Please elaborate, in what conceivable way would she be a nod to the Trump crowd?
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Please elaborate, in what conceivable way would she be a nod to the Trump crowd?
You're bringing up examples of politicians that we don't consider ethical to defend Gabbard?
When you're a Congressman, however junior or senior, minority or majority, you don't get to make your own foreign policy. Its the same reason why all the Republicans that sent that letter to Iran in a show attempt to undermine Obama are also clowns.
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.
Foreign Policy is conducted by the President and the SecState via the Embassies, not by grandstanding fringe congresspeople from the opposite party seeking to make a name for themselves by yucking it up with totalitarian dictators who gas their own citizens.
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.
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.
Accusing the accuser of Whataboutism ? This seems like a sneaky way to get off topic.
You're diverting, a typical Kremlin tactic.
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.
Accusing me of diversion ? Feck off Vlad.
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.
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.
Well, perhaps you should and disqualify Bernie based on his stance on gun violence, similar to the Iraq war stance on Hillary Clinton.
Nobody denies here that Hillary Clinton was interventionist. I have multiple times said that Bernie Sanders is a better candidate than Hillary Clinton. I'd absolutely vote for Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton if I was eligible for vote. But I would definitely not decide to vote for Jill Stein/Donald Trump just because my favored candidate didn't get elected in the primary when we all know there are 2 parties in the running for the ticket.
Actually, I'm ok with your position on Hillary Clinton, because you are 'far-left' based on US standards. You spend time intercept and you have been quick to criticize say Obama/Dems, but how many 'Hell no Hillary' voters do not associate any of the above with Obama and think of Hillary Clinton as the "hawk"? In my personal opinion, it's like ratings on a football match. Early opinion counts and when influencers leaves a rating of 'hawk', it sticks. Especially when there is some justification. 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
Muslim countries themselves don't shy away from using an equivalent term to describe extremist factions. Its hardly a nod to Republican sentiment.
You're forgetting that her sympathetic sentiment towards the Syrian regime, her opposition to the War in Iraq, her call to immediately withdraw troops from Afghanistan in addition to her non-intervenionist stance as a whole puts her in stark contrast to the Republicans regarding foreign policy. Her using the term doesn't automatically align her with them. Its a lazy straw to clutch at.
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.
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
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.
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.
Pragmatists.
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.
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.
What do you say about the Bernie bros voting for Jill Stein/Donald Trump? Heroes who stood up for what they believed in?
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.
*To be nice: I'd say they made an idiotic decision, whether they are generally wrong depends on the their politics before and after the election.
You wonder why I call the other group pragmatists? We both are fundamentally different in how we approach issues.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.
As for the Palestinian example, it would seem to me a fairly vacuous effort to simply return and offer objection. And maybe this case is a bit of the difference between meeting PLO officials or meeting with Hamas. Assad having positioned himself closer to the latter morally given the brutality with which he's conducted the civil war.
I find it complicated to come up with some sort of "rule" that I find acceptable about diplomacy with morally reprehensible states/governments. Because even in an ideal world you're going to have to deal with those... and a degree of distance seems the most appropriate (so not what goes on with the US and Saudi). But also in that case, its best left to the State Dept. As in Gabbard's case, you know you're associating yourself - to a degree and temporarily - with some reprehensible people... what do you get out of it?
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.
Last edited:
Wouldn't read much into that statement. She did that speech to "test the waters" on whether a presidential run is viable.
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 considering 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 she was considering running.
Last edited:
2 of those 5 (Gillibrand/Harris) are definitely running.
What else would/should it be called?
It's radical, in that it is based on a heretical view of Islam.
It's Islamic in nature, though based on a radical heretical interpretation.
It's terrorism.
So what should we call it?
Michelle Obama should run for President.
Imagine if Sanders ends up president while JC is Prime minister. It would be remembered as the reverse Reagan-Thatcher admin
Wait Mark Zuckerberg and Oprah want to run for president? Wtf is wrong with the US?
Seriously, I know it's just a popularity contest in the end, but don't these people know that running a government is an actual job for which you need actual experience and qualifications etc? Surely no one will vote for these people? (who am I kidding..)
Seriously, I know it's just a popularity contest in the end, but don't these people know that running a government is an actual job for which you need actual experience and qualifications etc? Surely no one will vote for these people? (who am I kidding..)
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.
We are far from perfect, but this would never ever happen in Denmark.
If this is the stategy of the Democrats they will be in for another surprise in 2020.
You must have missed the memo 30 years ago telling us that les battersby Reagan won the election.
Yeah him as well, but at least he served for 8 years as governor before becoming President.
- Status