Tulsi spanks Buttigeg on foreign policy

Jul 2019
7,998
4,867
Georgia
Buttigeg reminds me of that GOP canidate who wore the sleeveless sweaters a few years ago. Didn't really have anything great to offer. Was sort of bland on policy. Like a go with the flow kind of guy.


Thinking about all this, from a different perspective. Seems the American people are just stupid. Seriously. All but 1 are pushing for changes in what's wrong with the country, healthcare, immigration etc etc etc.. But not supporting what's wrong with the government. Which is where all those other problems stem from.
Maybe that's why people are not taking to Tulsi. Because they're too stupid to figure out that if you can't fix what's wrong with government, you're not going to fix anything. EVER!!!! For the rest of your life.

View attachment 6166

:up: Remember that?
I loved Kucinich
 
Dec 2006
26,842
12,099
New Haven, CT
Buttigeg reminds me of that GOP canidate who wore the sleeveless sweaters a few years ago. Didn't really have anything great to offer. Was sort of bland on policy. Like a go with the flow kind of guy.
Wow. I don't see him that way AT ALL.

He does seem like a nice decent fellow. But I don't get that he's bland or a door mat in any way. In fact, the way he clapped back at the Tulsi hag at the last debate kinda dispelled any doubt that he has a set of 'em.
 
Sep 2019
2,260
880
Here
Wow. I don't see him that way AT ALL.

He does seem like a nice decent fellow. But I don't get that he's bland or a door mat in any way. In fact, the way he clapped back at the Tulsi hag at the last debate kinda dispelled any doubt that he has a set of 'em.
He snapped at her for talking with enemies. How inexperienced can you get. And a little childish, actually.
A president acting on what others say about an enemy is like sending soldiers into wars to fight, die and kill people they don't even know. For reasons they don't even know. But a president that speaks face to face with them, as Tulsi, trump, JFK and other did, is something only real leaders do.
Buttigegs inexperience makes me think he'd be a follower, like W. was. Believing everything he's told.
 
Dec 2006
26,842
12,099
New Haven, CT
He snapped at her for misrepresenting what he had said about aiding mexico in getting rid of the drug cartels.
I do NOT think it's wrong for Presidents to have official negotiations with enemies. It's necessary. No matter how important she thinks she is, Tulsi ain't a national leader. Sitting and having a coffee klatsch with Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad is not in her job description.
 
  • Like
Reactions: se7en
Dec 2015
18,929
18,445
Arizona
Sweet: Tulsi the Dove.
That's interesting considering her voting record and her "Obama-like" blueprint for war/anti-war.

If you do a little research (and it doesn't take much) you'll find really fascinating facts about our little lovebug Tulsi.
Let's start with her statements, going back to the Obama days.
During an interview with the Hawaii Tribune-Herald, Gabbard described her views on foreign policy with the following; “when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk. When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.” Elaborating in her views on the war on terror during an appearance on NDTV, Gabbard told an interviewer that the U.S. has a responsibility to “root out evil where ever it is” to defeat “radical Islamic extremism.” Isn't that a quote from Dick Cheney?
The War on Terror. I mean....afterall....who wouldn't support that, right? Except......isn't that just a tad vague? AND what does that really mean? It means (theoretically) ongoing war which exists all over the globe and can never be fully eradicated. Such an approach on terror leads to perpetual military intervention via drones, ground troops or otherwise, to be engaged at all times resulting in never-ending wars. So is Tulsi saying "limited war/airstrikes"?? Which would result in NO casualties? No death and/or destruction?
Let's move on to Tulsi's voting record. She voted YES on increasing the military budget in 2018. She voted (in 2013) against measures to save money on aircraft carriers, reduce funding for submarines, cut wasteful war spending, take steps toward closing Guantanamo Bay, and reducing Pentagon spending. In 2014, Gabbard voted against an amendment that would prohibit U.S. combat operations in Iraq and against an amendment that would prevent funds being used for the 2002 AUMF in Iraq. The following year, Gabbard voted against reducing the number of required aircraft carriers the Navy was required to keep, cutting nuclear missile program funding. Then in 2016, Gabbard voted three times against repealing or blocking funding for the 2001 AUMF, which is what currently gives American presidents a blank check for starting more endless wars. Tulsi, the dove?

Someone needs to have a sit-down with Tulsi and explain that WAR is WAR, whether it's drones, limited airstrikes, military spending, physical troops (although limited), terrorists or chemicals. Then, maybe someone can explain to YoursTruly that very few people on this entire planet actually WANT war, LOVE war, or encourage WAR.
Does that makes ALL OF US doves....like Tulsi?

 
Jul 2019
7,998
4,867
Georgia
Sweet: Tulsi the Dove.
That's interesting considering her voting record and her "Obama-like" blueprint for war/anti-war.

If you do a little research (and it doesn't take much) you'll find really fascinating facts about our little lovebug Tulsi.
Let's start with her statements, going back to the Obama days.
During an interview with the Hawaii Tribune-Herald, Gabbard described her views on foreign policy with the following; “when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk. When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.” Elaborating in her views on the war on terror during an appearance on NDTV, Gabbard told an interviewer that the U.S. has a responsibility to “root out evil where ever it is” to defeat “radical Islamic extremism.” Isn't that a quote from Dick Cheney?
The War on Terror. I mean....afterall....who wouldn't support that, right? Except......isn't that just a tad vague? AND what does that really mean? It means (theoretically) ongoing war which exists all over the globe and can never be fully eradicated. Such an approach on terror leads to perpetual military intervention via drones, ground troops or otherwise, to be engaged at all times resulting in never-ending wars. So is Tulsi saying "limited war/airstrikes"?? Which would result in NO casualties? No death and/or destruction?
Let's move on to Tulsi's voting record. She voted YES on increasing the military budget in 2018. She voted (in 2013) against measures to save money on aircraft carriers, reduce funding for submarines, cut wasteful war spending, take steps toward closing Guantanamo Bay, and reducing Pentagon spending. In 2014, Gabbard voted against an amendment that would prohibit U.S. combat operations in Iraq and against an amendment that would prevent funds being used for the 2002 AUMF in Iraq. The following year, Gabbard voted against reducing the number of required aircraft carriers the Navy was required to keep, cutting nuclear missile program funding. Then in 2016, Gabbard voted three times against repealing or blocking funding for the 2001 AUMF, which is what currently gives American presidents a blank check for starting more endless wars. Tulsi, the dove?

Someone needs to have a sit-down with Tulsi and explain that WAR is WAR, whether it's drones, limited airstrikes, military spending, physical troops (although limited), terrorists or chemicals. Then, maybe someone can explain to YoursTruly that very few people on this entire planet actually WANT war, LOVE war, or encourage WAR.
Does that makes ALL OF US doves....like Tulsi?

thanks for sharing that. she definitely doesn't appear to be the anti-war candidate she's claiming to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007