You're right, I didn't get to 50 minutes listening to these guys. Too long a sit for me to just listen to folks gabbing.ABV 8.3% wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:15 pmnope, but calling SOMEONE that.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:17 pmSo your calling Hillary a liar? The long knives will be out for your alleged Republican backside. This could be a first on this forum. Is it possible MD was making a subtle criticism against a Democrat? I now believe that pigs really can fly.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:57 pmFatty, I really don't have a dog in this hunt. Tulsi is not on the radar screen as far as I'm concerned.ABV 8.3% wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 3:36 pmThis shouldn't be so hard, especially since you made the claim.....MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:05 pm yeah, I must have smoked too much weed...addled in the brain now.
....just ONE foreign policy that you disagree with Tulsi Gabbard on.......
-----------------------------------------------------------
Is it her Bolivia policy?
Asking racist Trudea the black face Canuck to step down?
Selling Iceland three Nuke aircraft carriers ?
Lativia milk price fixing ?
But, yeah, her isolationism goes too far in my view, simply mistaken; I'd say that her play with Assad raises alarm bells as well.
But I'm not going to go as far as some and claim she actually intends to be playing into Putin's hands.
try watching, again, for the first time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdYud9re7-Q
at the 50 minute mark, Tulsi Gabbard talks about ASSad, ( but you knew that b/c you watched it , like you claimed.
at 1:04:10....Tulsi Gabbard explains her, or rather MYTH BUSTS her "isolationist" viewpoint. Alleged a "concern" of the liar.
Thanks for pointing to that specific section; she comes across very well (absent the military industrial complex conspiracy stuff) with regard to her logic against 'regime change wars' and her strong preference towards diplomacy. I agree with her on that, which may surprise you...but I do. I like her tone, very much as I did early on a couple of years ago when I listened to her on various shows. Where I feel she appears to fall short is that she is not able, at least during that 15 minute section, to say unequivocally that these various 'leaders' are evil, bad news guys, war criminals etc. She'd probably be a pretty good diplomat herself as she's so careful not to saying anything bad about the bad guys of this world, under the supposition I suppose that she might have to sit across the table from them at some point downstream. But...what does she really think?
You can, IMO, both argue her position that 'regime change wars' have dangerous consequences while also being clear that the truly brutal dictators of this world are the US' foes, not allies.
BTW, can you point to anything she says specifically about Assad or was she not just speaking generally about 'regime change' and that's supposed to be a proxy for why she met with Assad? I may have missed it.
On the 'isolationism', she makes an interesting case for herself as not an isolationist (sorry, Salty, she too is pushing back on "isolationism"'), but I find her answer to Jocko's challenge about stepping in to stop genocides etc to be not my own view...she seems to see conspiracies of people 'pushing agendas' using humanitarian claims and language when they are not actually appropriate...I'm not seeing those other agendas, apparently, the way she is. IMO, she indeed leans too far, too hard towards "isolationism" if not willing to go all in (which I agree would be a tragic mistake). But she's leaning too hard that direction for me...but she's definitely an articulate, credible spokesperson for her views. I just disagree.