Tulsi Gabbard to report for active duty in Indonesia for 2 weeks

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Tulsi Gabbard, Democrat from Hawaii and presidential candidate, will be taking a two-week absence from her campaign Monday to report for active duty with the Hawaiian Army National Guard in Indonesia, she said in an interview with CBSN's Caitlin Huey-Burns.

"I'm stepping off of the campaign trail for a couple of weeks and putting on my army uniform to go on a joint training exercise mission in Indonesia," she said. Gabbard has also taken two weeks off to report for active service in 2017.

"I love our country. I love being able to serve our country in so many ways including as a soldier," she said. "And so while some people are telling me, like gosh this is a terrible time to leave the campaign, can't you find a way out of it? You know that's not what this is about."

"I'm not really thinking about how this will impact my campaign. I'm looking forward to being able to fulfill my service and my responsibility."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/tulsi-gabbard-to-report-for-active-duty-in-indonesia-for-2-weeks/ar-AAFHdcb?li=BBnbfcL

[snowybirdie]

1. All Reserve

Units are required to report for duty every year or so. Usually in summer. Good for her.perhaps it'll give her time to reflect on her flailing candidacy?

[PatrickforO]

2. You know, I don't dislike Gabbard as many here do.

She seems to me an honorable person. She won't make it deep in the primaries, so her presidential bid is moot, but I'm not ready to completely throw her out of the Dem party either. I don't think she's a traitor. I don't think she's Putin's puppet. I don't think she likes Assad.

Rather, I believe she's seen war, and has made some conclusions about things like our 'boots on the ground' in Syria. When she said Assad was 'not the enemy of the US,' she wasn't saying she excuses him from being a murderous dictator. What she was saying is we shouldn't have troops over there fighting him.

People hate her because this country at the time, under Obama, took the stance that we needed troops over there for humanitarian reasons. Russia, of course, was against it, and by also coming out against it, her anti-war reasoning somehow (strage how THAT could have happened) was conflated with liking Putin.

The only red flags I get with Gabbard are these:
- She has been traumatized by seeing the effects of war, so may have developed excessively isolationist tendencies.
- She said some homophobic things in the past, and I hope she has evolved beyond that as she says she has.

As to Syria, we're still fighting over there. America spends more on 'defense' than the NEXT TEN countries combined - nearly three quarters of a trillion dollars - and we have 200,000 US troops stationed in 177 countries. WHY WHY WHY WHY do we need all that?

Oh, I know - shareholder profits! Mighty companies like Boeing, Lockheed and Raytheon keeping us all safe! But their primary objective is to make profits for shareholders. War makes them money. Fear makes them money. Hate makes them money. Why do you think we have this worldwide white nationalist movement growing? Because there's GREEN in it.

Tell me I'm wrong.

[Claritie Pixie]

3. You forgot a huge red flag:

https://mobile.twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/1111386620698083329

Did she not read the report??

Don't trust her, sorry.

[PatrickforO]

6. Well...the plot thickens! I had not seen this.

I may have to do a bit of rethinking.

[thesquanderer]

11. It is misleading when taken out of context, without regard to when it was said.

Please see my post #10.

[thesquanderer]

10. re: "Did she not read the report?" - Check the date, it was March.

No one had read the report. All that had been released was the Barr summary. And what she was saying was in line with what the media was reporting at the time.



In that context, her statement is very different than if she were to have said that after the report was released.

[Claritie Pixie]

12. Thank you for making my point about her.

No one had read it - yet she made a VIDEO parroting no collision and telling us all to move on.

No other Democrat did that.

[thesquanderer]

13. The media initially took the Barr report at face value. It was not an unreasonable position to take,

in that context. Do I think it was the best thing to do? No. But not unjustifiable, and not "disqualifying."
And if the Barr report hadn't turned out to be such a farce, that video might be looked at differently today. But that was not really known at that point.

I didn't think Elizabeth Warren's kitchen beer candidacy video was the best idea either. But neither of these things are indications of how good a president or VP someone could be.

[Claritie Pixie]

14. Totally disagree. There isn't anything you can say to make that video acceptable.

Let me say it again - going all in and agreeing with that ridiculous Barr memo before reading the report either shows her naivety, or shows she agrees with T/GOP.

Both are completely unacceptable and are indicative of someone who isn't cut out to be president.

[JI7]

15. she also never corrected herself when we got more info

just left that up .

[Claritie Pixie]

16. Excellent point - thank you.

Is it any wonder some of us are doubting her authenticity?

[thesquanderer]

17. I agree. She should be asked her current thoughts on the topic. (n/t)

[thesquanderer]

18. Ok, but at least the context makes it a bit less objectionable. Also, it's not just about...

...what Dems think. There is an argument to be made that, while I'm sure the Dem base preferred the more adversarial approach other Dems were taking, there's a chunk of the population who were likely thinking "Why do these Dems have to make everything partisan and automatically anti-Trump? Heck, it's not just Fox, even the New York Times said the report said there was no collusion. Why are they still harping on this?"

So a different perspective: Gabbard does not always tow the party line, and that could work to her advantage. This may sound like heresy, but it is not automatically terrible to have a Democratic candidate who is actually viewed somewhat positively by a chunk of the other side. That helps win elections. Meanwhile, all of her domestic policies are actually about as left as Warren and Sanders. Having those ideas packaged in a candidate who is seen as not super partisan could actually be a positive.

[obamanut2012]

4. You're wrong

And, that is all I'll say. The only hidden post I have ever had was answering this same question for someone else.

[Blue_Tires]

7. You're dead fucking wrong...

Either you haven't checked her twitter history, or she has extensively erased it.

[PatrickforO]

8. Sorry, you don't get to use the f-bomb with me. Ever.

That said, I will review her twitter history. As I said, she isn't going to be our nominee - no way that could possibly happen. But I will review her twitter history.

[SWBTATTReg]

5. For a so called candidate, she seems to generate a lot of negative press ... perhaps rightfully...

so. I lost all interest in her after this sentence...

The only red flags I get with Gabbard are these:

- She said some homophobic things in the past, and I hope she has evolved beyond that as she says she has.

[thesquanderer]

9. She apologized in 2012, and has been fully pro-LGBT ever since, in words and deeds.

See

https://www.tulsigabbard.org/tulsi-gabbard-on-lgbtq

[SWBTATTReg]

21. Should have never happened to begin with. NT

[thesquanderer]

22. Nobody's perfect.

Recognizing that the views you had in your teens and twenties were wrong is a lot better than sticking with them.

I'm voting for the policies/positions someone has now, not what they had in the past. Elizabeth Warren didn't become a Democrat until she was 47. I'm okay with that.

How many years have to go by before someone can be redeemed?

[nini]

19. How convenient

I will never trust her or her motives.

[thesquanderer]

23. I've never heard anyone call serving in the National Guard "convenient." (n/t)

[nini]

24. Well you have now

[PatrickforO]

20. I've been looking at Gabbard's twitter feed pretty extensively, though the darned thing

is really, really, really long.

I suppose I got about six months in when I saw a piece from the Rolling Stone that is worth reading. Now, I'm not supporting Bernie or Gabbard, but the article makes some really good points. It is by Matt Taibbi though, and some dislike him. But truth is truth, no matter whose mouth it comes from. Here's the link.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/taibbi-tulsi-gabbard-bernie-sanders-trump-2020-838156/

You might not agree with it, but it is worth the read.

And...after reading what Taibbi says, try this: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=549826

It leads to a video by Robert Reich, one of my favorite economists. It is called The Military-Industrial Drain.

It appears to me, champion of the underdog that I am, that the main reason Gabbard is getting hit so hard is there is lots and lots and lots and lots of money and power behind the MIC and she's proposing some fundamental things to curtail that money and power. We have around 200K troops in 177 countries, for God's sake. Congress has cravenly given up its warmaking powers to the executive branch, and we have nearly three quarters of a trillion going to 'defense' this year.

So we see hit pieces about how she's some kind of Russian plant, the 'candidate for Democrats who like Putin.' That's just wrong. You may oppose her. Fine. But I do not see anything that is un-American or un-Democratic about Gabbard. I just don't.

I am concerned about these hit pieces, though. The big money is already coming out - against healthcare, against a green new deal, against ending the forever wars. All those billionaire parasites making money hand over fist while we languish with crummy rationed healthcare with financially crippling copays.

Silly me, I'd rather have MY tax money that I pay into my government, that is ostensibly of, by and for the people, to be spent on stuff that actually benefits me and my family.

That's why I'm for Warren, and will continue supporting her until she is nominated, or until she is defeated in the primaries by some other candidate.

But the flaws in my character (or perhaps strengths) compel me to say that I find nothing particularly wrong with Gabbard.