Whoa! I Guess I Need To Start Listening To John Delaney!

HayJenn

Moderator
Jul 2014
61,964
50,229
CA
#21
Presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) declined Sunday to say whether Syrian President Bashar Assad is a war criminal, and did not answer whether she would trust her own intelligence community if elected commander in chief.

“I think that the evidence needs to be gathered, and as I have said before, if there is evidence that he has committed war crimes, he should be prosecuted as such,” Gabbard told CNN host Dana Bash during a town hall event in Austin, Texas.


The remarks from Gabbard represent the latest entry in what lawmakers from both parties have criticized as a disconcerting posture toward Assad, which emerged when the Aloha State lawmaker made an unannounced visit to the Middle East strongman two years ago.


Gabbard declines to say whether Assad is a war criminal

Already have a nutjob in the WH that does not believe his own IA agencies. We don't need another one.
 
Nov 2016
4,766
4,308
Maryland
#22
I certainly like what the man is saying, and henceforth will be watching this guy MUCH more closely.

But...…..he's not very 'sexy'. Will women vote for a guy like this?

:cool::rolleyes::smirk::nerd:
Harumpf. You think all women are that easy to manipulate? Grrr.

(I know you’re talking with tongue in cheek - right?)

He may not b3 “sexy,” but there are an awful lot of elected officials who aren’t either.
 

HCProf

Moderator
Sep 2014
26,353
15,175
USA
#23
Oh goodness - just no to her

She supports the Syrian regime.
She does not support any leadership in the ME...that is absurd since she is still active duty and has actually served in the ME twice. I don't live or pay taxes in Syria...what happens there does not impact my life. What she does support, Medicare for All, she put through a bill to help women who are assaulted in the military. She also made a comment, "I already fought in a war based on lies" She is not a war monger and that used to be important to democrats. She doesn't believe regime wars....Americans shouldn't either, unless they are war mongers and want to continue to waste taxpayer money in the ME. We need to focus on the needs of the taxpayer. We have not had a POTUS who has served active duty in war in decades, her opinion would be credible over any administration we have had.

We are going to end up with another Trump to run against Trump. The candidates who scream and screech with the most stupidity will win the nomination to run against Trump because the Democrats will end up eating their own for lunch, support hypocrisy because "Trump does it" or we will run another old geriatric candidate.

Trump clamors for new regime change wars—Iran, Venezuela. | TULSI 2020
 
Mar 2012
52,933
35,028
New Hampshire
#24
Gabbard met with Assad in Syria two years ago, saying at the time she "felt that it's important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we've got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we can achieve peace."

You're contradicting yourself. You say "America should stay out of politics in the ME" and then turn around and DEFEND Tulsi Gabbard for meeting with this human monster. She should NOT have done so.
You realize that line in your post that "it's important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we've got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we can achieve peace" is a fairly classic liberal response? Most liberals always advocated diplomacy over isolating a tyrant. It was supposed to be about the people. A typical republican response would be to send in the CIA to kill him and replace him.
 
Jan 2016
46,394
42,326
Colorado
#25
Presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) declined Sunday to say whether Syrian President Bashar Assad is a war criminal, and did not answer whether she would trust her own intelligence community if elected commander in chief.

“I think that the evidence needs to be gathered, and as I have said before, if there is evidence that he has committed war crimes, he should be prosecuted as such,” Gabbard told CNN host Dana Bash during a town hall event in Austin, Texas.


The remarks from Gabbard represent the latest entry in what lawmakers from both parties have criticized as a disconcerting posture toward Assad, which emerged when the Aloha State lawmaker made an unannounced visit to the Middle East strongman two years ago.


Gabbard declines to say whether Assad is a war criminal

Already have a nutjob in the WH that does not believe his own IA agencies. We don't need another one.
Yes. The evidence has already been gathered. Amnesty International has REAMS of evidence on the horrific Syrian torture program. There are very few countries in the world that Assad can visit without being arrested, and hauled before the International Court in the Hague on charges of crimes against humanity. I think he recently visited Iran. That is one of the very FEW countries that he could get away with visiting. Gabbard is simply OUT OF HER MIND in saying that "the evidence needs to be gathered".

This is why she is TOTALLY UNSUITABLE as a candidate for the President of the United States.
 
Likes: Ian Jeffrey
Jan 2016
46,394
42,326
Colorado
#26
You realize that line in your post that "it's important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we've got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we can achieve peace" is a fairly classic liberal response? Most liberals always advocated diplomacy over isolating a tyrant. It was supposed to be about the people. A typical republican response would be to send in the CIA to kill him and replace him.
I'm sorry. But this is like meeting with Pol Pot at the height of the Cambodian genocide, or like meeting with Idi Amin when we already knew what a monster he was. America should NOT meet with monsters, except in extremely unusual situations. What kind of situations? Well, we HAD to ally with Stalin during World War II. He was a monster. Hitler was worse.

And Nixon met with Mao. Mao was the most prolific mass murderer in all of human history. Even today, Nixon's move remains controversial. Which is why people say "Only Nixon could go to China". But China was, and is, the most populous nation in the world, and at least arguably, we NEEDED China, back then, as a counter-balance against the increasingly aggressive Soviet Union.
 

Djinn

Council Hall
Dec 2007
49,663
35,802
Pennsylvania, USA
#28
I'm embarrassed to say that I had to perform a quick search to disambiguate John Delaney from John Mulaney. I was thinking of the latter, and the OP made no sense at all.
 
Jan 2016
46,394
42,326
Colorado
#29
Goodness, I hope you're kidding.
I was. Why do you think I added all the smiley faces?

But, having said that, even bajisima said back on the first page of this thread that John Delaney simply doesn't have the 'it' factor. And I think that means charisma, and yes, 'sexiness' is part of that, I would say. Beto O'Rourke is 'sexy', I guess. John Delaney is not. I like John Delaney's IDEAS better, though. Indeed, I'm not even sure I know what Beto's IDEAS are! He sure is a pretty face, though. Shrug.
 
Likes: bajisima