to put an end to wars of regime change, something Hillary has voted for in the past.

At least make your disagreements with her genuine instead of lining up fake attacks.

Adopting rhetoric on Islam and terrorism that's aligned with the Breitbart crowd, even to the right of the Bush administration, isn't disqualifying to the so-called "progressives"? Aligning yourself with the RT/Breitbart/Putin/Assad/Trump side on Middle East matters isn't disqualifying to the so-called "progressives"? Sorry, but I'll take a Wall Street backed Corey Booker over this Russophile Islamophobe any day.

Why? Economic policy matters in everyday life. Booker would harm more people than Gabbard.

Because there's more to life than material interests. But what you're saying is that so long as the candidate is right on economic matters and only targets a politicaly  insignificant and small minority, then who cares, right? Sorry, but not everyone has the privilege to view the world that way.

[JA]

Worth noting she voted against a motion condemning Russia's bombing of Syria; and was one of only 4 house members to do so (or some stupidly small number)

Who cares? Toeing the RT line on foreign policy and spouting Breitbart rhetoric about Islam is perfectly acceptable to the left today so long as you endorsed Sanders and are supposedly economic populists.

[JA]

Ds should not follow Hillary's lead on FP views, I think if you polled most Dems they'd agree with Tulsi/Bernie view regarding the ME.

I'm not siding with the Clinton foreign policy in regards to the Middle East. But I'm also not adopting the RT perspective that Assad is the best of a bad situation or that Russia and Iran's intervention hasn't led to mass slaughter resulting from the total disregard all three of these regimes (plus the rebels and militants) have demonstrated towards basic human rights. Russia, Syria, Iran, the rebels, and the militants all deserve to be internationally condemned for their actions in this bloodbath. None of them are in the right.

By Gabbard being one of only 4 Congress people to vote against a resolution condemning Russia is abhorrent. Do I believe we, as a nation, have the obligation to play a central role in world affairs, in collaboration with our NATO partners and the UN, to uphold human rights and democracy around the world? Absolutely. Isolationism and Putin friendly nonsense have become disturbingly common in our country.

You either overthrow Assad or you don't.

Which is it?

We don't need to be picking sides in a war where all sides are guilty of atrocities. If any of them gain power (which, at this point, it's hard to see how al-Assad loses), the others will suffer immensely as the winner will assume they can do whatever they want. There's no winning in this war. The best we can do is pressure all sides act in accordance with international law and punish them when they violate that. It's not much, but it's really all that can be done.

[JA]

Ds should not follow Hillary's lead on FP views, I think if you polled most Dems they'd agree with Tulsi/Bernie view regarding the ME.

I'm not siding with the Clinton foreign policy in regards to the Middle East. But I'm also not adopting the RT perspective that Assad is the best of a bad situation or that Russia and Iran's intervention hasn't led to mass slaughter resulting from the total disregard all three of these regimes (plus the rebels and militants) have demonstrated towards basic human rights. Russia, Syria, Iran, the rebels, and the militants all deserve to be internationally condemned for their actions in this bloodbath. None of them are in the right.

By Gabbard being one of only 4 Congress people to vote against a resolution condemning Russia is abhorrent. Do I believe we, as a nation, have the obligation to play a central role in world affairs, in collaboration with our NATO partners and the UN, to uphold human rights and democracy around the world? Absolutely. Isolationism and Putin friendly nonsense have become disturbingly common in our country.

You either overthrow Assad or you don't.

Which is it?

We don't need to be picking sides in a war where all sides are guilty of atrocities. If any of them gain power (which, at this point, it's hard to see how al-Assad loses), the others will suffer immensely as the winner will assume they can do whatever they want. There's no winning in this war. The best we can do is pressure all sides act in accordance with international law and punish them when they violate that. It's not much, but it's really all that can be done.

The question I posed to you wasn't a question dealing with "picking sides." The argument a lot of you here appear to be making is that taking the position of "do not overthrow Assad" means you are somehow sympathetic to the Assad regime and his human rights violations.

Tulsi believes that Assad is morally reprehensible and often refers to him as a brutal dictator, but she also believes that overthrowing Assad would create more devastation, human suffering, and refugees while strengthening terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. Keeping Assad in power is, in her eyes, the best option out of a slew of terrible options for now.

How exactly do you suggest we punish Assad?

Considering al-Assad isn't responsive to direct Western pressure, the best way to control him is indirectly, similar to how we pressure North Korea via China. That's why we've been pressuring Russia so much on their relationship with the al-Assad regime and their actions in that country. Personally, I'd like to see the current sanctions on Russia expanded and the noose tightened. Iran shouldn't be spared either, we should use sanctions on them as well. This is not to make them change their position in regards to Syria, only to punish them for their human rights violations in Syria and to make them put pressure on al-Assad to stop his.

[JA]

When did Syria and Russia become the single most important issue for red avatars on this board? I'm not saying it isn't important, because it is, but why are so many of you all of the sudden single issue voters when it comes to this?

This argument is the hallmark of a lost cause; and similar to when people would scream 'why do you care about gay marriage when the economy is in tank!' about 4-5 years ago. Even if it wasn't an important issue (which it is) it's still a barometer of your values/political outlook; supporting Assad over people who rose up in what started as a civil protest in 2010 is a foul, and awful view for anyone who claims to be on the centre left/left. When people like George Galloway support Assad it shows just how awful it is.

It's not awful to not support ISIS and Al Qaeda over Assad.

But it's awful to think that Assad is a lesser evil, or somehow a preferable choice. When people on the left were cheering the 'liberation of Aleppo' last week it shows how morally bankrupt the far left has been on foreign policy for years

Compared to ISIS and Al Qaeda, Assad is the lesser evil.

I'm pretty sure the people being barrel bombed, shot in their homes and in the streets, and being mass slaughtered by their own government might disagree with you. There are no lesser evils in this war.

[JA]

The smear campaign against Tulsi is disturbing. People are pinning everything on her, oh X group in foreign countrt (a non-violent religious one, not very different to evangelicals) support you, you went to FOX & what not.

This is the same thing people did with Ellison, anytime anti-establishment Dem comes up, you smear him or her. I remember people making a huge deal of some 50 year old letter Bernie wrote but I don't see any1 becoming the equally irrelevant creepy stuff of Biden sniffing hair, kissing wives & grown up daughters & what not.

This is just sad - Till now we have no proof that Tulsi has done anything really discriminatory. For all we know she went & campaigned in Dakota for the environment, for the right of natives. She has a great resume.

Give her a chance. She will likely not be ready in 2020 IMO. She is way too young. But people should be patient & watch over a few hours than really passing these far fetched judgments.

I'm pretty sure those of us who dislike Gabbard aren't the pro-establishment types. I was a proud Sanders supporter during the primaries and my disagreements with her stem from her horrific foreign policy and rightwing rhetoric on Islam and terrorism. The woman spouts RT style propaganda, goes on FOX to talk nonsense (like saying Americans criticizing Trump's appointment of all these generals are less patriotic than the generals), and is beloved by the Breitbart and David Duke crowd for her approach to Islam and foreign policy. If that's who you guys want to associate with, that's your prerogative. But if she's the nominee, our party has just lost a member.

[JA]

Yet she supports Putin's actions in Syria...

War is only bad if America does it!

Thank Pravda (Russia Today) for helping spread this BS notion to the kooky left/right.

[JA]

Tulsi seems to follow the alt right perspective that the current War On Terror is entirely due to theological disagreement. Any nuance or attempts to explain differences through economic reasoning is an attack on OMG COMMON SENSE!!!!

Exactly. So what does that tell us about so many of these progressives who praise her for this or are at least willing to overlook it? The neo-fascists and many on the left have beliefs that overlap, even if it'd appear otherwise.