Kamala Harris vs Tuisi Gabbard

[Beet]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

[Beet]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

[Beet]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

[Beet]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

You take the view that she's "protecting Assad," even though she has said she'd call for his execution if he was found guilty of war crimes in an international court, and I take the view that she's trying to protect our troops by not thrusting the US into another regime change war.

Then why hasn't she spoken out against military strikes on North Korea? I would be happy to support her if she was equally vocal on that, as it would prove my fears about her favoritism toward Assad wrong.

[Beet]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

Tulsi Gabbard, as an Iraq War veteran, understands better than most Americans the pitfalls of American intervention in the Middle East.

So everyone who is an Iraq war veteran can't be questioned or disagreed with on foreign policy in the Middle East? Adam Kinzinger is an Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran and supports intervention.

[Beet]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

You take the view that she's "protecting Assad," even though she has said she'd call for his execution if he was found guilty of war crimes in an international court, and I take the view that she's trying to protect our troops by not thrusting the US into another regime change war.

Then why hasn't she spoken out against military strikes on North Korea? I would be happy to support her if she was equally vocal on that, as it would prove my fears about her favoritism toward Assad wrong.

I'm sorry, have we conducted military strikes on NK? Is that an option that is seriously being considered by the administration? Has Gabbard spoken in favor of strikes on NK? Has Harris put out a statement on striking NK?

Obviously we haven't conducted strikes, but yes, they are loudly being considered by the administration and have for some time now. Gabbard didn't wait until actual strikes occurred in Syria to state her position. Sanders has said we should not act unilaterally or recklessly, so what is her position? No Harris hasn't put out a statement, but Harris hasn't built her identity around opposing "regime change wars" to the extent that she met personally with Assad and agrees with his government line on everything for the sake of "peace". By that standard Gabbard should meet with Kim Jong Un for peace. If her positions are based on universal principles like protecting U.S. troops as you said, and not a desire to protect certain foreign interests, she now is by no means too early to speak out.

[Beet]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

You take the view that she's "protecting Assad," even though she has said she'd call for his execution if he was found guilty of war crimes in an international court, and I take the view that she's trying to protect our troops by not thrusting the US into another regime change war.

Then why hasn't she spoken out against military strikes on North Korea? I would be happy to support her if she was equally vocal on that, as it would prove my fears about her favoritism toward Assad wrong.

I'm sorry, have we conducted military strikes on NK? Is that an option that is seriously being considered by the administration? Has Gabbard spoken in favor of strikes on NK? Has Harris put out a statement on striking NK?

Obviously we haven't conducted strikes, but yes, they are loudly being considered by the administration and have for some time now. Gabbard didn't wait until actual strikes occurred in Syria to state her position. Sanders has said we should not act unilaterally or recklessly, so what is her position? No Harris hasn't put out a statement, but Harris hasn't built her identity around opposing "regime change wars" to the extent that she met personally with Assad and agrees with his government line on everything for the sake of "peace". By that standard Gabbard should meet with Kim Jong Un for peace. If her positions are based on universal principles like protecting U.S. troops as you said, and not a desire to protect certain foreign interests, she now is by no means too early to speak out.

This is an unreasonable standard to hold her to. Strikes on NK aren't seriously being considered by the Trump administration, and if they were Tulsi would be opposed to them. It's an odd stretch to assume that her "silence" on this issue means that she's somehow supportive of military intervention in North Korea.

Is it too late for her to speak out? No, I don't think so, and I don't think she needs to speak out any time soon.

Also the only reason Sanders commented on the issue of North Korea is because he was asked about it in an interview by Jake Tapper. Sanders didn't put out a statement like you expect Gabbard to do. As far as I'm aware, no other member of congress has put out a statement about military strikes on NK because it's really not an option being considered at this point.

This whole thing seems like a giant nitpick to me.

This is hardly a nitpick, it concerns potential nuclear war and potential regime change war. And Gabbard has by her own choice made herself known on foreign policy as a skeptic of "regime change wars." Multiple news reports would suggest otherwise, that the administration are considering strikes.

Yes Bernie was asked about it, but Tulsi has been asked about the issue in town halls as well, and I couldn't even find any statement equivalent to Bernie's [that we should not act unilaterally or recklessly]. If you know of one and show link me to it, I would be happy to upgrade my opinion of Gabbard.

[Beet]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

You take the view that she's "protecting Assad," even though she has said she'd call for his execution if he was found guilty of war crimes in an international court, and I take the view that she's trying to protect our troops by not thrusting the US into another regime change war.

Then why hasn't she spoken out against military strikes on North Korea? I would be happy to support her if she was equally vocal on that, as it would prove my fears about her favoritism toward Assad wrong.

I'm sorry, have we conducted military strikes on NK? Is that an option that is seriously being considered by the administration? Has Gabbard spoken in favor of strikes on NK? Has Harris put out a statement on striking NK?

Obviously we haven't conducted strikes, but yes, they are loudly being considered by the administration and have for some time now. Gabbard didn't wait until actual strikes occurred in Syria to state her position. Sanders has said we should not act unilaterally or recklessly, so what is her position? No Harris hasn't put out a statement, but Harris hasn't built her identity around opposing "regime change wars" to the extent that she met personally with Assad and agrees with his government line on everything for the sake of "peace". By that standard Gabbard should meet with Kim Jong Un for peace. If her positions are based on universal principles like protecting U.S. troops as you said, and not a desire to protect certain foreign interests, she now is by no means too early to speak out.

This is an unreasonable standard to hold her to. Strikes on NK aren't seriously being considered by the Trump administration, and if they were Tulsi would be opposed to them. It's an odd stretch to assume that her "silence" on this issue means that she's somehow supportive of military intervention in North Korea.

Is it too late for her to speak out? No, I don't think so, and I don't think she needs to speak out any time soon.

Also the only reason Sanders commented on the issue of North Korea is because he was asked about it in an interview by Jake Tapper. Sanders didn't put out a statement like you expect Gabbard to do. As far as I'm aware, no other member of congress has put out a statement about military strikes on NK because it's really not an option being considered at this point.

This whole thing seems like a giant nitpick to me.

This is hardly a nitpick, it concerns potential nuclear war and potential regime change war. And Gabbard has by her own choice made herself known on foreign policy as a skeptic of "regime change wars." Multiple news reports would suggest otherwise, that the administration are considering strikes.

Yes Bernie was asked about it, but Tulsi has been asked about the issue in town halls as well, and I couldn't even find any statement equivalent to Bernie's [that we should not act unilaterally or recklessly]. If you know of one and show link me to it, I would be happy to upgrade my opinion of Gabbard.

Has she been asked about it at town halls? I'd like to see a source on that one.

You want me to do research on your candidate? She's asked generally about it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ltN00P8lIs&t=29m21s

I believe this was from April 16. She speaks of sanctions, and doesn't discuss possible military action.

Here's a video of Sanders. The notable difference is Sanders adds the quote below-

http://www.salon.com/2017/04/16/watch-bernie-sanders-says-we-must-not-act-unilaterally-in-syria-and-north-korea/

“The key point here is that the United States must not act impulsively, and we must not act unilaterally,”

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bloomberg is a major news source. Also when they say "all options are on the table" isn't it implied?

[Beet]

I thought that progressives were generally skeptical of military interventions, much more so than the Democratic establishment.  And especially when it's a Republican President.  In 2004 or 2008 Tulsi might have been one of the most popular Democratic elected officials.

Tulsi's not skeptical of foreign intervention. She hasn't said anything about potential military action in North Korea, whereas Bernie for instance, has said we shouldn't take unilateral action. She's just a hack for foreign interests. Even in 2004 or 2008 the Democrats were patriotic and always opposed the Iraq war on patriotic grounds (it wasn't good for the U.S.). They never would have supported someone in the pocket of a dictator.

When foreign governments funnel money into Tulsi Gabbard's electoral campaigns, then we can talk about the supposed lack of patriotism of a veteran.

In that case, we can also talk about her in handcuffs since that would be illegal. But by her actions she's shown concern for protecting Assad over all else. And that's before her BJP connections.

That's how you view her actions.

So? Do you have an alternative view?

You take the view that she's "protecting Assad," even though she has said she'd call for his execution if he was found guilty of war crimes in an international court, and I take the view that she's trying to protect our troops by not thrusting the US into another regime change war.

Then why hasn't she spoken out against military strikes on North Korea? I would be happy to support her if she was equally vocal on that, as it would prove my fears about her favoritism toward Assad wrong.

I'm sorry, have we conducted military strikes on NK? Is that an option that is seriously being considered by the administration? Has Gabbard spoken in favor of strikes on NK? Has Harris put out a statement on striking NK?

Obviously we haven't conducted strikes, but yes, they are loudly being considered by the administration and have for some time now. Gabbard didn't wait until actual strikes occurred in Syria to state her position. Sanders has said we should not act unilaterally or recklessly, so what is her position? No Harris hasn't put out a statement, but Harris hasn't built her identity around opposing "regime change wars" to the extent that she met personally with Assad and agrees with his government line on everything for the sake of "peace". By that standard Gabbard should meet with Kim Jong Un for peace. If her positions are based on universal principles like protecting U.S. troops as you said, and not a desire to protect certain foreign interests, she now is by no means too early to speak out.

This is an unreasonable standard to hold her to. Strikes on NK aren't seriously being considered by the Trump administration, and if they were Tulsi would be opposed to them. It's an odd stretch to assume that her "silence" on this issue means that she's somehow supportive of military intervention in North Korea.

Is it too late for her to speak out? No, I don't think so, and I don't think she needs to speak out any time soon.

Also the only reason Sanders commented on the issue of North Korea is because he was asked about it in an interview by Jake Tapper. Sanders didn't put out a statement like you expect Gabbard to do. As far as I'm aware, no other member of congress has put out a statement about military strikes on NK because it's really not an option being considered at this point.

This whole thing seems like a giant nitpick to me.

This is hardly a nitpick, it concerns potential nuclear war and potential regime change war. And Gabbard has by her own choice made herself known on foreign policy as a skeptic of "regime change wars." Multiple news reports would suggest otherwise, that the administration are considering strikes.

Yes Bernie was asked about it, but Tulsi has been asked about the issue in town halls as well, and I couldn't even find any statement equivalent to Bernie's [that we should not act unilaterally or recklessly]. If you know of one and show link me to it, I would be happy to upgrade my opinion of Gabbard.

Has she been asked about it at town halls? I'd like to see a source on that one.

You want me to do research on your candidate? She's asked generally about it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ltN00P8lIs&t=29m21s

I believe this was from April 16. She speaks of sanctions, and doesn't discuss possible military action.

Here's a video of Sanders. The notable difference is Sanders adds the quote below-

http://www.salon.com/2017/04/16/watch-bernie-sanders-says-we-must-not-act-unilaterally-in-syria-and-north-korea/

“The key point here is that the United States must not act impulsively, and we must not act unilaterally,”

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bloomberg is a major news source. Also when they say "all options are on the table" isn't it implied?

You said "multiple news reports would suggest otherwise, that the administration are considering strikes."
 
That clearly isn't the case.

Every President says "all options are on the table." It's like their go to line when it comes to dealing with hostile governments.

You seem to be arguing that Gabbard is somehow in favor of military action in NK because she doesn't meet some inane standard of yours. It's absurd. You have nothing to back up such a claim. None of her statements on NK indicate that she's in favor of military intervention. What are you going on about?

Look, I hope you are right. If you are, you may well find me in the ranks of the Tulsi supporters in 2020, because as we both agree, she has high chances of winning the nomination. That's all I say for now. Good night.