Message from @ETBrooD
Discord ID: 632869079732191252
Tulsi flip-flopping on her stance on foreign military intervention? Conceptualize my astonishment
Sheesh how can this woman still be taken seriously, she does more flips than a gymnast
is this a flip flop?
Hey can anyone find that video of the UC berkley riots where Antifa attacks people with flag poles. I've been searching on youtube forever and can't find it
Tulsi being in favor of reduced interventionism and then switching that stance to "we should stay and fight their war?" Yeah that's flip-flop
It means she's a virtue signalling snake who doesn't actually have moral principles (this is her second offense on the issue of being unprincipled btw)
tulsi was never anti-interventionist afaik
she's always advocated for fighting islamist terror groups
for example
i think her position was moreso that we shouldn't pursue a policy of regime change
That's exactly my point. Tulsi is a snake, she virtue signals, she's not really anti-interventionism and shit
And now she's been revealed (apparently not for the first time)
i mean has she every claimed to be opposed to foreign intervention outright
she's just stated her opposition to certain kinds of it
also the subtitle to that article is really funny
i might look at it later when i come back
I mean, from what I know she was the "only nationalist left candidate" and she ran on a strong reduction in interventionism
So yeah maybe in absolute terms she never stated she's against intervention*ism*
So I'm actually starting to think that the Dems wanted her out of the race not because she was too promising, but because they knew she was too easy to read
Politics contains a great amount of poker, and someone who's terrible at bluffing will not perform well
yeah i mean this article seems to be in line with what i'm saying
the issue is that there seems to be a trend where when a politician comes out against certain forms of intervention they start to become labelled as "anti-war" or "anti-intervention"
you can see a similar thing with donald trump where people were ascribing these labels to him despite him advocating for putting boots on the ground in syria to combat ISIS and such
this article quotes here in 2016 saying “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.”
her professed positions in the past as far as i'm aware don't conflict with the position she is taking now on this issue
perhaps the fantasy people have conjured in their heads does
also that article was extraordinarily cancerous and you owe me for making me read that trash
since you're a libertarian i'll be willing to accept payment in gold or bitcoin
Her stance conflicts directly with what she said
how so? the purpose, at least the stated one, behind opposing this move isn't because it interferes with syrian regime change
perhaps it is an opportunistic jab at trump, but that doesn't make it contradictory
Tulsi: US Troops need to leave Afghanistan; we have no reason to be there
Also Tulsi: WE SHOULDN'T HAVE LEFT SYRIA, THEIR BLOOD IS ON TRUMP'S HANDS
This extends beyond Tulsi. Being "against war" is a nice ill-defined slogan that appeals to some voters. It is not a plan or even a policy. What I want (so far as foreign policy) and have not seen from anyone (including the President) is a plan or goal for withdrawal. ISIS is a great example of how leaving can make things worse.
<:poggers:583775485620781087> <:poggers:583775485620781087> <:poggers:583775485620781087>
https://pluralist.com/hunter-biden-steps-down-from-board-of-chinese-firm/49999
Thank you, Mexico! Very Cool!
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/dh4hav/mexican_national_guard_is_dismantling_a_caravan/