I take this to mean the Kurds and their offshoots or Syrian rebels. “Terrorists” is how Putin, Assad, and Erdogan and their fellow travelers refer to them.
Among the 1000 dumb things Bush did was license the use of “terrorist” to mean opposition force.
Well, that seems like the smart strategy to me. He needs to find a way to bring Biden down so that he looks like the clear alternative to Sanders/Warren. And he might need to be more pro-active on that front instead of waiting for Biden to implode. Uncle Joe wants to be the heir to Barack’s coattails. Mayor Pete wants to be that guy like Barack who inspires people by being something other than a heterosexual white male in as non-threatening of a way as possible. It’s Oldbama vs. Gaybama.
Warren should want Biden and Buttigieg to split the centrist vote leaving her as the most viable alternative to Sanders. Sanders just wants to not die on the campaign trail.
Everyone else is running for veep, angling for a Cabinet job, or serving their Russian masters. Tulsi’s going to be the token liberal commentator on the Trump News Network.
Uh, really?
Ok, “terrorist” is a loaded word, but I’m referring to the Islamist groups like Al Nusra and the Free Syrian Army, not “the Kurds” who aren’t all Kurds, in fact the Syrian Defense Force (what people refer to as the Kurdish Army in Syria) is 60% Arab.
I mean I don’t really get Tulsi’s deal, but she’s on team evil, whether she knows it or not.
“Terrorists” don’t primarily refer to the Kurds, although when it’s useful, sure. “Terrorists” are primarily the Sunni Muslim population that Assad & Putin massacred by the hundreds of thousands. But so long as it wasn’t Uncle Sam dropping the bombs, ¯\(ツ)/¯
Do you think we should have been supplying arms to every group that fought the Syrian regime, whether or not they were associated with groups like Al Queda?
It’s a complex question that I’ve avoided delving into, but I think we probably should have helped establish a greater Kurdistan and then put bases there.
pro tip: when copy pasting this ascii shrug man you have to \ escape the first arm
We have supported the “Free Syrian Army”, meanwhile, they support the “Army of Conquest”.
She’s already on Tucker’s show once a week, this is less a prediction than an observation
Maybe you don’t know enough about it to justify much confidence in your opinion on who is or isn’t a useful idiot.
This is true and it doesn’t speak well for her, and I don’t really care. She’s a <1% candidate. She’s a pretty moderate Dem - not someone I’d support much. But the fervent anti-Tulsi business says more about the anti-Tulsites than it does about Tulsi and I suspect it has practically nothing to do with her at all.
I truly don’t believe that a $2800 donation gets someone a line to his senior staff, except maybe to his person that handles fundraising.
I talk about the $200 thing because of the disingenuous “omg big donors are evil” line of attack.
Not sure what else to say, other than I could write paragraphs about the actual process they go through to set one of these fundraising events up which would just bore you, I’m sure. Suffice it to say, these donors contact the campaign, not the other way around, and I don’t know if that’s good or bad in your eyes.
I suppose I could blog this whole process but I’d have to go back and start at the beginning in March when i got into this
My opinion is not based solely on her vote against the global magnitsky act. Fun fact, I’ve never proven to my personal satisfaction that the speed or light is a fixed constant, but it’s consistent with everything else I know and I trust those who tell me it is. Why would you defend Tulsi? Do you believe Hillary is the real warmonger and Tulsi has an approach to foreign policy that is superior to everyone else? How do you feel about Ron Paul?
I can’t find the house vote on the National Defense Authorization Act of 2017, er The Magnitsky Act I guess. Maybe it was one where they just raised hands? But I found the Senate vote.
Voting against the Magnitsky Act (I guess): Gillibrand, Markley, Merkley, Reid, and Warren (Bernie didn’t vote).
I let Tucker and others do my work here. If they like her, that’s all I need to know.
For the 2012 Act the nays were:
NAYs — 4
Levin (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Sanders (I-VT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Because I think for the most part the people who are attacking her are full of shit. I think the reason she gets any attention from the hordes of people who love to hate her is because she’s a bad Democrat and she quit the DCCC to endorse Bernie. And I think a bunch of stupid Democratic Party loyalist actually beat war drums because they think criticizing Republicans is more important than war and peace and they’ll reset with Putin or go to war with Russia, or it’s ok to talk to dictators or it’s treasonous, or whatever depending solely on how it affects partisan politics.
Well, “the real”? I dunno, but she absolutely was a war monger. She was a fucking atrocious Secretary of State who led Obama to fuck up Libya. Thank fucking God he fired her. Kerry did a much better job - Iran, Cuba, drawing down troops. Thank God he fired her.
That’s exactly equivalent to you saying “fuck off”, and my pointing that out is exactly equivalent to responding in kind.
Making the point that it’s not really about Tulsi.
It’s probably no coincidence that recently I’ve stopped fighting with people on 2p2.