[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
LEFT WING LOONS Title: Tulsi Gabbard: Let’s face it, Kamala Harris isn’t qualified to be commander-in-chief Granted, longshot candidates tend to go after big-shot candidates in hopes of getting voters to notice them. But these aren’t business-as-usual criticisms. This is Gabbard essentially calling Harris a racial demagogue and now deeming her unfit to command the U.S. military. These are attack ads waiting to happen for the GOP in the general election if Harris is the nominee. There has to be something we don’t know yet that explains the surprising animosity. A Twitter pal suggested that she’s under deep cover, sabotaging the Democratic primary on behalf of Trump and his handler Putin. Ridiculous, bro. Everyone knows Tulsi’s a puppet of Assad, not Vlad. “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.” What jumps out there is the reference to temperament. It’s standard practice for candidates to question each other’s foreign policy experience; questioning their temperament is more personal, something you typically don’t hear unless a candidate is known to have a temper (a la McCain 2008) or prone to crankery (a la Trump 2016). Trump’s temperament was questioned repeatedly by his opponents, which is (a) understandable given what a loose cannon he is and (b) ironic considering that Trump has been more restrained militarily than some of the people who attacked him for his temperament likely would have been as president. But Trump was a sui generis candidate. Kamala Harris isn’t — she’s a U.S. senator who rose through the ranks in California, an establishment figure. People like that don’t typically get dinged on temperament grounds unless there’s an obvious reason. Is Gabbard maybe referring to her race-baiting exchange with Biden at the last debate, suggesting that Harris is too willing to fight dirty to be trusted? Or is she referring to her sporadic outbursts of autocratic ambition? If Congress won’t act, I will. — Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) July 21, 2019 Or to something else? We’ll know next week. Remember, thanks to the luck of the draw, these two will be onstage together at the CNN debate. Exit quotation from Gabbard’s appearance yesterday on “The View”: “I think decriminalizing [illegal immigration] could lead to open borders. We need safe, secure borders in this country.” Maybe she *is* a Trump plant. Poster Comment: Gabbard seems to be creating her own brand and her own political lane in the primary race. There may not be enough of those voters out there for her to win, at least in the early primary states. New Hampshire would be her best shot at a win using this messaging.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 7.
#3. To: Tooconservative (#0)
Gabbard isn't qualified to change a diaper let alone be President She is a bad joke. Go to hell Gabbard.
Tulsi Gabbard is 1000X better than Kaka Harris! Remove "probation" = more info.
#11. To: Hondo68 (#7)
Maybe a tiny bit better.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|||
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|