Moderators: Deeeez Knicks, mpharris36, j4remi, NoLayupRule, HerSports85, GONYK, Jeff Van Gully, dakomish23
mpharris36 wrote:GONYK wrote:How many Dem run cities were being burned down under Obama or Bush?
Baltimore and Ferguson come to mind. I don't think you will like my answer but due to the pandemic and this being an election year I do think people are getting paid to incite a lot of these riots. These young Antifa dudes are paid to incite chaos.
br7knicks wrote:Jeff Van Gully wrote:br7knicks wrote:
what has she said that is islamophobic? i legit don't know.
i wasn't aware of islamophobia on her part. but i just looked it up and saw a breakdown of what may be meant by that. sounds like she might have fallen in line with some of the conservative-led incendiary language against muslims when addressing terrorism:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/16/18182114/tulsi-gabbard-2020-president-campaign-policiesGabbard initially excited the left because she was an outspoken economic progressive and a veteran who objected to American intervention abroad. She was also the first Hindu member of Congress. Nancy Pelosi called her an “emerging star”; MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow predicted she was “on the fast track to being very famous.”
But in the following years, Gabbard staked out foreign policy positions that shocked her allies. She joined Republicans in demanding that President Obama use the term “radical Islam.” She was the member of Congress most willing to advocate for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. She dubbed herself a “hawk” on terrorism. Reporters documented worrying ties to anti-LGBTQ groups — including one run by her father — and anti-Muslim Hindu nationalists.
Gabbard has defenses of these positions, some more persuasive than others. She seems to have sincerely changed her mind on LGBTQ issues, defends her position on terrorism as a necessary response to the serious threat from jihadism to the United States, and argues that her outreach to the Syrian government is part of an effort to open up space for a peaceful solution to the conflict.
aside from this kind of thing, tulsi struck me as a textbook moderate who had sneaky potential for broad appeal. definitely the kind of democrat who is more palatable to conservative areas. i saw she had solid support in southern states. regardless of how her campaign went, i think she did a pretty good job getting herself out there. i wouldn't count her out long-term just yet.
Yeah. That's not islamophobic, though. Not too worried about that.
Like Christianity, there are religions that have extremists who want to do harm to others. They often overshadow the vast number of those practicing the religion who are peaceful and loving people.
But I'm sure if you asked how she felt about Christian extremists who want non believers hurt, dead, etc, she'd condemn them and call them terrorists - Timothy McVeigh
I would put money on her hating the westboro Baptist Church as well
Radical islam would be similar to saying radical Christians. They exist, and I don't like people who want to do harm to others.
Not sure I like the term radical islam tho.
So what is the cause of terrorism, according to Gabbard? Islam, of course.
Before she became a progressive darling for endorsing Sanders, Gabbard became a conservative darling for relentlessly hawking the idea — later popularized by Trump — that Obama’s foreign policy was failing because he refused to use the term “Islamic extremism,” or some variation of it.
From 2014 onward, Gabbard appeared regularly on Fox News to lambast the Obama administration for avoiding the phrase. In one interview, she told the host that “the vast majority of terrorist attacks conducted around the world for over the last decade have been conducted by groups who are fueled by this radical Islamic ideology,” a statement that may be technically true due to the violence and instability plaguing Middle Eastern countries, but is wildly misleading considering that non-Muslims make up the vast, vast majority of terrorist perpetrators in both Europe and the United States.
And it wasn’t just on Fox. Gabbard took her message to any network or outlet that would have her. On CNN, she called Kerry’s refusal to use the term “unfortunate and disturbing.” In an interview with the Hill, she stressed that radical Islam was at the heart of the problem, necessitating “a simultaneous ideological strategy” to defeat terrorists.
The Right was smitten. Breitbart ran article after article trumpeting her criticisms, and former US representative Allen West praised Gabbard for “dar[ing] to challenge Obama.”
In February 2015, Gabbard had the chance to question Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Vincent Stewart. She asked him (while clearly fishing for a particular answer) about the debate over “how this ideology, how this motivation, must be identified” and what “common elements” existed among different Islamic terrorist groups, including ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram. She then went on Fox and reported that Stewart had “identified very clearly that it is this radical Islamic ideology that is fueling” these groups.
But Gabbard had heavily distorted what Stewart actually said. While he did call ISIS “a radical ideology that must be countered with a moderate ideology,” he also pointed out that the common elements that had produced such groups were “ungoverned states, weak government institution, economic instability, poverty.”
Naturally, it wasn’t long before she appeared on Bill Maher’s program, where the two bonded over their mutual distrust of “Islamic extremism” and their disagreement with Kerry’s comments. After agreeing with Maher that it was “crazy” Obama didn’t want to use the two magic words, Gabbard reiterated her point: “Give them a big house, give them a skateboard, send them on their way. You think that’s going to solve the problem? It’s not.”
Gabbard’s insistence that economic factors play no role in fostering extremism, and in fueling ISIS specifically, is belied by the facts. The group pays its recruiters thousands of dollars, and Hamas officers have explicitly outlined how the promise of money has drawn Gazans to ISIS. “Those in Syria often send pictures back home showing large banknotes to lure others out,” one officer told journalist Sarah Helm.
Gabbard’s worldview also leaves out the role that European and US governments, particularly the Reagan administration, have played in bringing hardline fundamentalists to power and prominence. Bin Laden may have been a millionaire, but he was also a CIA recruit.
Gabbard’s suspicion of Islam goes beyond rhetoric. Last year, she supported legislation that would have barred those on the no-fly list — a list that makes a mockery of due process — from buying guns. Before that, in 2014, Gabbard introduced a bill that would have halted the visa waiver program for countries whose citizens had gone to fight with extremists, claiming that the program “puts the American people in danger.” Had it passed, people from the UK, France, Germany, and many other European countries would have been forced to apply for visas before visiting the United States.
In reality, foreign-born terrorists carrying out acts of violence in the United States, particularly from visa waiver countries, is virtually nonexistent. Yet Gabbard hyped the threat. “If we do nothing to close this loophole, and allow a terrorist to carry out an attack on our homeland, the impacts will be devastating,” she warned.
Gabbard’s hardline stance carried over to the subject of refugees. She was one of forty-seven Democrats to join the House GOP in passing the SAFE Act in 2015, which would have added extra requirements to the already onerous refugee vetting process and effectively ground to a halt the admission of Syrian and Iraqi refugees into the country. In a statement, Gabbard claimed she was voting for the bill to save the refugee program.
But Gabbard is less discerning when autocrats aren’t motivated by “radical Islam.” In November 2015, she traveled to Egypt as part of a congressional delegation and met Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, part of an effort to strengthen US-Egypt relations. Sisi may be a blood-soaked tyrant who’s killed hundreds of Egyptians and imprisoned many thousands more, but as Gabbard made clear at the time, he’s tough where it counts.
“President el-Sisi has shown great courage and leadership in taking on this extreme Islamist ideology, while also fighting against ISIS militarily to keep them from gaining a foothold in Egypt,” Gabbard said, urging US political leaders to “recognize President el-Sisi and his leadership” and “stand with him in this fight against . . . Islamic extremists.” Some of the Sisi government’s fantastic accomplishments in this fight include killing a group of Mexican tourists and quite possibly torturing and murdering an Italian PhD student.
But perhaps Gabbard’s closest friend on the world stage is India’s Hindu nationalist prime minister Narendra Modi. It’s an ideal match in many respects — not because the two happen to share a faith (Gabbard is the first Hindu American in Congress), but because they both harbor noxious attitudes toward Muslims.
Shortly after September 11, Modi claimed on TV that Islam had tried “to put its flag in the whole world” since the fourteenth century and that “the situation today is the result of that.” As he campaigned for election in 2014, he threatened to deport undocumented immigrants from Bangladesh (who are mostly Muslim), calling them “infiltrators.”
But most appalling was his role in the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in the western state of Gujarat, which left one thousand people dead, nearly eight hundred of whom were Muslims. Modi was the state’s chief minister at the time and has long been accused of allowing the riots to happen, with a former senior police officer testifying in 2011 that Modi said the night before the riots that Muslims needed to be taught a lesson.
Despite all of this, Gabbard has been one of Modi’s most prominent boosters in the US. “He is a leader whose example and dedication to the people he serves should be an inspiration to elected officials everywhere,” she said of Modi in 2014.
When a congressional panel was held in April 2014 on “the plight of religious minorities in India,” with witnesses testifying about the mistreatment of Muslims, Gabbard said she didn’t “believe the time of this hearing is a coincidence” and that it aimed to “influence the outcome of India’s national elections.” Gabbard voted against House Resolution 417, which criticized India’s record on religious violence and called for specific measures to guarantee religious freedom in the country, explaining that its passage wouldn’t help US-India relations. Yet two years later, Gabbard introduced a similar resolution that covered neighboring Muslim-majority Bangladesh, saying she was “particularly concerned over issues of religious freedom, and specifically, attacks against minority Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, and others” in the country.
GONYK wrote:mpharris36 wrote:GONYK wrote:How many Dem run cities were being burned down under Obama or Bush?
Baltimore and Ferguson come to mind. I don't think you will like my answer but due to the pandemic and this being an election year I do think people are getting paid to incite a lot of these riots. These young Antifa dudes are paid to incite chaos.
Paid by who?
Clyde_Style wrote:Jeff Van Gully wrote:Clyde_Style wrote:I get that people can choose to forgive Tulsi for having been rabidly anti-gay.
I also get that Joe Biden has stated that he is committed to ending systemic racism. But according to some he is pretty much the evil status quo. He is very forthcoming and seems genuinely interested in meeting the moment and getting it right.
So I wonder how it is that some people want to forgive Tulsi, but not a guy like Biden. Coming from a homophobic, islamicphobic background is not worse than Biden making some mistakes on past legislation?
Lately, I see lots of selective reasoning that excuses one person, but villifies another. It lacks consistent logic, thus appears to be emotionally driven which is not a healthy way to select whom you vote for.
i try not to go too far down that road because i don't know who is doing both. i would challenge folks specifically when i observed it, and addressed it broadly once i was able to trace a pattern. but that's the career researcher in me talking.
It is already one of the predominant themes in this thread which is: DNC Bad, Anything Else Good. And one of those alternatives cited was Tulsi. When pushed on why people are willing to overlook her glaring issues it seems everything is okey dokey because she has the label of dark horse or spoiler, i.e. not the DNC. So people will say I don't care if you did X, Y or Z as long as you're not Hillary or Biden, etc. And that seems to be depth of some of the logic for why it is better to throw away your vote for Biden and help elect Trump as if the moral stench of the DNC is too noxious, but the noxious stench of Tulsi's past is acceptable. It lacks any intellectual integrity.
Are you **** kidding me? You put it perfectly. Tulsi is a chaos agent that will align herself to whatever raises her profile. I’m convinced she has zero convictions (her impeachment non vote is literally evidence of that). She’s a grifter just like Trump, Bannon etc. I’m just amazed that she’s managed to con so many Progressives by doing push ups with Joe Rogan. Marianne Williamson would make a better Democratic candidate and with less red flags as well. mpharris36 wrote:GONYK wrote:mpharris36 wrote:
Baltimore and Ferguson come to mind. I don't think you will like my answer but due to the pandemic and this being an election year I do think people are getting paid to incite a lot of these riots. These young Antifa dudes are paid to incite chaos.
Paid by who?
I said you wouldn't like my response.
I'm sure during different times they are paid by whoever will pay them to push there agenda. They are people that want to incite riots and take down western civilization.
In this case riots and chaos don't help the president in an election year so by deductive reasoning it would mean... people that want to see Trump out of office. Now I don't want to go down a black hole because I don't think its the dems either. But I think its just people that have money that want to eradicate western civilization. Its the reason why Trump is trying to scoop those clowns up.
Pointgod wrote:Clyde_Style wrote:Jeff Van Gully wrote:
i try not to go too far down that road because i don't know who is doing both. i would challenge folks specifically when i observed it, and addressed it broadly once i was able to trace a pattern. but that's the career researcher in me talking.
It is already one of the predominant themes in this thread which is: DNC Bad, Anything Else Good. And one of those alternatives cited was Tulsi. When pushed on why people are willing to overlook her glaring issues it seems everything is okey dokey because she has the label of dark horse or spoiler, i.e. not the DNC. So people will say I don't care if you did X, Y or Z as long as you're not Hillary or Biden, etc. And that seems to be depth of some of the logic for why it is better to throw away your vote for Biden and help elect Trump as if the moral stench of the DNC is too noxious, but the noxious stench of Tulsi's past is acceptable. It lacks any intellectual integrity.
You know what I thought would have been the nail in the coffin for the laughable idea that Tulsi is some anti establishment, Bernie aligned Progressive? When it came time to support someone the Primary who did she endorse? Joseph Robinette Biden
mpharris36 wrote:GONYK wrote:How many Dem run cities were being burned down under Obama or Bush?
Baltimore and Ferguson come to mind. I don't think you will like my answer but due to the pandemic and this being an election year I do think people are getting paid to incite a lot of these riots. These young Antifa dudes are paid to incite chaos.
Clyde_Style wrote:mpharris36 wrote:GONYK wrote:How many Dem run cities were being burned down under Obama or Bush?
Baltimore and Ferguson come to mind. I don't think you will like my answer but due to the pandemic and this being an election year I do think people are getting paid to incite a lot of these riots. These young Antifa dudes are paid to incite chaos.
Antifa is a GOP fiction. Do you actually believe there is an organized left wing resistance called ANTIFA?
It means anti-fascist. It does mean something, but the term was co-opted by the right.
So if there are young dudes being paid to set fires they are being paid by GOP operatives. If that is what you meant, then OK, but if you think they are the actual organized left or are being paid by anti-Trump funders then you're utterly wrong
Once upon a time there were young leftist radicals who self-identified as Antifa, but now the term is a political slur fueled and manipulated by the GOP.
GONYK wrote:Clyde_Style wrote:mpharris36 wrote:
Baltimore and Ferguson come to mind. I don't think you will like my answer but due to the pandemic and this being an election year I do think people are getting paid to incite a lot of these riots. These young Antifa dudes are paid to incite chaos.
Antifa is a GOP fiction. Do you actually believe there is an organized left wing resistance called ANTIFA?
It means anti-fascist. It does mean something, but the term was co-opted by the right.
So if there are young dudes being paid to set fires they are being paid by GOP operatives. If that is what you meant, then OK, but if you think they are the actual organized left or are being paid by anti-Trump funders then you're utterly wrong
Once upon a time there were young leftist radicals who self-identified as Antifa, but now the term is a political slur fueled and manipulated by the GOP.
I'm not sure there is proof that they are being paid by anyone or are organized in any way.
They are just anarchists.
________ MUKCA_________* ** GO NY GO NY GO NY GO! ** GONYK wrote:mpharris36 wrote:GONYK wrote:Paid by who?
I said you wouldn't like my response.
I'm sure during different times they are paid by whoever will pay them to push there agenda. They are people that want to incite riots and take down western civilization.
In this case riots and chaos don't help the president in an election year so by deductive reasoning it would mean... people that want to see Trump out of office. Now I don't want to go down a black hole because I don't think its the dems either. But I think its just people that have money that want to eradicate western civilization. Its the reason why Trump is trying to scoop those clowns up.
Sure, but who? Who can fund this on a mass scale with no paper trail?
. There are a lot people/countries that would love to see the US burn. It may not even be from this country.
GONYK wrote:Clyde_Style wrote:mpharris36 wrote:
Baltimore and Ferguson come to mind. I don't think you will like my answer but due to the pandemic and this being an election year I do think people are getting paid to incite a lot of these riots. These young Antifa dudes are paid to incite chaos.
Antifa is a GOP fiction. Do you actually believe there is an organized left wing resistance called ANTIFA?
It means anti-fascist. It does mean something, but the term was co-opted by the right.
So if there are young dudes being paid to set fires they are being paid by GOP operatives. If that is what you meant, then OK, but if you think they are the actual organized left or are being paid by anti-Trump funders then you're utterly wrong
Once upon a time there were young leftist radicals who self-identified as Antifa, but now the term is a political slur fueled and manipulated by the GOP.
I'm not sure there is proof that they are being paid by anyone or are organized in any way.
They are just anarchists.
Clyde_Style wrote:mpharris36 wrote:GONYK wrote:How many Dem run cities were being burned down under Obama or Bush?
Baltimore and Ferguson come to mind. I don't think you will like my answer but due to the pandemic and this being an election year I do think people are getting paid to incite a lot of these riots. These young Antifa dudes are paid to incite chaos.
Antifa is a GOP fiction. Do you actually believe there is an organized left wing resistance called ANTIFA?
It means anti-fascist. It does mean something, but the term was co-opted by the right.
So if there are young dudes being paid to set fires they are being paid by GOP operatives. If that is what you meant, then OK, but if you think they are the actual organized left or are being paid by anti-Trump funders then you're utterly wrong
Once upon a time there were young leftist radicals who self-identified as Antifa, but now the term is a political slur fueled and manipulated by the GOP.
Clyde_Style wrote:GONYK wrote:Clyde_Style wrote:
Antifa is a GOP fiction. Do you actually believe there is an organized left wing resistance called ANTIFA?
It means anti-fascist. It does mean something, but the term was co-opted by the right.
So if there are young dudes being paid to set fires they are being paid by GOP operatives. If that is what you meant, then OK, but if you think they are the actual organized left or are being paid by anti-Trump funders then you're utterly wrong
Once upon a time there were young leftist radicals who self-identified as Antifa, but now the term is a political slur fueled and manipulated by the GOP.
I'm not sure there is proof that they are being paid by anyone or are organized in any way.
They are just anarchists.
He said it. I said IF they were paid, then it is not the freaking DNC paying them. That kind of funding would come from Alt Right slush funds
Stannis wrote:GONYK wrote:Clyde_Style wrote:
Antifa is a GOP fiction. Do you actually believe there is an organized left wing resistance called ANTIFA?
It means anti-fascist. It does mean something, but the term was co-opted by the right.
So if there are young dudes being paid to set fires they are being paid by GOP operatives. If that is what you meant, then OK, but if you think they are the actual organized left or are being paid by anti-Trump funders then you're utterly wrong
Once upon a time there were young leftist radicals who self-identified as Antifa, but now the term is a political slur fueled and manipulated by the GOP.
I'm not sure there is proof that they are being paid by anyone or are organized in any way.
They are just anarchists.
Love when the protesters r called anarchist, but they supposedly vote for socialist like Bernie and apparently Biden who's a socialist now
don't see how you can support anarchy and socialism
mpharris36 wrote:Clyde_Style wrote:mpharris36 wrote:
Baltimore and Ferguson come to mind. I don't think you will like my answer but due to the pandemic and this being an election year I do think people are getting paid to incite a lot of these riots. These young Antifa dudes are paid to incite chaos.
Antifa is a GOP fiction. Do you actually believe there is an organized left wing resistance called ANTIFA?
It means anti-fascist. It does mean something, but the term was co-opted by the right.
So if there are young dudes being paid to set fires they are being paid by GOP operatives. If that is what you meant, then OK, but if you think they are the actual organized left or are being paid by anti-Trump funders then you're utterly wrong
Once upon a time there were young leftist radicals who self-identified as Antifa, but now the term is a political slur fueled and manipulated by the GOP.
that doesn't compute clyde. But people call Trump a facist...but the "anti facists" are funded by conservates who love western civilization and mostly free markets? That doesn't add up.
Also you think the right is funding a group of anarchist to destroy cities, tear down statues that they love and incite chaos during an election year? How does that make sense. One of the biggest push back on why people want Trump out of office is because people believe the US is burning because people hate him and hate what he stands for. It was won of the arguments made in this thread. Trumps america is buring. So they are paying for people to burn down cities to make trump look worse and make it easier for a democrat to get elected? I don't buy that for one second.
Pointgod wrote:br7knicks wrote:Jeff Van Gully wrote:
i wasn't aware of islamophobia on her part. but i just looked it up and saw a breakdown of what may be meant by that. sounds like she might have fallen in line with some of the conservative-led incendiary language against muslims when addressing terrorism:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/16/18182114/tulsi-gabbard-2020-president-campaign-policies
aside from this kind of thing, tulsi struck me as a textbook moderate who had sneaky potential for broad appeal. definitely the kind of democrat who is more palatable to conservative areas. i saw she had solid support in southern states. regardless of how her campaign went, i think she did a pretty good job getting herself out there. i wouldn't count her out long-term just yet.
Yeah. That's not islamophobic, though. Not too worried about that.
Like Christianity, there are religions that have extremists who want to do harm to others. They often overshadow the vast number of those practicing the religion who are peaceful and loving people.
But I'm sure if you asked how she felt about Christian extremists who want non believers hurt, dead, etc, she'd condemn them and call them terrorists - Timothy McVeigh
I would put money on her hating the westboro Baptist Church as well
Radical islam would be similar to saying radical Christians. They exist, and I don't like people who want to do harm to others.
Not sure I like the term radical islam tho.
Nope Tulsi’s Islamophobia goes way beyond these statements and even deeper than I knew. This article is a long read but actually breaks down how Tulsi is not some Progressive champion. It’s laughable that you’d dismiss an article because it’s from CNN (btw Fox News LOVES Tulsi Gabbard) but in any event it fits from criteria and it’s from Jacobin which is so far left it makes Bernie look like Bill Kristol. Read the whole thing. Tulsi is an opportunist and nothing more.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tulsi-gabbard-president-sanders-democratic-partySpoiler:
Pointgod wrote:Stannis wrote:What i don't get... Is that from what I watched, the agenda from the right is "if you want safety, more police, controlling the riots, stop illegals, more freedoms, etc. you need to elect Trump".
Which I don't get because... Trump is already in office now. He has the power. Even if I was on the right, I would say Trump failed me. Especially now because it's like he's running a campaign for election, not re-election.
Because the people that Trump appeals to are **** morons. He’s basically saying elect me to prevent the hellscape that’s currently occurring under the leadership of......me?
All law and order to Republicans is to scare white people into keeping the black people in check. He’s running a blatantly racist strategy. It was used by Nixon in the 60’s during the civil rights marches (the rhetoric hasn’t changed from Trumps) and it was used by wealthy slave owners during emancipation. I was watching the news and they compared Trump’s law and order rhetoric from the RNC 2016 to the 2020 RNC. Literally nothing has changed. It’s the same message that America is a hellscape their only he can prevent.
I’d like to see someone ask him what he would if he was re-elected that he can’t do now as President and watch his brain melt in real time. He’d either say something like “Just wait and see” and move onto the next question. It’s only effective though because you’ll never go break betting for racism in America.
mpharris36 wrote:GONYK wrote:How many Dem run cities were being burned down under Obama or Bush?
Baltimore and Ferguson come to mind. I don't think you will like my answer but due to the pandemic and this being an election year I do think people are getting paid to incite a lot of these riots. These young Antifa dudes are paid to incite chaos.
