Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She is a supporter of the biggest mass murderer of the century. The brutal dictator Bashar Assad is directly responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians through starvation, bombings, and gassings. Gabbard even went to his palace in Damascus to personally show her support.
She is a classical isolationist. I have no doubt that if this were 1940 she would be opposed to war against Hitler. Would probably even go to Berlin to embrace him.
I totally agree that most who say that they would vote for her know very little about her. If they did she would not look so clean. In fact she would look downright FILTHY.
Well Assad and syria was none of our business.
Ill take her over Warren, Sanders or Harris any day of the week. The others are about as inspiring as shredded wheat.
As for being an isolationist. Why does the USA have to play world cop? Why is it our job to stick our noses into everyone else business? It isn't isolationist to mind our own business and to stop playing world cop. It has cost us literally trillions of dollars and caused us more problems than it has solved. By the way Syria was nothing like WWII Germany. Syria was a civil war that exasperated. The same as Libya. Look at our involvement has delivered there.
She is a supporter of the biggest mass murderer of the century. The brutal dictator Bashar Assad is directly responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians through starvation, bombings, and gassings. Gabbard even went to his palace in Damascus to personally show her support.
Then why did she vote to arm the rebels fighting Assad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator11040
She is a classical isolationist. I have no doubt that if this were 1940 she would be opposed to war against Hitler. Would probably even go to Berlin to embrace him.
No she's not. I have never met an isolationist but I'm sure there are some. She's not even a non interventionist, which is exactly what the founders wanted and specifically said so.
And she's not much of a non interventionist. She has no problem allowing the President to violate the constitution and declare war.
She's for NATO. How is that non interventionist?
H R 5293: Authorization for Use of Military Force
Vote Date: June 16, 2016 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.
She voted against it. How is that non interventionist?
And as far as her buddy Assad, why did she vote to arm the rebels? You remember the ones who are fighting Assad?
H R 4870: On Agreeing to the Amendment 51 to H R 4870
Vote Date: June 19, 2014
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.
She voted against this
Here's what she said "I don't think Assad should be removed," Gabbard said. "If Assad is removed and overthrown, ISIS, al Qaeda, Al Nustra, these Islamic extremist groups will walk straight in and take over all of Syria ... they will be even stronger." https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/20/polit...sad/index.html
So why vote to give rebels weapons and overthrow him????
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator11040
I totally agree that most who say that they would vote for her know very little about her. If they did she would not look so clean. In fact she would look downright FILTHY.
So she's exactly like most politicians.
It ishard to figure out if she's an interventionist or non interventionist. Her voting record leans to interventionist.
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 09-22-2019 at 08:48 AM..
I have supported Gabbard’s campaign from the beginning. She is the only candidate that voluntarily talks about withdrawing from Syria and Afghanistan. Stopping our senseless wars is not among the top ten priorities for the other candidates. Gabbard is only getting about 2% in the polls.She has had a great deal of exposure in the media. Her problem, our problem, is that the other 98% don’t care very much about our troops being killed or the trillions being spent in these wars.
She is, by far, the most sensible democrat the jackass party has managed to churn out in a very long time. It's amazing that someone of her integrity would be able to function in the party of AOC and Pelosi. I really hope she is the future of the democratic party. As a republican, I could give a party like that a chance if they would just work for the American people in a meaningful way, instead of promising more illegals and free chit to look the other way.
Tusli Gabbard would be a great leader of a much saner, more rational democratic party. Of course, that's why she will not get the nomination this time around. Dems don't like newer, less seasoned politicians rocking the boat unless they are revolutionary socialist warriors who are going to initiate a bloody red revolution. Since that is not Gabbard, she does not have a snowball's chance in hell this time around. Dems are gonna go with ol boy Biden, or some far leftist nutcase, and lose biggly to Trump. It will be a fun time for all.
I agree she is heads and shoulders above the rest of the D..RATS, but that's no a very high bar to get over. She is in HI, ruled by D..RATS.
Her views on military are spot on in my opinion. She has no chance to win. The DNC will make sure of it. She would be the only Dem I could vote for. She's still too far left for me, but at least she has sensible views on a few other subjects.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Voters Don't Care About Our Wars
