Tulsi Gabbard at it again, blasts Trump for arming terrorists

By the time the Democrats become electable again she'll be too old for the presidency.

Who honestly thinks that some of those arms sold to SA won't eventually wind up in ISIS hands and be used to kill American men and women in the military.

It's a complex world where ideology and politics mean nothing; follow the money....

Tulsi can be as easily compromised as Trump was.

"Drive them out"....lol

While she talks tough, American servicemen are fighting hard in the heat. Action speaks louder than words. The fight against IS quickened under Trump.



pbs.twimg.com...

a reply to: allsee4eye

I'm not sure where you're going with that comment. She's a military vet herself. And her "tough talk" is because she's against arming the "rebels" and wants us to focus on taking down ISIS.

She's one of the few politicians who has basically admitted some of our worse kept geopolitical secrets:

1. Our real goal has been to take down Assad while merely using ISIS and similar groups as a pretext (and proxy) to do it.

2. We've been arming & supporting a lot of the same people who have known alliances with ISIS, Al Nusra, and Al Qaeda.

In a nutshell, she's advocated to go after the supposed target that's an actual threat to the US (ISIS) while rejecting the argument of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (aka arming our enemies who currently hate Assad more than they hate us).

a reply to: allsee4eye

Given how almost all Trump has done is attack the Syrian Army and continue to send support to Islamist groups, I'd argue he's hindering the war against the Islamic State more than helping it.

a reply to: Abysha

She'd run over anyone the Democrats put up against her in the primaries. If the Democrats are serious about having a woman in office, as they seem preoccupied with, it will be her... It's not going to be a Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin or even an Elizabeth Warren. You can rest assured of that.

a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

The Democratic establishment is pro war and in the pockets of the MIC. They would never allow pacifists like Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard to be nominated.

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
a reply to: Abysha

She'd run over anyone the Democrats put up against her in the primaries. If the Democrats are serious about having a woman in office, as they seem preoccupied with, it will be her... It's not going to be a Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin or even an Elizabeth Warren. You can rest assured of that.

I don't know... Warren is a smart cookie. I think she's far more resourceful than Clinton. But I don't think dems are gonna care whether or not a woman is in office in 2020. I think they have wised up to the DNC BS they were force-fed last year. If Bernie, Warren, or Gabbard runs, they'll clean house. Especially if the ACA has been repealed by then and independent voters are losing family members due to no insurance.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
While she talks tough, American servicemen are fighting hard in the heat. Action speaks louder than words. The fight against IS quickened under Trump.

pbs.twimg.com...

What?! She's been there! She's a goddamn vet. Show some respect.

The fight might be "quickened" under Trump, sure... but it's a fight he has no experience in. Draft-dodgers shouldn't get any glory for "quickening" a fight. Jesus...

a reply to: Abysha

Elizabeth Warren is, in some respects, very smart, yes. However, she doesn't garner the Independent, Centrist, and even some conservative support that Tulsi Gabbard does.

a reply to: Abysha

Ah! I didn't know she was a vet. My bad. Thanks for the heads up. Much respect to Tulsi Gabbard

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: allsee4eye


And yes Iran is the way out in front Terror Supporter and Hegemoginist nation. If Iran ever got ahold of those SA oilfields like Sadam tried we would be paying 10$ a gal with great outcries for war and destruction of Iran. And Tulis is just another dingbat dem.

Haven't the majority of people on ATS been saying that Saudi Arabia were responsible for 9/11? Not that I'm saying I personally believe that, but plenty on here do. If so though, that puts them kind of in the lead for supporting terror doesn't it? Or has all that magically changed?