Tulsi Gabbard: I’m leaving the Democratic Party

[Dill]

(10-17-2022, 05:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:I did offer an "example" which led me to question her intelligence and judgment--her decision to switch parties on the grounds that Dems were "weaponizing the security state against their opponents."  To that I could add her claim the Dem party is an "elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness." That's in the same ball park as Guam tipping over. There is no logically consistent, non-partisan path from evidence to her conclusions, as there is to, say, the conclusion that Trump weaponized the executive to go after enemies and keep himself in power. Hers are unsubstantiated impressions. Best you could say here is that Gabbard is "smart" because she knows this is what the CPAC audience wants to hear. But why is it smart to go that route? Because she was dead as a candidate in the Dem party? 

Interesting.  You don't see any issue with the Dem stance on war/foreign intervention?  For all his myriad faults Trump kept us largely away from military engagement, the, fully justified IMO, assassination of Qasem Soleimani being an obvious exception.  I certainly agree that the war in Ukraine was not caused by Biden, at least not directly.  One could certainly make the argument that US policy towards Russia in the 21st century was/is a major contributor towards it, of which Biden was no small contributor either as a senator, VP or POTUS, but it was not a direct cause.  But his response to it can absolutely be viewed through the lens that Gabbard uses, especially his reaction to the potential use of nuclear weapons.

Interesting. No doubt Trump would have kept us from protecting Ukraine's sovereignty, if he could. 

One "could" indeed make the argument that US policy towards Russia was/is a major contributor towards Putin's aggression, since I have already done so in this forum.  But that wouldn't make the U.S. leadership who supported it, Republican or Democrat, "warmongers."  That decades long encroachment was not like the invasion of Iraq or the illegal assassination of an Iranian general and other direct applications of military violence.

And sure, Gabbard can "absolutely" view Biden's upholding of international law through a special "lens," a camera obscura that inverts the political world so that the defender of Ukraine's national sovereignty and political freedom is the war monger and the Dems are the party that "weaponizes the security state" against opponents. 

But it's not a "wholly subjective" determination that Trump, not "Democrats," intended to use the DOD to seize ballot boxes, wanted the DOJ to attack political enemies, and to subvert the legal transfer of power to Biden, any more than whether Putin or Biden is the warmonger now is "wholly subjective." 

But anyone adopting that T. Carlson lens slips free of any responsible factual grounding--"it's all subjective"--and becomes enmeshed in all manner of double standards and logical inconsistency.  Smart people don't go there. Gabbard did.