Kamala the Clown

maximumpossiblesuffering said:
I don’t really see how Tulsi’s military experience somehow qualifies her as being strong foreign policy candidate. But then again, if doesn’t disqualify her either, especially given the lack of sound foreign policy ideas by any of the other Presidential candidates, it seems.
More...

I had the same question but she has been on the Foreign Affairs Committee for six years apparently. She served in the medical branch and has seen the side of war they don't like to show us.

I always felt that military service is valuable if only to prevent someone from being overly impressed by the military brass. Trump suffers from this problem.
 
Tulsi is the most dangerous dem candidate for one simple reason. She is the only one who could peel off some of Trump's MAGA base. She ticks off several boxes, eg non-interventionism and no more pointless sand wars, economic populism (hopefully without the dem craziness of free shit for everyone) and at least she is somewhat concerned about immigration and related issues.

Trump will go into the election with the country still in Afghanistan, still dicking around in Syria, trying to start a war with Iran, not one foot of wall having been built and the border wide open.
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
I had the same question but she has been on the Foreign Affairs Committee for six years apparently. She served in the medical branch and has seen the side of war they don't like to show us.

I always felt that military service is valuable if only to prevent someone from being overly impressed by the military brass. Trump suffers from this problem.
More...

In my opinion, the media over the years has been particularly negative against Presidential candidates who have military leadership, business leadership, or even general leadership skills. Remember 2004 Democratic Presidential Candidate, Howard Dean and the “Dean scream”? Dean was showing some leadership skills and the media effectively pulled the plug on him with negative coverage thereafter. We can’t have someone with a particularly strong personality and leadership skills as President of the United States, for God’s sake. After all, we need someone who we can be sure that will never forget who really pulls the strings.

If my perception above reflects reality, we and the world are so in need of string puller change. You know, the entity that employed Esptein and others to set the stage or document politicians in compromising positions for their loyalty.
 
My issue with Kamala in regard to foreign policy is that she is too stupid to come up to speed at any time. That is the limiting factor.

It is not good to approach the position with no foreign policy experience but you also have to watch out for those claiming to have extensive foreign policy experience when they have a record but it is not good.

Remember that Obama picked Biden to compensate for Obama's lack of foreign policy experience- except Joe has never been right or helpful anywhere, anytime in foreign policy experiences. Just a lot of experience klutzing around. Similarly Hillary fucked up everything when she was Secretary of State but tried to tout her foreign policy experience by repeatedly telling everyone how many miles she flew and how many countries she visitied. To which Carly Fiorina used to say: "Those are just activities, not accomplishments. What did she accomplish?"

Sorry, I know I am being repetitive but I am going to say again that Kamala is simply too stupid to be president. That is an underlying fault that cuts across all issues. We have already seen that on almost all issues she is able to come out bold and ballsy and get the good lefty media attention. Then the following week she has to walk it back. Walked back her statement that she would eliminate private insurance, walked back the assertion that she would support federally mandated busing and ended out saying it should be a local option if they want it (in other words, Joe's position). Walked back her flat-out statement that even incarcerated prisoners should be able to vote and backed it down to just saying after they have completed their sentencing. and on and on.

She is a dumphuk.
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
It's hard not to love Tulsi.

View attachment 206171
View attachment 206172

View attachment 206173

images
More...


Out of all the candidates, she would be right at the top of list of candidates that I would most want to go on a cross-country road trip with.

Don't know what the frig I would do or talk about with any of the others after the first five miles.

I think a couple of em would not even be willing to stop at Chick Fil A. That ain't right. :cool:
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
Tulsi is the most dangerous dem candidate for one simple reason. She is the only one who could peel off some of Trump's MAGA base. She ticks off several boxes, eg non-interventionism and no more pointless sand wars, economic populism (hopefully without the dem craziness of free shit for everyone) and at least she is somewhat concerned about immigration and related issues.

Trump will go into the election with the country still in Afghanistan, still dicking around in Syria, trying to start a war with Iran, not one foot of wall having been built and the border wide open.
More...


Trump only got 63 million votes,less than Obama in 08,12 or Hillary 2016.The Dem candidate doesn't need to peel from Trumps base.Obama got around 70% black voter turnout,Hillary got around 60% and that was the difference between 2008-12 and 2016.Hillary got around the same white voter turnout and % as Obama did thats why she got 3 million more votes.

Democrats dont need the same black voter turnout as Obama got,just a little bit more than Hillary and Trump is toast.That would make Biden and Harris most dangerous dems as those are the 2 the black community like the most and Biden will likely pick a black VP.


Tulsi is not dangerous,millions of democrats including myself would not vote her
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
Part of the article.

Gabbard: ‘Kamala Harris is Not Qualified to Serve as Commander in Chief’
'She's got no background or experience in foreign policy'

Jeffrey Cimmino - July 23, 2019 10:20 AM

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D., Hawaii) argued Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) is not qualified to serve as commander in chief during an appearance on Outkick the Coverage with Clay Travis on Tuesday.

"I think one of the things I'm most concerned with is Kamala Harris is not qualified to serve as commander in chief, and I can say this from a personal perspective as a soldier. She's got no background or experience in foreign policy and she lacks the temperament that is necessary for a commander in chief," Gabbard said.


"I've seen the cost of war firsthand. I've experienced the consequences of what happens when we have presidents, as we have from both political parties in the White House, who lack experience, who lack that foreign policy understanding, who therefore fall under the influence of the foreign policy establishment, the military-industrial complex," Gabbard continued. "This is what's so dangerous. This is what we've seen occurring over time."

Gabbard frequently criticizes America's foreign policy.

In a May fundraising email, Gabbard blasted a Daily Beast article for stirring "up hysteria that makes it easier to push our country into war." A February email warned that "our freedoms and democracy are being threatened by media giants ruled by corporate interests who are in the pocket of the establishment war machine
More...

Gabbard is currently polling at 1% in the democratic primary.The media needs to stop giving that bitch attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top