Yeah, I figured it was something like that and I'm pretty sure that some of Tulsi's supporters are non-religous "porn and pot" Libertarians and Republicans, which is why so many of them do the "Killary Clinton is a Warmonger" shit.
I won't use the "Killary Clinton" insult but I do think that she and the bipartisan consensus of politicians are very heavily tilted toward war. I think it's plainly obvious that the military industrial complex has its hooks deep into our politicians, enabling a generational war
with no end in sight, and expanding conflicts to other locations that are not discussed in the media. We still have not had any meaningful discussion about what happened in Niger, and more importantly, what our operations in Africa look like. Most people don't even know that we're bombing like 7 or 8 different countries, and are only marginally aware of what is happening in Afghanistan. Spooks and national security figures regularly appear in the mainstream media to sell us the ongoing war, that nobody asks "how are you going to pay for that?" Skepticism is not welcome, as clearly seen here (and truth hurts, eh). It, quite candidly, makes Democratic opposition to Iraq war look partisan in nature.
This is very important. It doesn't matter if Tulsi isn't a direct Russian asset, what matters is if her followers have been influenced by Russian internet agents. Then THEY influence the things she says to appeal to them. For example, all that "Killary" and "Hillary is a warmonger" stuff I first saw being posted by people who were obviously not native english speakers on various tech-related forums that appeal to the "tech-libertarian atheist rationalist" types who might be willing to support someone like Tulsi, who isn't really a Democrat at all.
I always try to evaluate someone by their policy positions, to answer what their partisan leanings are. I think that one can honestly long for the pre-Gingrich semblance of bipartisan consensus or at least congeniality without being centrist or a DINO/RINO. When you actually look at her policies, what does she stand for? They are not Republican-leaning at all. They are not alt-right, as people like to throw around. She may not be a true blue progressive, but that would be a funny charge from people trying to prop up the likes of Amy Klobuchar or Biden (not you specifically).
It's accurate to say that Tulsi Gabbard is not a complete pacifist. She takes a soldier's look at the war on terror and thinks more strategically about how to conduct it in a way that reduces the exposure of our troops, and our dollars. It's not going to be perfect solution, as there isn't one. But it's also not isolationist, her approach depends on increased diplomacy. This is a rational view to me, and it resonates with people outside the party conclaves.
I'm going to say this again, if you say "Hillary the warmonger" I can't take you seriously. Because Hillary was a diplomat, Secretary of State. The Ultimate decisions on military force are made by the Commander In Chief and the Joint Chiefs, they have the final say. If you call Hillary a Warmonger, you're actually saying that Obama was because HE had the final say, not her.
And criticizing Hillary for being in favor of the Libyans getting rid of Muammar Gaddafi? THAT Muammar Gaddafi, who had been a dictatorial asshole since I was a little kid? He'd been dictator of Libya since 1969!
Like I said, there is a bipartisan consensus toward war and the claim can be credibly made that yes, Obama too is a warmonger since he expanded 2 wars to 7 or 8. And this was the man who campaigned against "dumb wars."
There is a more nuanced discussion to be had about Libya, Iraq and other countries where we intervened. Libya is a failed state where you can buy slaves in open markets. That did not happen prior to our intervention. ISIS did not have a chance to form under Saddam Hussein. Libya, Iraq and Syria are the most egregious examples of how our intervention hasn't actually made anything better: for us, but especially for the people on the ground there. WE caused the largest refugee crisis, over a million people dead, countless more injured. We created power vacuums that were worse than their predecessors all because we are trying to isolate Iran. In the meanwhile, we keep driving people farther into Iran's influence. In Syria, which was a stable secular society before we armed jihadists to take down Assad, once the jihadists took over towns, it was worse for the Christians there as they were being persecuted and women were forced to live in 7th century conditions again. Do you think that those people would agree with you? The return of Assad to power in those areas is a mixed bag, not a cartoonishly simple evil.
Nobody misses Gaddafi because of who he was or what he represented, except his toadies. But Libya's relative stability is something that is missed by the people who are now being sold as slaves. Same for Honduras, where we supported a coup that has resulted in it devolving into a narco-state run over by gangs, contributing to a lot of the refugees coming to our Southern border. Our intervention far more often than not doesn't help anyone, and costs us more blood and treasure.
They're unknowing assets. Meaning the Russians are doing what they can to support them with their internet presence to help increase division and weaken the Democrats. All they need are some social media groups with names like "Mothers for Tulsi" or "Veterans for Tulsi" throwing around "Killary the Warmonger" memes.
Why is it so improbable that people might genuinely support her? There are a lot of independents for whom her message resonates. They are just outside the partisan bubble.
They're assets if they've been influenced by Russian efforts on the Internet. And any Green who doesn't have enough good sense to vote for a Democrat in the General election is an idiot. The fact that US is a presently a two party system is something the Greens, Libertarians and whatnot have just got to live with.
Yes, they do have to put up with it, but that's a choice they are entitled to make - because someone has to fight for change. I think that they should do it more carefully (i.e., not in swing states) but I don't think that we should shit on them for not being content with the status quo.
This isn't McCarthyism, you're not going to have to testify in front of HUAC or blackmailed and forced to sell out your "fellow traveler's" names, or have your livelyhood threatened.
As an old saying goes, "from little seeds acorns grow."
Look, the red-baiting Russia-demonizing talk is not a constructive way to look at the world. The reality is that we need Russian cooperation on some interests (climate change would be the biggest example) and the constant demonization undermines any diplomatic ability to work with them when our interests align. I had agreed with Obama's desire for a "Russian reset" precisely for that reason. It's not being a fan of Putin, but recognizing that Russia is a powerful state actor in and of itself, with whom we would need to work in order to get some things done. Our interests would not always align, but we might need them in the case of, say, brokering deals with North Korea, for example.
Don't forget the Russian government has been trying to influence the NRA, inviting the NRA to Russia, talking about how Russian has it's own conservative god-fearin gun-luvin groups and having Maria Butina do the shit she did.
Yes, they have spies and want to influence our politicians. Yes, they should be rooted out. No arguments there!
Yeah, no real Democrat would go on Tucker Carlson to diss another democrat. Tulsi always reminds me of Bill Maher, another guy who tries to say he's a liberal, but then whines about "extreme SJW's." and stuff. He's no democrat, he's a libertarian or Republican who doesn't like religion and likes porn and pot and ogling the legs of Blonde Republican sex kittens he invites on his shows.
I am no fan of Carlson, but it's understandable why she goes there. They let her speak without loading on attacks. And I don't know the exact number but there are actually a not-insignificant number of Democrats that watch Fox News. I saw some polling where some 43% of Democrats looked at Fox News favorably (I have no idea why). See:
Who’s watching? A look at the demographics of cable news channel watchers So, plenty of "real" Democrats do in fact watch, and it's tactically smart of her to take it to that audience.
