Tulsi Gabbard

[_EAllusion]

See:

https://theweek.com/articles/855766/tul ... o-peacenik

https://www.thenation.com/article/tulsi ... ign-islam/

[_honorentheos]

EA,

I'm not a Gabbard fan, and don't favor her in the election by a long shot. Were the universe to collapse into the insane improbable of 2020 becoming a contest between her and Trump I don't think there is an option on the table I wouldn't consider other than voting for either of them.

I say that to simply point out I don't think saying her stated opposition to interventionist war equates to be a "peacenik" or pacifist. My point was that her entire foreign policy "strategy" is to not send US troops into wars, and end American interventionism. Russia likes that message, just as they like any candidate advocating for the US to step aside off the world stage and make room for others.

As to the claim she is anti-Islam, I guess your first link said this,

All of this has fueled suspicion that Gabbard's foreign policy is driven by Islamophobia. There may be some truth to that, given that she supported the SAFE Act, which would have subjected Syrian and Iraqi Muslim refugees fleeing ISIS to extreme vetting, even before Trump got elected and implemented it. At the same time, she pushed a resolution to make it easier for Christians and Yazidis who were ISIS victims to come to the United States.

But even if she isn't motivated by anti-Muslim animus, the fact is that a foreign policy that elevates America's narrow national interest above any broader concerns will inevitably lead to unsavory realpolitik alliances, regardless of whether it is pro- or anti-war. If "The Blob" — as the bipartisan interventionist foreign policy establishment is sarcastically called — has a tendency to exaggerate the threat posed to the international order by regimes that don't play by America's rules in order to justify overthrowing them, Gabbard-style anti-interventionist nationalists have a tendency to downplay the threat that odious regimes who play ball with America pose for their own people in order to enlist them.

The idea being she seems to dislike Islam and blames it while turning a blind eye to authoritarianism in the Middle East is certainly evident but it hardly supports the claim her view of when to use military force or not comes down to whether or not we are killing Muslims. I thought your second link made a better case for her position being primarily patriotic naïveté of a kind one encounters among veterans. Her views seem non-strategic, mostly informed by having seen the effects of sending people to die for bad causes but lacking any other fundamental vision or informed understanding of the role the US plays in global dynamics. Not unlike our current President. As the second link described her:

In a perceptive 2017 article for Jacobin, Branko Marcetic wrote that Gabbard’s worldview “is nationalism in antiwar garb, reinforcing instead of undercutting the toxic rhetoric that treats foreigners as less deserving of dignity than Americans.”

Yeah. Sounds about right.

As to being a "Modi-styled authoritarian", I don't see it. Whether or not she admires him, the entire idea of her being modeled on Modi is impossible to entertain. A Mike Pence presidency could very well be a Modi-styled affront to democracy. A Gabbard administration? How? Liking Modi doesn't equate to being like Modi. And being a member of a poorly understood, minority religion in a country with a pretty strong religious majority that has tied national identity with religious identity already into a coalition of the sorts authoritarians might use but only if they are on brand...I don't know.

[_EAllusion]

The idea being she seems to dislike Islam and blames it while turning a blind eye to authoritarianism in the Middle East is certainly evident but it hardly supports the claim her view of when to use military force or not comes down to whether or not we are killing Muslims.

It's not simply that she turns a blind eye to authoritarianism in the Middle East. She sides with authoritarians when those authoritarians are suppressing Islamic political groups and against them when they are not or are Islamist regimes themselves. And she doesn't just side with them, she tends to be a rather fierce advocate on their behalf, even engaging in apologetics for mass murder. You can look at a conflict theater, ask yourself "which side has the the most Islamist political activism?" and you'll have your answer as to which side Tulsi is taking. It'll probably be the other one. I say probably while not knowing a single exception, but I'm open to the possibility this is more a general rule than universally the case.

And Tulsi isn't anti-interventionist. She has supported interventions, just not the ones that align with the neo-conish views typical of hawks within D.C. She likes the War on Terror, but doesn't like the US's current alliance framework for prosecuting it. Her goal isn't to get out. It's to fight from a different base.

As to being a "Modi-styled authoritarian", I don't see it. Whether or not she admires him, the entire idea of her being modeled on Modi is impossible to entertain.

"Modeled on" is too strong of phrasing. "Akin to" is more accurate. Her combination of views is very unusual for a US politician, but coheres nicely with Modi's politics. This is true from the nationalism to the Islamophobic themes to even economic policy.

[_DoubtingThomas]

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.

According to the NYT, "The popularity of Mr. Yang and Ms. Gabbard in New Hampshire among young people, libertarians, disaffected Democrats and independent voters poses a potential threat to Mr. Sanders in the state’s crucial Feb. 11 primary — a contest that, for Mr. Sanders, is close to a must-win."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/us/p ... bbard.html

In the most recent NH poll Gabbard is at 5%, Sanders 23%, and Buttigieg 18% with a margin of error of +/- 3.8%. With 3.8% Sanders could be at 19.2% and Buttigieg at 21.8%, and Gabbard at 8.8%.

Sanders is given every benefit of the doubt on the flimsiest pretext.

Let's give Warren the benefit of the doubt. Say Sanders was mad and said, "women ca't win". Sanders is a human being and he is not perfect, so it is not hard to imagine that he made an inappropriate comment on the moment. If that is the case, why did Warren make a penis move? Warren din't have to reveal his comment weeks before Iowa. What Sanders said (allegedly) wasn't that bad because Sanders is probably more feminist than Elizabeth Warren and his voting record is what really matters. Warren didn't have to make him look bad, we all say things we are not suppose to say. So it is still dirty politics, even if the allegation is true.

[_EAllusion]

According to the New York Times, "The popularity of Mr. Yang and Ms. Gabbard in New Hampshire among young people, libertarians, disaffected Democrats and independent voters poses a potential threat to Mr. Sanders in the state’s crucial Feb. 11 primary — a contest that, for Mr. Sanders, is close to a must-win."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/us/p ... bbard.html

Ah yes, because of Tulsi, the socialist Bernie Sanders is going to lose the key libertarian demographic in the nationwide Democratic primary to Gabbard. Truly a massive blow. Combining Yang and Gabbard into an ur-candidate to make a point is fun.

Gabbard pulls very few votes, and of those she does, a significant % are people who say they are uninterested in voting for other Democrats. Aside from a smattering of support, she's primarily the candidate of the alt-right sympathetic part of the Democratic voting bloc, which is a super niche thing.

In a sufficiently close election, marginal candidates can swing elections because when margins are tiny even small differences matter. But that doesn't mean Gabbard is a threat to Sanders like Warren is. Warren is a major Democratic candidate, one that exists in Sanders' lane of left-wing economic activitism, who has the ability to both split Sanders votes significantly and outright win over him. To equate this with Gabbard who might possibly be a Ralph Nader to Sanders' Gore in a really tight election is not thinking it through. It is entirely reasonable, and correct, for Sanders to see one person as a threat and the other not.

That all aside, you're not even citing the numbers of your own linked article correctly. That doesn't matter in this case, but it is part of a pattern.

Let's give Warren the benefit of the doubt. Say Sanders was mad and said, "women ca't win". Sanders is a human being and he is not perfect, so it is not hard to imagine that he made an inappropriate comment on the moment. If that is the case, why did Warren make a penis move? Warren din't have to reveal his comment weeks before Iowa.

She wasn't the one who broke the story. It was anonymously leaked. There were accusations that she planted the story recently to knife Sanders, something you've apparently absorbed as gospel, but that was never verified.

Subsequent reporting strongly suggests the story came from one of the reporters who heard Warren talk about it a year ago and corroborated by others who also heard it:

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/17/san ... secretary/

What Sanders said (allegedly) wasn't that bad because Sanders is probably more feminist than Elizabeth Warren and his voting record is what really matters. Warren didn't have to make him look bad, we all say things we are not suppose to say. So it is still dirty politics, even if the allegation is true.

This is some real cult stuff right here.

[_honorentheos]

The idea being she seems to dislike Islam and blames it while turning a blind eye to authoritarianism in the Middle East is certainly evident but it hardly supports the claim her view of when to use military force or not comes down to whether or not we are killing Muslims.

It's not simply that she turns a blind eye to authoritarianism in the Middle East. She sides with authoritarians when those authoritarians are suppressing Islamic political groups and against them when they are not or are Islamist regimes themselves. And she doesn't just side with them, she tends to be a rather fierce advocate on their behalf, even engaging in apologetics for mass murder. You can look at a conflict theater, ask yourself "which side has the the most Islamist political activism?" and you'll have your answer as to which side Tulsi is taking. It'll probably be the other one. I say probably while not knowing a single exception, but I'm open to the possibility this is more a general rule than universally the case.

My general rule in reading Gabbard is if the cause puts uniformed US soldiers on the ground for reasons that aren't obviously defending the US - not our economic interests but the US, itself - then she is largely against it. Does she favor using bombs to fight the war on terror? Sure. Does she support the use of Special Forces to conduct targeted missions? Sure. I don't believe I said she was a pacifist. But I think your use of non-interventionist is too broad. Her views seem pretty obvious - don't start wars.

Here's an exchange from The Nation from a couple of years ago -

JC: One will often hear neocons and liberal interventionists (surely by now a distinction without a difference) warn against over-learning the lessons of Iraq. Which is kind of an odd concern. In your years in Congress have you seen any evidence that those lessons have been actually been learned by the political and media establishments in the first place?

TG: No. Based on our country’s continued counterproductive regime-change war policies, it is clear that leaders on both sides of the aisle have not learned the painful lessons of decades of interventionist regime-change wars, most recently in Iraq, Libya, and now Syria. The result has been costly for the American people, in human lives and taxpayer dollars, and devastating for the people of these countries, where countless lives have been lost, humanitarian crises created, with refugees’ being forced from their homes, and the utter destruction of their way of life.

I recently fought to strip a provision from the 2018 defense-authorization bill that essentially authorizes the secretaries of state and defense to go to war with Iran. Only 60 members of Congress supported my amendment.

While many members of Congress and the Trump administration rail against Iran and are calling for US troops to remain in Syria indefinitely to counter Iran’s influence and presence there, they refuse to acknowledge the fact that the United States regime-change war in Syria has greatly strengthened Iran’s presence and influence in that country. In other words, the Syrian government of Assad has become much more dependent upon and beholden to Iran and Russia, due to our efforts to overthrow their government. This obviously does not serve the national interests of the United States or Israel.

Furthermore, Iran’s presence and influence in Iraq was zero before we overthrew Saddam Hussein. Now Iran is the dominant power in Iraq.

The problem is that our leaders are either extremely shortsighted, or they’re consciously working against the interests of the United States and our allies. The undeniable truth is that the direct result of our overthrowing the regimes of Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and our efforts to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, has greatly increased the presence and influence of Russia and Iran, as well as Al Qaeda and other jihadists, in all three of those countries.

In short, we have spent trillions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of American lives in order to help those we consider to be our enemies or adversaries. Who needs enemies when we have leaders like this?

The most consistent aspect of her statements is avoiding sending troops into fights. As I said earlier, I don't think her positions beyond that are deeply held or natively her own.

As to being a "Modi-styled authoritarian", I don't see it. Whether or not she admires him, the entire idea of her being modeled on Modi is impossible to entertain.

"Modeled on" is too strong of phrasing. "Akin to" is more accurate. Her combination of views is very unusual for a US politician, but coheres nicely with Modi's politics. This is true from the nationalism to the Islamophobic themes to even economic policy.

Modi is a religious nationalist. It's his distinguishing feature among authoritarian leaders. Mike Pence and his ilk are nationalists who are Islamophobic, too. There is a wide range of options to compare her to in the US, Modi not being a good one unless you think she's pro-Hindu and that's what makes her akin to Modi. I don't see that. But even if it were true, a Hindu in the US can't be both akin to Modi and a successful politicians because they don't have the Hindu base Modi has in India. There are plenty of American nationalist islamaphobes to chose from if that is your criteria.

[_DoubtingThomas]

This is some real cult stuff right here.

Look, Sanders is a progressive, I am not. I do not agree with him on many things and I am not a die hard supporter, I would prefer Yang, but Yang has no chance of winning.

But that doesn't mean Gabbard is a threat to Sanders like Warren is.

I didn't say that! But you said, "absolutely zero threat" and I responded to your claim. Sanders cannot afford to lose in NH, so yes Gabbard can cost him the nomination all because of NH. Not saying it is likely, but it is possible.

The NYT article I gave you, "Interviews with voters at campaign events, as well as the polls themselves, suggest that a sizable share of the New Hampshire voters backing Mr. Yang and Ms. Gabbard are the very sorts of voters who propelled Mr. Sanders to victory here in 2016."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/us/p ... bbard.html

She wasn't the one who broke the story. It was anonymously leaked.

Good Lord Jesus! According to Reuters "In its report on the meeting, CNN cited four people with knowledge of it, including two with whom Warren spoke about it soon after and another two who were familiar with what happened at the meeting." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1ZD06K. Notice how it does't say something like "another two were present at the meeting". The Sanders campaign said the anonymous sources were not in the meeting. According to the Hill, "Sanders vehemently denies the story, which came from four anonymous sources close to Warren." You think Warren wasn't expecting the story to leak?

EAllusion, I think you are the cult follower, I thought you were smarter than that. I am disappointed.

There were accusations that she planted the story recently to knife Sanders, something you've apparently absorbed as gospel, but that was never verified.

Warren is not a stupid person, she knew exactly what was going to happen.

[_EAllusion]

I didn't say that! But you said, "absolutely zero threat" and I responded to your claim. Sanders cannot afford to lose in NH, so yes Gabbard can cost him the nomination all because of NH. Not saying it is likely, but it is possible.

On the chance you have an autism spectrum disorder, "absolutely zero threat" doesn't mean literally a zero probability of having an impact on the election where she will not garner even one vote that might have otherwise gone to Sanders. It means her threat is extremely minimal such that Sanders responding differently to Gabbard than Warren wouldn't be surprising on that ground alone.

Good Lord Jesus! According to Reuters "In its report on the meeting, CNN cited four people with knowledge of it, including two with whom Warren spoke about it soon after and another two who were familiar with what happened at the meeting." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1ZD06K. Notice how it does't say something like "another two were present at the meeting". The Sanders campaign said the anonymous sources were not in the meeting. According to the Hill, "Sanders vehemently denies the story, which came from four anonymous sources close to Warren." You think Warren wasn't expecting the story to leak?

Well, it didn't leak until a year or so later. If by "leak" you mean told someone, then yeah, Warren leaked the story. There's nothing wrong with that. If by "leak" you mean as, you already stated, that she released the story a few weeks before the Iowa primary with the intent to harm Sanders on the eve of an election, there's no evidence that happened and some evidence to think it did not.

Pick a position and go with it.

Warren is not a stupid person, she knew exactly what was going to happen.

I see were back on the give Sanders every benefit of the doubt while making the worst assumptions about Warren's motives train again.

[_honorentheos]

Hey DT, I'm curious what you think about this -

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/election ... spartandhp

INDIANOLA, Iowa (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden accused rival Bernie Sanders's campaign on Saturday of disseminating a "doctored" video edited to falsely appear to show the former vice president supporting cutting Social Security, and called on the Sanders campaign to disown it.

In response, Sanders' campaign refused to back down and continued to cite the video as evidence that Biden wants to limit the government-run retirement and disability program.

...

Biden accused "Bernie's people" of putting out a "doctored video" that was edited to appear to show him agreeing with former Republican Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Paul Ryan that Social Security should be privatized.

"It's simply a lie, that video is a lie," Biden said. "I'm looking for his campaign to come forward and disown it but they haven't done it yet."

In response, Sanders' campaign manager Faiz Shakir doubled down on the attack, saying in a statement, "Biden not only pushed to cut Social Security -- he is on tape proudly bragging about it on multiple occasions."

At the center of the back-and-forth is a newsletter the Sanders campaign distributed recently that pointed to a speech Biden gave to the Brookings Institution think tank in 2018. Biden is quoted as saying, "Paul Ryan was correct when he did the tax code. What's the first thing he decided we had to go after? Social Security and Medicare."

However, the video of the speech makes clear Biden was actually mocking Ryan for the proposal. He leans into the microphone and says in a deep, menacing stage whisper: "Social Security and Medicare." Biden then goes on to say – in remarks not disseminated by the Sanders campaign – that the tax code needs to be reformed so enough revenue is raised to save Social Security and Medicare.

PolitiFact, an independent fact-checker, rated the Sanders newsletter as false.

[_EAllusion]

Hey DT, I'm curious what you think about this -

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/election ... spartandhp

INDIANOLA, Iowa (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden accused rival Bernie Sanders's campaign on Saturday of disseminating a "doctored" video edited to falsely appear to show the former vice president supporting cutting Social Security, and called on the Sanders campaign to disown it.

In response, Sanders' campaign refused to back down and continued to cite the video as evidence that Biden wants to limit the government-run retirement and disability program.

...

Biden accused "Bernie's people" of putting out a "doctored video" that was edited to appear to show him agreeing with former Republican Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Paul Ryan that Social Security should be privatized.

"It's simply a lie, that video is a lie," Biden said. "I'm looking for his campaign to come forward and disown it but they haven't done it yet."

In response, Sanders' campaign manager Faiz Shakir doubled down on the attack, saying in a statement, "Biden not only pushed to cut Social Security -- he is on tape proudly bragging about it on multiple occasions."

At the center of the back-and-forth is a newsletter the Sanders campaign distributed recently that pointed to a speech Biden gave to the Brookings Institution think tank in 2018. Biden is quoted as saying, "Paul Ryan was correct when he did the tax code. What's the first thing he decided we had to go after? Social Security and Medicare."

However, the video of the speech makes clear Biden was actually mocking Ryan for the proposal. He leans into the microphone and says in a deep, menacing stage whisper: "Social Security and Medicare." Biden then goes on to say – in remarks not disseminated by the Sanders campaign – that the tax code needs to be reformed so enough revenue is raised to save Social Security and Medicare.

PolitiFact, an independent fact-checker, rated the Sanders newsletter as false.

Hmm. On the one hand, the video isn't "doctored" like the Biden campaign is saying. Rather, it is out of context to present a misleading point. That's a tier beneath doctoring in malfeasance. On the other hand, the point the Sanders campaign is making in a misleading way is absolutely correct. Biden has pushed to cut entitlements for a long time and there are multiple examples of him on video bragging about that.

Pinocchios all around for our political hell-world.