Tulsi Gabbard

[_Some Schmo]

On the issue of whether Bernie said a woman couldn't win or not... my guess is he said something that suggested it, and Warren remembers the implication as though it was a quote. The truth is in the middle.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Anyway, it is entirely possible that Sanders had different comments for the candidate that was absolutely zero threat to his candidacy compared to the one that was..

Absolutely zero? How do you know? She is a woman and a lot of Bernie supporters like her. Gabbard could take away a lot of votes from Sanders.

You said that while dismissing one possibility and taken the other as a basis for form judgement. That's not being agnostic on the matter.

Well, you have the Gabbard quote and you have old videos of Sanders saying that women can win. There is no way to know who is telling the truth, but the evidence does suggest that Sanders is telling the truth.

If you trust politfact, just do a search on Sanders and instances in which he was marked as lying. There are lots..

Lying? Do you know the difference between a false statement and a lie?

There are examples of her being sketchy for political purposes, but this ain't it.

Okay. So she pretends to be against the military industrial complex, but she really likes voting for defence spending. She does play a lot of politics.

[_EAllusion]

Absolutely zero? How do you know?

She's not a strong candidate for a Democratic presidential race because Democrats don't particularly like her nor did she display any of the underlying reasons one might suppose a candidate could break out.

She is a woman and a lot of Bernie supporters like her. Gabbard could take away a lot of votes from Sanders.

What with her having a net negative among Democrats of around -40 and polling low enough to basically be not statically different from zero, it sure sounds reasonable to conclude that she was a threat on par with Elizabeth Warren. The Bernie supporters who like Tulsi tend to like Bernie more or are alt-right adjacent types who aren't reliable Democratic voters at all. It's a niche of a niche group you are talking about here.

Well, you have the Gabbard quote

That's meaningless? That Bernie Sanders said one thing to Tulsi Gabbard and another to Warren wouldn't be be surprising. That's not even a set of facts in want of explanation.

and you have old videos of Sanders saying that women can win. There is no way to know who is telling the truth, but the evidence does suggest that Sanders is telling the truth.

It is, factually, both the case that a woman could win the presidency and that women face unique roadblocks due to gender biases that might make it more difficult for them to win. I, EA, am telling both of those things to you right now and I am not contradicting myself in doing so.

With that out of the way, you are waffling back and forth in your comments, depending on what is convenient to say on a sentence by sentence basis, where the effect is Warren has to prove she is telling to truth or she is a liar, but Sanders is given every benefit of the doubt on the flimsiest pretext.

Lying? Do you know the difference between a false statement and a lie?

So, on the one hand, some of those politifact "fact checks" are as ridiculous as the Warren one you quoted. In other instances, Sanders clearly was BSisng. I'm not sure you read any, though.

Okay. So she pretends to be against the military industrial complex, but she really likes voting for defence spending. She does play a lot of politics.

This is a really facile way to understand how politics work. Senators routinely vote for things they disagree with in mass spending bills. That's the nature of political compromise. You might be surprised that even Bernie Sanders does that a lot.

[_moksha]

Gabbard could take away a lot of votes from Sanders.

Gabbard seems to be the alternate Kremlin Candidate.

[_honorentheos]

Tulsi Gabbard seems to have one legitimate position and zero other convictions. Her experiences in the military seem to have instilled a sincere belief the civilian leadership is far too reckless and casual when making decisions that send young people in uniform into harm's way. Her central, immoveable plank is built on reversing American adventurism abroad.

And that's about it. I don't see much out of her campaign that explains what legitimate international policy looks like under a Gabbard administration other than it won't start wars. I haven't seen anything on the domestic side that looks like it was developed out of having a vision and commitment to it. Her non-military intervention position seems to be the only native-to-her position. Everything else is borrowed or half-baked. Or both.

I think it's in that light that we see her appear to be "the Kremlin candidate" given the Russians are very supportive of candidates who want the US to step off the international stage. Russia has a vision that sees the return of a Russian global influence counter to western liberal democracies. And they are doing a decent job pushing it. That includes news articles and statements supportive of politicians such as Tulsi Gabbard who are extreme in their views towards American isolationism. They like Bernie for many reasons, but that is also one of them. And while Trump's economic entanglements with eastern European and west Asian oligarchs are probably at the root of his Russian support, his isolationist views regarding American politics and lack of an international policy didn't hurt his appeal that direction, either.

Tulsi isn't in the pocket of the Kremlin. She's just useful to them. So are others who have those same traits.

[_honorentheos]

If Sanders doesn't win the nomination I will probably just stay home on election day.

Why?

[_EAllusion]

I don’t think your description of Gabbard’s foreign policy is accurate at all Honor. She has repeatedly supported military interventionism. She’s quite bellicose, in fact. It’s just that her preferences are orthogonal to the usual disputes in Washington D.C. As a rule of thumb, if it hurts Muslims she likes it, but if it doesn’t, she doesn’t.

She appears to be the “Kremlin candidate” because she has repeatedly sided with Putin in disputes with the US and met with Russian cut outs. This includes her favoring Russia’s bombing of civilians protesting Asad, which doesn’t sound very pacifist of her. Russia has returned the favor by having their online influence operation bolster her. The pro Putin part of the alt-right love her.

Having a Modi style authoritarian with Sanders’ views on economics in domestic politics is weird, so I get why she confounds people, but she’s also almost no threat to Sanders chances in the Democratic primary.

[_DoubtingThomas]

but she’s also almost no threat to Sanders chances in the Democratic primary.

The Bernie supporters who like Tulsi tend to like Bernie more

According to the most recent poll Gabbard is at 5% in NH, and that is enough to cost Sanders the nomination.

that women face unique roadblocks due to gender biases that might make it more difficult for them to win.

That was not the accusation.

Sanders clearly was BSisng.

Can you give me some examples?

where the effect is Warren has to prove she is telling

Yes. But in your opinion what is more likely?

Senators routinely vote for things they disagree with in mass spending bills. That's the nature of political compromise. You might be surprised that even Bernie Sanders does that a lot.

"Then there’s foreign policy. Warren has never been particularly progressive on foreign policy, or even shown much interest in it at all"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... rogressive

[_honorentheos]

Her public statements on military intervention make the most sense when seen as coming from someone proud of the US military but deeply opposed to putting uniformed troops into harm's way. She seems happy to use drones and tomahawks missiles to bomb targets but not to escalate wars. It's less a strategy and more a deeply held opinion that civilian leadership is reckless with the lives of military personnel. That's not the same as being a pacifist. It's what one might expect from a medic who was involved in watching soldiers die for bad causes.

When I think of a Modi-like figure I envision someone who leverages national religious identity to enact anti-democratic measures that widen gulfs between minority and majority members of society playing with a strong, authoritarian hand. I imagine a Pence presidency to be more like a Modi. Being Hindu doesn't make her a Modi. In the US it would be a hindrance to Modi-like aspirations given her religious views are those of a tiny minority with almost no political power in the US.

[_EAllusion]

What makes her like Modi is that she is fan of Modi and sympathizes with the views of Modi and his supporters. She has defended Modi’s authoritarian actions and has similar nationalist sympathies domestically. In particular, she has an issue with Muslims and tends to favor policies that negatively target them. This ranges from being Trumpish (or Modiish) on Muslim immigration to a foreign policy outlook that seems shaped by opposition to Muslims.

Her support for an opposition to various military interventions line up almost perfectly with the question of “Which side are the Muslims predominantly on?” She wants the US out of supporting Saudi Arabia, but she favors strident military support for the most right-wing elements of Israel. She’s been an apologist for chemical weapons attacks on civil opposition to Asad and an apologist for Sisi’s dictatorial crackdown on democratic opposition from Muslim groups.

She has favored boots on the ground in the context of “war on terror” counter measures, describing herself as a hawk in that regard. The war in terror, of course, is pregnant with implication of who that refers to. It's not international white supremacists.