Tulsi Gabbard 2020 campaign megathread

[LAKISYLVANIA]

LOL @all the people who say they vote over Trump over Tulsi when they're a Democrat...

[LAKISYLVANIA]

She's basically already done. Twitter is crushing her.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

She's right on the Assad issue IMO, that doesn't make her past homophobic statements less disgusting, and her Assad stance is being framed in a different way as being "the pro-Assad candidate" while in fact she's the isolationist candidate instead of the pro war or neocon candidate. Being framed as pro-Assad just hurts her a lot though.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

You gotta love the gaslighting here by the "progressives". Gabbard is neither an isolasionist, not anti-war. She slammed Obama for being too timid in Syria and not dropping enough bombs like Putin.

Tulsi Gabbard, Iraq War Veteran and Skeptic of America's Wars, Will Run for President in 2020

Stop telling lies.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1083875193804619776?ref_src=twsrc...

Lol, 4 might actually be a positive for her. And 5 is certainly not a negative.

Also, the irony of it.

1: Let's not talk about who the Trump campaign met during their campaign?
2: Does Trump condemn Assad?
3: Well progressives should certainly not vote for Trump either if they blast over her on the issues.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

She's totally right. In terms of foreign policy, Gabbard is clearly the most qualified person of all the presidential candidates.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

She's totally right. In terms of foreign policy, Gabbard is clearly the most qualified person of all the presidential candidates.

That message was approved by Vladimir Putin and Bassar Al-Assad.

The USA has no business to do in Syria and Russia. I'm not interested in a second cold war, while most of the Democrats and Republicans clearly are for whatever reasons. But clearly, we apparently haven't learned from pointless wars like the one in Iraq.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

She's totally right. In terms of foreign policy, Gabbard is clearly the most qualified person of all the presidential candidates.

That message was approved by Vladimir Putin and Bassar Al-Assad.

The USA has no business to do in Syria and Russia. I'm not interested in a second cold war, while most of the Democrats and Republicans clearly are for whatever reasons. But clearly, we apparently haven't learned from pointless wars like the one in Iraq.

Every nation in the world has business to do when someone commits genocide.
I thought that was a consensus position after 1945.

If this was about preventing genocides from happening, than why haven't we invaded Myanmar, or was this never even being an option? And while i'm definitely not pro-Assad and condemn his use of chemical weapons and other war crimes, it's like not that the (fractured) opposition hasn't slaughtered thousands of people (remember, ISIS is also opposition in Syria).

Invading Syria was only being considered as part of power politics, because it's one of Russian closest or only allies left over in the Middle East. The Middle East is already pretty ****ed up because of geopolitics and western influences in the past. It's a mess because we've created the borders of the countries ourselves and didn't respect borders of cultures, ethnicities and where people live, just to make that area easier to control, back in the times of imperalism. Maybe it's time to abandon our interventionist approach, and recognize and respect that those countries and their people are wise and mature enough to shape their own paths from now on, without western meddling (and at least without military action).