Kaos
Full Member
Please elaborate, in what conceivable way would she be a nod to the Trump crowd?Gabbard would be a catastrophe and a nod to the Trump-crowd. Please don’t.
Please elaborate, in what conceivable way would she be a nod to the Trump crowd?Gabbard would be a catastrophe and a nod to the Trump-crowd. Please don’t.
You're bringing up examples of politicians that we don't consider ethical to defend Gabbard?It's called diplomacy. Sometimes it helps to gauge the perspective of the other side.
Makes a refreshing change from simply shutting down all relations and opting to instead back an insurgency riddled with radical extremists. Unless you of course consider Hillary Clinton taking money from the Qataris or John McCain posing with head-choppers in Syria to be taking the position of moral decency.
Of course you can - when its in contravention to official policy and her trip is funded by a shady group with links to the regime, which she seems to not want to come clean about.Nope, its called perspective. You can't single out a congresswoman for communicating with a faction in the Middle East, adversarial or otherwise considering pretty much all her colleagues are doing the exact thing on a more candid scale.
Hillary is lightyears beyond Gabbard in terms of experience at every level. Tulsi is just an ambitious Iraq War vet with a Trump-like affinity for the limelight.I dunno, I'd say quite a few of Gubbard's fiercest critics here seem to harbour a very high opinion of HRC.
That wasn't his point he was saying that HRC was interacting with foreign govts outside her role as SoS, as a comparison to Gabbard interacting with Assad. Therefore, by bringing up Hillary's experience, you're indulging in #whataboutism.Hillary is lightyears beyond Gabbard in terms of experience at every level. Tulsi is just an ambitious Iraq War vet with a Trump-like affinity for the limelight.
Accusing the accuser of Whataboutism ? This seems like a sneaky way to get off topic.That wasn't his point he was saying that HRC was interacting with foreign govts outside her role as SoS, as a comparison to Gabbard interacting with Assad. Therefore, by bringing up Hillary's experience, you're indulging in #whataboutism.
You're diverting, a typical Kremlin tactic.Accusing the accuser of Whataboutism ? This seems like a sneaky way to get off topic.
The term isn't used by anyone other than Republicans - as if using it will magically make terrorism go away. It wasn't policy under the Obama administration.What's wrong with the term? How else would you describe a faction like ISIS or AQ? She also suggested not funding extremist groups and forcing regime change on secular countries which would otherwise empower the same extremist groups, in stark contrast to the Republican mantra on foreign policy.
Accusing me of diversion ? Feck off Vlad.You're diverting, a typical Kremlin tactic.
How you do it matters. Everyone knows that in most democracies its not entirely sufficient to have the agreement/support of the executive, especially in the US. There's a lot of interactions between diplomats and congress members & staff (for smaller countries its more important than interactions with the executive at times). But they're mostly conducted on background, especially if to express/plan opposition to the executive branch.Nope, its called perspective. You can't single out a congresswoman for communicating with a faction in the Middle East, adversarial or otherwise considering pretty much all her colleagues are doing the exact thing on a more candid scale.
She's a self-aggrandizing chalatan who wanted the exposure of "solving" the Syria crisis through meeting with Assad. All she did was legitimize him by being used as a propaganda stooge to advance his desired end state.How you do it matters. Everyone knows that in most democracies its not entirely sufficient to have the agreement/support of the executive, especially in the US. There's a lot of interactions between diplomats and congress members & staff (for smaller countries its more important than interactions with the executive at times). But they're mostly conducted on background, especially if to express/plan opposition to the executive branch.
The fact that Gabbard did it so publicly seemed to me to be either foolish, or carving out a specific electorate (anti-establishment), or a combination of that and a true position. But to the extent that its the latter, I do disagree with the position and the method.
Lastly to clarify, its not that I expect no congressmen to express open opposition to existing policy. They absolutely should, but it should never be allowed to be perceived as of service to a foreign interest. Its one of those situations where appearances also matter.
Well, perhaps you should and disqualify Bernie based on his stance on gun violence, similar to the Iraq war stance on Hillary Clinton.I don't care about Bernie's gun stances, for this argument let's assume he was indeed Ted Cruz.
Hillary supported Iraq, was the catalyst in Libya, pushed for Syria, tacitly supported a coup in Honduras, and she took advice from Kissinger, produced a split among neocons, half of whom lined up behind her. Those together are very consequential actions with a trend towards intervention. Instead of saying fakenews, you could start pointing out why she is *not* a hawk.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27...-2016-military-intervention-libya-iraq-syria/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html
https://www.thecairoreview.com/essays/hillary-the-hawk/
https://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/de...ght_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/hillary-clinton-really-loves-military-intervention/
Muslim countries themselves don't shy away from using an equivalent term to describe extremist factions. Its hardly a nod to Republican sentiment.The term isn't used by anyone other than Republicans - as if using it will magically make terrorism go away. It wasn't policy under the Obama administration.
The irony I was pointing out was re the 2 parties. The "liberals" chose someone who was making more interventionist noises than the "conservatives". Obviously I don't think Trump's rhetoric meant anything.But I think you are absolutely bonkers by suggesting irony and all that bullshit with Donald fecking Trump and his feud with the Bush family as if it's some alternate path to Hillary Clinton
The conservatives voted for the non-interventionist because they knew he's bluffing. Good amount of liberals voted for Jill Stein/Donald Trump because they believed in a higher calling. They may have as well declared themselves as evangelicalsThe irony I was pointing out was re the 2 parties. The "liberals" chose someone who was making more interventionist noises than the "conservatives". Obviously I don't think Trump's rhetoric meant anything.
And some liberals started supporting the Iraq war after 2015 as well. What do you label them?The conservatives voted for the non-interventionist because they knew he's bluffing. Good amount of liberals voted for Jill Stein/Donald Trump because they believed in a higher calling. They may have as well declared themselves as evangelicals
Pragmatists.And some liberals started supporting the Iraq war after 2015 as well. What do you label them?
Unfortunately I could not find 2016 data which would be even more interesting.
Interesting. I thought pragmatism meant supporting the candidate despite differences, not forgetting whatever you believe because your leader says so.Pragmatists.
What do you say about the Bernie bros voting for Jill Stein/Donald Trump? Heroes who stood up for what they believed in?Interesting. I thought pragmatism meant supporting the candidate despite differences, not forgetting whatever you believe because your leader says so.
I'd label it a lack of principles and blind tribalism.
Those who voted for Trump are complete idiots.*What do you say about the Bernie bros voting for Jill Stein/Donald Trump? Heroes who stood up for what they believed in?
You wonder why I call the other group pragmatists? We both are fundamentally different in how we approach issues.Those who voted for Trump are complete idiots.
Those who voted for Stein: if they did it in NY/CA/Texas, that's great. If they did it in Wisconsin, etc - I don't agree with them, but I can understand why.
Post 9/11 was obviously a shit show. There's little solace even for those who argued and voted against the Iraq war, given that it went ahead anyways. But I don't think it would've been any additional help if a congressperson had overtly gone to Iraq and return to state that the CIA was wrong, and Saddam had personally told them he had no WMD.I'm not debating her personal motivations, but when you have the executive, congress and the media all conveying a one-sided sentiment with little room to even entertain a balanced debate, then sometimes it takes a public gesture to at least illuminate another perspective and broaden the debate. We saw what happened post 9/11 - the unanimous sentiment at the time was so intense that it would have been considered traitorous to oppose the war on Iraq, despite the sensible and logical objections due to the likely ramifications which have since been retrospectively dignified. Yet here we are a decade later, having seemingly decided that striving to oust the regime in Syria is paramount and indisputable.
You say you disagree with the position and thats your rightful perogative, but in respect to the method, would you have seen any issue if a member of congress had met with Palestinian officials and returned offering a vocal objection to current US policy?
Not the correct word. I was ready to embrace Posadism.That was fun while it lasted.
Even if she was interested, her boyfriend is a moron for suggesting it as no sane person announces a run this early because it allows the opposition and media 2 years head start in taking them apart.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That was fun while it lasted.
She did it because she was receiving an award.Wouldn't read much into that statement. She did that speech to "test the waters" on whether a presidential run is viable.
That speech was well planned. Look at the way people instantly started to think she was considering running for the presidency when she made that speech.She did it because she was receiving an award.
That speech was well planned. Look at the way people instantly started to think she was thinking about running for the presidency when she made that speech.
Its also not a coincidence the next morning, multiple people close to her leaked to CNN's Stelter that was considering running.
What else would/should it be called?given how quickly any thread about a terrorist attack quickly turns into a debate about NOT calling it Radical Islamic Terrorism it is weird to see the term being supported by some here.
You must have missed the memo 30 years ago telling us that les battersby Reagan won the election.While Trump losing to a woman of color in 2020 is a wonderful thought, it's absolutely mental if she is seriously being considered. I guess nothing should surprise me after 2016, but America really need to put people with relevant experience in the office of the most powerful person in the world, and not famous people with ear catching slogans.
We are far from perfect, but this would never ever happen in Denmark.
Yeah him as well, but at least he served for 8 years as governor before becoming President.You must have missed the memo 30 years ago telling us that les battersby Reagan won the election.