22nd October 2019, 5:31 PM
This whole thing has reminded me of how Russia backed Bernie and Jill Stein -- who, remember, was at that dinner with Putin and Michael Flynn years back! She's totally not connected to Russia... oh no... -- in 2016... and Bernie denied it, even though the fact of their support was clear, in order to cause more chaos, damage Hillary, etc.
I would assume that Russia mostly just wants whatever makes it easier for their friend Trump to win re-election, and Bernie has a much harder job winning in the general than many of our other candidates because of the stigma around the word "socialist" so that's probably most of why they would try to boost him. As far as foreign policy goes though, Trump and Bernie do have a bit in common in that both are to some extent isolationist. I highly doubt Bernie would have done anything as stupid as Trump has in Syria, to be sure, but there is a degree of similarity I think. Looking at 2016, Hillary was certainly stronger on Russia than Bernie, and that may well have played a role in their choice too. Because, I mean, I'm anti-war. I don't want us to be in wars at all! However, if we just pulled out entirely like isolationists want, what would that do to the world? It'd leave Russia and China with much freer hands, and while the US has done all kinds of really horrible things, I do think we are better overall than either of them by a whole lot. So I can't support full pullouts from everywhere; as bad as US military interventions are, in some cases the alternative, handing the world over to Putin and Xi, is worse... we certainly should avoid horrible pointless wastes like the Iraq debacle, but limited presences in Syria and such are sadly necessary, I think. I wish they weren't... but look at what's happening now that we left, it's so much worse! Hillary or Obama aren't warmongers like George W. Bush's administration, but they realize there are some situations (Syria, Afghanistan, and such) where if we do nothing things would be worse.
... I don't know though, the Afghanistan situation is so hopelessly bad... on the one hand we're in an unwinnable forever war, but on the other hand if we leave the lives of a lot of the people there we are defending (in Kabul and such) would probably get worse. What is the best approach? I'm glad I don't have to choose...
As for Tulsi and Russia, really the only question is if she's actually working for them, or if they just have similar goals and policies. It could well be the latter, but "even" if it's "only" that, that's not good! I mean, things like her support for Assad (Russia's ally obviously), for Russian bombing in Syria, that she says nothing about Russia's obvious support for her, etc.
Also, here's another really bad thing -- after that accusation, what did she do?
She went on Fox News to complain on Tucker Carlson's show about how awful Hillary and the DNC are. Fox News. First.
She's also partially anti-abortion, as she pointed out again in the last debate, though that's a different issue.
So yeah, I hope that Tulsi's primary challenger (for her US House seat) wins... and he well might. She's much more conservative on a lot of issues than that district is in Hawaii.
I would assume that Russia mostly just wants whatever makes it easier for their friend Trump to win re-election, and Bernie has a much harder job winning in the general than many of our other candidates because of the stigma around the word "socialist" so that's probably most of why they would try to boost him. As far as foreign policy goes though, Trump and Bernie do have a bit in common in that both are to some extent isolationist. I highly doubt Bernie would have done anything as stupid as Trump has in Syria, to be sure, but there is a degree of similarity I think. Looking at 2016, Hillary was certainly stronger on Russia than Bernie, and that may well have played a role in their choice too. Because, I mean, I'm anti-war. I don't want us to be in wars at all! However, if we just pulled out entirely like isolationists want, what would that do to the world? It'd leave Russia and China with much freer hands, and while the US has done all kinds of really horrible things, I do think we are better overall than either of them by a whole lot. So I can't support full pullouts from everywhere; as bad as US military interventions are, in some cases the alternative, handing the world over to Putin and Xi, is worse... we certainly should avoid horrible pointless wastes like the Iraq debacle, but limited presences in Syria and such are sadly necessary, I think. I wish they weren't... but look at what's happening now that we left, it's so much worse! Hillary or Obama aren't warmongers like George W. Bush's administration, but they realize there are some situations (Syria, Afghanistan, and such) where if we do nothing things would be worse.
... I don't know though, the Afghanistan situation is so hopelessly bad... on the one hand we're in an unwinnable forever war, but on the other hand if we leave the lives of a lot of the people there we are defending (in Kabul and such) would probably get worse. What is the best approach? I'm glad I don't have to choose...
As for Tulsi and Russia, really the only question is if she's actually working for them, or if they just have similar goals and policies. It could well be the latter, but "even" if it's "only" that, that's not good! I mean, things like her support for Assad (Russia's ally obviously), for Russian bombing in Syria, that she says nothing about Russia's obvious support for her, etc.
Also, here's another really bad thing -- after that accusation, what did she do?
She went on Fox News to complain on Tucker Carlson's show about how awful Hillary and the DNC are. Fox News. First.
She's also partially anti-abortion, as she pointed out again in the last debate, though that's a different issue.
So yeah, I hope that Tulsi's primary challenger (for her US House seat) wins... and he well might. She's much more conservative on a lot of issues than that district is in Hawaii.
Sacred Jellybean Wrote:Luckily, Gabbard has vehemently denied any plans to run 3rd party.Let's hope she sticks to that! She said that she was 'staying in to the convention' though, which is questionable... though it doesn't matter, she probably won't have any delegates.