Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 38

Thread: MSDNC shows their true colors in weird attack-interview of Tulsi Gabbard

  1. #1

    MSDNC shows their true colors in weird attack-interview of Tulsi Gabbard

    You can watch it here, and I think she did a great job handling these vicious people. You could see Kasie Hunt's vicious bulging eyes trying to please her masters with her "gotcha questions", trying to pigeonhole Gabbard as some sort of friend of Assad.

    https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/wa...-1438093891865

    Related: NBC News, to Claim Russia Supports Tulsi Gabbard, Relies on Firm Just Caught Fabricating Russia Data for the Democratic Party

    At the moment, it seems she is the only candidate making any coherent arguments against the endless war machine. It'll be interesting to see how the DNC and their propaganda outlets try to smear and black her out like they did with Ron Paul.
    Last edited by Anti-Neocon; 02-08-2019 at 03:55 PM.
    Trump hates liberty.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    KHunt had so much potential when she was just a noob reporter hanging out here looking to interview rpfers. She has fallen so far.

  4. #3
    I'd suggest we support her, if only to troll allegedly compassionate liberals, to rebuild bridges with antiwar allies, and just because it'd be fun to raise the MSM's collective blood pressure again.

    But I know better than to suggest such a thing on this site these days. It'd just trigger Swordshyll and the rest of the Partisan Troll Brigade.
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    There's not a liberty lover on the planet who isn't called a liberal by the right, and a con by the left.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Only Q or a civil war will save us

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    I'd suggest we support her, if only to troll allegedly compassionate liberals, to rebuild bridges with antiwar allies, and just because it'd be fun to raise the MSM's collective blood pressure again.

    But I know better than to suggest such a thing on this site these days. It'd just trigger Swordshyll and the rest of the Partisan Troll Brigade.
    I’m stuck in the People’s Republic of NJ. The only color these people (indoor cats) take seriously is commie blue. I’m in.

    At least for the primary.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    I'd suggest we support her, if only to troll allegedly compassionate liberals, to rebuild bridges with antiwar allies, and just because it'd be fun to raise the MSM's collective blood pressure again.

    But I know better than to suggest such a thing on this site these days. It'd just trigger Swordshyll and the rest of the Partisan Troll Brigade.
    It's not just the partisan aspect, the fact that her voting record on foreign policy is so horrendous.

    That said, people follow her and like her (or hate her) more because of what she says than how she votes.

    I still think she is going to be by far the best Dem in the race.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  7. #6
    Supporting Member
    Phoenix, AZ
    Cleaner44's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    4
    Posts
    8,079
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Clearly the Democrat establishment decided that Tulsi Gabbard must be stopped. I noticed recently that they are pushing some propaganda that her supporters are Russian bots.

    Russia's propaganda machine discovers 2020 Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...abbard-n964261

    NBC News, to Claim Russia Supports Tulsi Gabbard, Relies on Firm Just Caught Fabricating Russia Data for the Democratic Party
    https://theintercept.com/2019/02/03/...ocratic-party/

    I don't know what she did to piss off the Democrat establishment but clearly she will blocked.
    Citizen of Arizona
    @cleaner4d4

    I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleaner44 View Post
    ...but clearly she will blocked.
    That's our specialty.
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    There's not a liberty lover on the planet who isn't called a liberal by the right, and a con by the left.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Only Q or a civil war will save us

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleaner44 View Post
    Clearly the Democrat establishment decided that Tulsi Gabbard must be stopped. I noticed recently that they are pushing some propaganda that her supporters are Russian bots.

    Russia's propaganda machine discovers 2020 Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...abbard-n964261

    NBC News, to Claim Russia Supports Tulsi Gabbard, Relies on Firm Just Caught Fabricating Russia Data for the Democratic Party
    https://theintercept.com/2019/02/03/...ocratic-party/

    I don't know what she did to piss off the Democrat establishment but clearly she will blocked.
    Pretty simple. Anyone who disagrees in the slightest with war will be mercilessly smeared by the MIC-neoconservative MSM.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's not just the partisan aspect, the fact that her voting record on foreign policy is so horrendous.
    What's her voting record like? I believe her rhetoric has been pretty consistent over the years, and while I would prefer people to take the Ron Paul/Amash approach of voting against bad crap that has 420 votes already, perhaps not being that lone dissent yielded other (non-self promotional) benefits.

    She's putting her own political career on the line by doing what she's doing now anyway, and that makes me think that she'd do the same as President. She also seems very open to cutting down the warfare state which already makes her more fiscally responsible than Trump and most Republicans. Even if she's not ideal, she could be the best of options we've got by a long shot.
    Trump hates liberty.

  12. #10
    Well shes never going to be president anyway. Probably won't even win the primary in her own state.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  13. #11
    They like to skewer her on Democratic Underground.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    Well shes never going to be president anyway. Probably won't even win the primary in her own state.
    Well aren’t you a ray of sunshine.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    They like to skewer her on Democratic Underground.
    Wonder how many of those same people come here to promote her?

    I mean, I have no problem saying good things about good things she says, hell, maybe I'll vote for her in the primary too.. but I'm not going to come here and trash talk Rand or some $#@! then say how great Tulsi is, lol..
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti-Neocon View Post
    What's her voting record like? I believe her rhetoric has been pretty consistent over the years, and while I would prefer people to take the Ron Paul/Amash approach of voting against bad crap that has 420 votes already, perhaps not being that lone dissent yielded other (non-self promotional) benefits.

    She's putting her own political career on the line by doing what she's doing now anyway, and that makes me think that she'd do the same as President. She also seems very open to cutting down the warfare state which already makes her more fiscally responsible than Trump and most Republicans. Even if she's not ideal, she could be the best of options we've got by a long shot.

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/freedom-index

    Dist.2: Tulsi Gabbard - 31%



    H RES 397: NATO
    Vote Date: June 27, 2017 Vote: AYE Bad Vote.
    This legislation (H. Res. 397) “solemnly reaffirms the commitment of the United States to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s principle of collective defense as enumerated in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.” Under Article 5, the member nations of the NATO military alliance “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them ... shall be considered an attack against them all.”

    The House passed H. Res. 397 on June 27, 2017 by a lopsided vote of 423 to 4 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because the United States should stay clear of entangling alliances such as NATO, but also because the NATO provision that obligates the United States to go to war if any member of NATO is attacked undermines the provision in the U.S. Constitution that assigns to Congress the power to declare war. Moreover, the number of nations that the United States has pledged to defend under NATO has grown from 11 to 28 over the years, as the alliance itself has grown from 12 member nations (including the United States) when NATO was created in 1949 to 29 today. Although NATO was ostensibly formed to counter the threat from the Soviet bloc of nations, some of the nations the United States is now pledged to defend under NATO were once part of that bloc, including Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic (as part of Czechoslovakia), Hungary, Poland, and Romania.





    H R 5293: Authorization for Use of Military Force
    Vote Date: June 16, 2016 Vote: NAY Bad Vote.
    During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 5293), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act. Enacted in the wake of 9/11, the AUMF authorized the president to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against the terrorists involved, as well as those who aided or harbored them. It was used as the authorization for U.S. military entry into Afghanistan in 2001, and over the years has also been invoked on other occasions by the executive branch to justify U.S. military intervention abroad.

    The House rejected Lee’s amendment on June 16, 2016 by a vote of 146 to 274 (Roll Call 330). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”






    H R 4909: Use of Military Force
    Vote Date: May 18, 2016 Vote: NAY Bad Vote.
    During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909), Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was enacted in 2001 for the purpose of authorizing U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. Since then, however, the AUMF has been invoked numerous times by the executive branch for U.S. military intervention not only in Afghanistan but elsewhere.

    The House rejected Lee’s amendment on May 18, 2016 by a vote of 138 to 285 (Roll Call 210). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because presidents have been able to claim broad authority to go to war whenever or wherever they choose under the AUMF, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers never intended for one man to make this decision, and under the Constitution only Congress may “declare war.”


    H RES 162: Calling on the President to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
    Vote Date: March 23, 2015 Vote: AYE Bad Vote.
    Ukraine Military Aid.
    House Resolution 162, which calls on the president "to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity," allows President Obama to provide Ukraine with defensive weapons to defend against aggression from Russia.

    The House adopted H. Res. 162 on March 23, 2015 by a vote of 348 to 48 (Roll Call 131). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because foreign aid is unconstitutional but also because this bill would further interject the United States into a foreign conflict. Allowing the U.S. president to provide lethal arms to Ukraine in order to fight Russia is tantamount to waging a proxy war on Russia without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. The House, by giving such power to the president, is relinquishing one of its constitutional responsibilities.


    H R 4870: On Agreeing to the Amendment 51 to H R 4870
    Vote Date: June 19, 2014 Vote: NAY Bad Vote.
    Weapons to Syrian Rebels.
    During consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill, Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) introduced an amendment that would have prohibited any funding in the bill from being used to provide weapons to Syrian rebels. Fortenberry noted on the House floor that "the rebel movement is a battleground of shifting alliances and bloody conflicts between groups that now include multinational terrorist organizations," that "sending our weapons into this chaotic war zone could inadvertently help these extremists," and that "it has already happened." He added: "The naive notion that we can deliver weapons to vetted, moderate opposition groups at war with other rebel militias gives no guarantee that our weaponry won't be seized or diverted."

    The House rejected Fortenberry's amendment on June 19, 2014 by a vote of 167 to 244 (Roll Call 328). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because arming "moderate" rebels in a foreign country is tantamount to going to war, which would require a declaration of war by Congress. Also, the United States should follow the Founders' advice not to become involved in foreign quarrels






    H R 4152: To provide for the costs of loan guarantees for Ukraine
    Vote Date: April 1, 2014 Vote: AYE Bad Vote.
    Ukraine Aid.

    This bill (H.R. 4152), as amended by the Senate (see Senate vote below), would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine.

    [ The Senate version of this legislation - offered in the form of a substitute amendment to the House version, H.R. 4152 - would provide $150 million for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees (meaning that the U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the loans are not paid). And it would impose sanctions on Russian and ex-Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for the crisis in the Ukraine. ]

    The House voted for this legislation on April 1, 2014 by a vote of 378 to 34 (Roll Call 149). We have assigned pluses to the nays because foreign aid is unconstitutional. The rationale for providing U.S. aid to Ukraine is that the country needs our assistance to resist Russian hegemony and build "democracy." Yet the oligarchs wielding power in Ukraine are hardly "democrats," and (because money is fungible) U.S. assistance could effectively be funneled to Russia in the form of Ukrainian energy and debt payments.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleaner44 View Post
    Clearly the Democrat establishment decided that Tulsi Gabbard must be stopped. I noticed recently that they are pushing some propaganda that her supporters are Russian bots.

    I don't know what she did to piss off the Democrat establishment but clearly she will blocked.
    For one, she had the audacity to complain about Wasserman-Shultz "dis-inviting" her from a Democratic debate in 2015

    Top Democratic Party officials publicly feud ahead of presidential debate

    ...Mrs. Wasserman Shultz called it “ridiculous” that Mrs. Gabbard, Hawaii Democrat, claimed she was disinvited to Tuesday’s debate in Las Vegas because she criticized the decision to strictly limit the number of Democratic presidential debates to six...https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...z-feud-ahead-/

    Instead of retreating, Tulsi doubled down



    Then she said "I don't fear the Clintons"



    After that, she was the only politician in the District of Criminals to tell the American People that the US is DIRECTLY FUNDING ISIS and Al-Queda, which most 'Mericans can't even begin to wrap their deceived heads around.



    Bonus:

    Rand Paul lied about Crimea & Iran
    Rand- "US Must Take Strong Action Against Putin’s Aggression"
    “I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot, I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican. I’m a constitutional conservative”-Rand Paul
    “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” PNAC report September 2000

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Gumba of Liberty View Post
    Well aren’t you a ray of sunshine.
    Just calling it as I see it. I'd love to be proven wrong.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    This isn't saying much, but she is my favorite of the Dems who most likely will run in 2020.

  21. #18
    Alright, libertarians are going to have to get it together and find some babes. First, it was Tulsi Gabbard. Now, it's Alexandria taco whatever her name is. They could be the next hot ticket.

    This is where it's at, man.








    Carla Bruni

    Office: First Lady of the French Republic
    Party: Union for a Popular Movement
    Why You Should Vote For Her: The Italian-French model, musician, and actress, and model married French president Nicolas Sarkozy in 2008. Controversy brewed when nude photos from her modeling past surfaced, but if anything, that just made us like her more. Looking hot naked should never have a negative impact on your political career.







    Alina Kabaeva

    Office: Deputy in the Russian State Duma
    Party: United Russia
    Why You Should Vote For Her: In 2004, she won an Olympic gold medal in rhythmic gymnastics at the Olympics; three years later she was an elected member of the Duma, with rumors flying that she was going to marry Vladimir Putin. She's been on the cover of Russian Vogue, Maxim and FHM.







    Cristina Fernadez de Kirchner

    Office: President of Argentina
    Party: Justicialist
    Why You Should Vote For Her: She's a fashion icon who has been known to be late for meetings with other world leaders because she took too long to get ready.







    Elizabeth Halseth

    Office: Nevada State Senator
    Party: Republican
    Why You Should Vote For Her: She's 28, Republican, and has been in office for a year. All we can confirm at this time is that she is hot. Repeat: She is hot.







    Yuri Fujikawa

    Office: Hachinohe city assemblywoman
    Party: Liberal Democratic Club
    Why You Should Vote For Her: She's just a hot babe who sits on a city council, but that hasn't stopped the Japanese and world media from giving her the A-list treatment. She put out a book of photos and accompanying video that proved she was a sexy politician and had some Japanese claiming she is too sexy for politics. "Too sexy for politics" -- we're not sure that's possible, but it's a catchy phrase.







    Vanja Hadzovic

    Vanja Hadzovic is the Serbian Adviser In The Ministry Of Foreign Affairs. She holds a degree in management in media. In past she was the vice president of the youth arm of socialist party.







    Mara Rosaria Carfagna

    Office: Italian Minister for Equal Opportunity
    Party: The People of Freedom
    Why You Should Vote For Her: We could say a lot about Mara -- there is a lot to say, that's for sure -- but perhaps the basic facts from Wikipedia make the best case: "Maria Rosaria (Mara) Carfagna (born December 18, 1975 in Salerno) is an Italian politician and former showgirl and topless model." There you go. Boy, that Silvio Berlusconi sure can pick 'em.







    Eva Kaili

    Office: Greek Member of Parliament
    Party: Panhellenic Socialist Movement
    Why You Should Vote For Her: Consider this: She is a former TV newscaster, and during that phase of her career she was considered one of the country's hottest newscasters. And even a homely newscaster is many times hotter than your average female politician.





    https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/...in-politics/48
    Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 02-08-2019 at 06:36 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    Alright, libertarians are going to have to get it together and find some babes. First, it was Tulsi Gabbard. Now, it's Alexandria taco whatever her name is. They could be the next hot ticket.
    Lauren Southern















    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  23. #20
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Clinton did not lose because she was a centrist - she lost because everyone knows she's a criminal tyrant, who suffers from reckless ambition. The b!tch sabotaged her own party for fk sakes - for HER personal gain. Hillary is a true cannibal - she need not be on an island, or facing any kind of desperation, for her to eat her own. This is all public knowledge, and THAT is why she lost. Incidentally, I believe THAT is also why Trump won.

    Gulag Chief:
    "Article 58-1a, twenty five years... What did you get it for?"
    Gulag Prisoner: "For nothing at all."
    Gulag Chief: "You're lying... The sentence for nothing at all is 10 years"



  25. #22
    I would consider her a bottom candidate along with Bernie etc . The two things all dem candidates will have in common is 1) they are war mongers 2) they are communists . They will all be equally bad , only some are greater than others . These children were not invited to the party and inviting themselves will get them nowhere . This belongs to Biden - Bernie - Clinton - Booker whatever
    Last edited by oyarde; 02-08-2019 at 09:25 PM.
    Do something Danke

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    I would consider her a bottom candidate along with Bernie etc .
    At least shes a top candidate when it comes to looks.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    At least shes a top candidate when it comes to looks.
    You should get yourself a good young white woman that can make moccasins .
    Do something Danke



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    @Swordsmyth I've been trying to understand the disparity between her voting record and her public statements (which both seem to be consistent within themselves, but not with each other). What it seems like, to me, is that she supports the idea of continuing to be an influence and taking an incremental approach to getting our military out of harm's way, rather than what most of us here at least used to favor which is immediate withdrawal.

    I personally trust her judgment on these things, given the independent work she's done to try to figure stuff out and I think ultimately we're in the same scenario:
    1. Make the mess (already done, can't change it)
    2. Heal the mess
    3. GTFO, and don't make new messes

    She brings up things that I find sensible such as that if we are to just abandon the Kurds in Syria it'd not only be morally bad but would send a bad message of untrustworthiness. And I think similar is the case for most places - we started messes by intervening, but could even bring bigger messes by immediate withdrawals. So yes, I am fine supporting such a vocal opposition of regime change who wants to incrementally withdraw, and I think the treatment she's getting is pretty good proof that she's driving the neocons/neoliberals insane with her vision.

    And even those who may not share my same general optimism of what she's about, I think you should be able to see how she isn't as bad as the Democrat mainstream Clintonites who are trying to smear her dishonestly for "loving Assad" and stuff like that.
    Trump hates liberty.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti-Neocon View Post
    @Swordsmyth I've been trying to understand the disparity between her voting record and her public statements (which both seem to be consistent within themselves, but not with each other). What it seems like, to me, is that she supports the idea of continuing to be an influence and taking an incremental approach to getting our military out of harm's way, rather than what most of us here at least used to favor which is immediate withdrawal.

    I personally trust her judgment on these things, given the independent work she's done to try to figure stuff out and I think ultimately we're in the same scenario:
    1. Make the mess (already done, can't change it)
    2. Heal the mess
    3. GTFO, and don't make new messes

    She brings up things that I find sensible such as that if we are to just abandon the Kurds in Syria it'd not only be morally bad but would send a bad message of untrustworthiness. And I think similar is the case for most places - we started messes by intervening, but could even bring bigger messes by immediate withdrawals. So yes, I am fine supporting such a vocal opposition of regime change who wants to incrementally withdraw, and I think the treatment she's getting is pretty good proof that she's driving the neocons/neoliberals insane with her vision.

    And even those who may not share my same general optimism of what she's about, I think you should be able to see how she isn't as bad as the Democrat mainstream Clintonites who are trying to smear her dishonestly for "loving Assad" and stuff like that.
    Staying will do no good and will only make things worse, there will be no perfect time to leave and arguing that we should wait for one is an excuse to stay forever.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  31. #27
    She is a consistent pro war candidate that lies out her ass which actually makes her worse in a way than the open communists who are more honest .
    Do something Danke

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    Well shes never going to be president anyway. Probably won't even win the primary in her own state.
    That is correct . She could not even be elected to a county office where I live .
    Do something Danke

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti-Neocon View Post
    @Swordsmyth I've been trying to understand the disparity between her voting record and her public statements (which both seem to be consistent within themselves, but not with each other). What it seems like, to me, is that she supports the idea of continuing to be an influence and taking an incremental approach to getting our military out of harm's way, rather than what most of us here at least used to favor which is immediate withdrawal.

    I personally trust her judgment on these things, given the independent work she's done to try to figure stuff out and I think ultimately we're in the same scenario:
    1. Make the mess (already done, can't change it)
    2. Heal the mess
    3. GTFO, and don't make new messes

    She brings up things that I find sensible such as that if we are to just abandon the Kurds in Syria it'd not only be morally bad but would send a bad message of untrustworthiness. And I think similar is the case for most places - we started messes by intervening, but could even bring bigger messes by immediate withdrawals. So yes, I am fine supporting such a vocal opposition of regime change who wants to incrementally withdraw, and I think the treatment she's getting is pretty good proof that she's driving the neocons/neoliberals insane with her vision.

    And even those who may not share my same general optimism of what she's about, I think you should be able to see how she isn't as bad as the Democrat mainstream Clintonites who are trying to smear her dishonestly for "loving Assad" and stuff like that.
    What you are buying is the excuses they make to ensure that nothing ever changes and the MIC carries on. It sounds like they want it to end; but then find reasons to make it never end. Its just like people stuck in toxic relationships.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    What you are buying is the excuses they make to ensure that nothing ever changes and the MIC carries on. It sounds like they want it to end; but then find reasons to make it never end. Its just like people stuck in toxic relationships.
    Gabbard calls out the MIC, which is one of the reasons why she's hated so much. With the will, you can end the cycle, but most of these politicians only provide lip service to being anti-war while calling for increased military funding or regime change. Bush's wars were unpopular so Democrats pretended like they'd stop it or that they would've done differently (Gore would've been just as bad as Bush probably). Then as good controlled opposition, the Obama administration continued the same pro-MIC policies. These same Obama/Clinton Dems all are running scared of Gabbard.
    Trump hates liberty.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Christine O'Donnell shows her true colors!
    By Feelgood in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 10-24-2011, 02:08 PM
  2. Mitch shows us his true colors, AGAIN.
    By BamaFanNKy in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-02-2010, 11:53 PM
  3. Frank shows his true colors
    By Knighted in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-23-2009, 02:56 PM
  4. Media shows true colors at debates
    By dude58677 in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-21-2007, 08:17 PM
  5. FT shows true colors
    By lynnf in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-27-2007, 02:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •