• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

VanceMack said:
Dood spent more time in the Chicago bathhouses than the state house.
Click to expand...

That's a good way to delegitimize everything that follows! Thanks for the heads up!

like his time in the senate he accomplished precisely squat. He voted present on moist legislation that would have required he take a stand on important issues. He was never a professor or even an adjunct. He was a lecturer.
Click to expand...

I don't think you know what "adjunct" means in this context.

The closest he came to 'teaching' constitutional law was lectures given on the Constitution as it pertains to race. He was unpublished which is unheard of.
Click to expand...

Wrong, and wrong. It's typical, the overwhelming norm, that non-tenure track lecturers/adjunct faculty/professors don't publish, because it's not required for the job and doesn't advance their career in any way. The only ones who do publish are those who seek a full time tenured job.

Obama was unqualified to hold the office. Biden actually described him best...a clean..articulate, well spoken black man...and that was good enough to win him the presidency and reelection.
Click to expand...

And Reagan was a former actor, Bush a part time governor, and Trump a mostly failed business man who without daddy bailing him out would have bankrupted himself into historical oblivion decades ago.
 
dcsports said:
That's admirable, but her military experience and six years in the House do not remotely qualify her to be President.
Click to expand...
Right, because the asshole with bone spurs ios so much more qualified and worthy of support.
 
RedSunRising said:
Nor mine. Since the end of the draft, it was inevitable that fewer of our elected leaders would have military experience. In fact, Trump's lack of military experience probably wouldn't even be discussed if he didn't lie about dodging the draft, brag about having more and better military acumen than the career commanders, and talk a bunch a **** about the US's military power.
Click to expand...

You're probably right.
 
joko104 said:
Any Democrat who served in the military who thinks s/he can even become president as a Democrat in the new International corporate-fascist Democratic Party is a fool. The Democratic Party as it is now would NEVER elect a veteran. Plus as you noted the overwhelming majority of Democrats just see her as one of the white candidates and the Democratic Party wants white people to disappear - unless rich and then that person is a god of course.

The Democratic Party and most other Democrats agree with your perspective in your message. They/you want Latino noise, black noise any noise but white noise. Then again, you also are "just white noise" yourself as you put it in your message, aren't you? Old white noise - the type of person Oprah and some young Democratic progressives on this forum openly want to die. In 2020 you will have opportunity to vote that you agree you need to die soon to end your white noise and your white vote.
Click to expand...

Gabbard isn't even white.
 
apdst said:
She was a REMF. So what? She was in the state legislature when she enlisted. Joining the NG was a political stunt.
Click to expand...

I'm not her biggest fan, but that's completely unfair, bull****. She joined, and volunteered to and did spend a year in a combat zone, and by all accounts did her job very well, then and afterwards. She deserves the same credit as anyone else who joined and put themselves in harms way for this country.
 
3leftsdoo said:
She's also not Hillary - the audacity!
Click to expand...

The fact is Tulsi has a 0% chance of winning the nomination. It's not our fault she's running a crap campaign and can't get any momentum.
 
apdst said:
It disgraces the uniform.
Click to expand...

Volunteering for a tour in a combat zone, serving honorably, and earning promotions disgraces the uniform? Where in your backside did you find that gem to pull out?
 
Amelia said:
Dear God, I do hope you aren't a Trump supporter.

Trump's time in the White House doesn't even qualify him to be president, he's such a hot mess.

Gabbard over Trump any day.
Click to expand...

Yep. I won't be voting for her in the primary, but if it's a general election choice between her and Trump, not a tough choice.
 
SLC said:
Wait! she is in the Hawaii Army National Guard when George Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard the Dems whined it wasn't enough.
Click to expand...

That standard works both ways, you know. :roll:
 
joko104 said:
Any Democrat who served in the military who thinks s/he can even become president as a Democrat in the new International corporate-fascist Democratic Party is a fool. The Democratic Party as it is now would NEVER elect a veteran. Plus as you noted the overwhelming majority of Democrats just see her as one of the white candidates and the Democratic Party wants white people to disappear - unless rich and then that person is a god of course.

The Democratic Party and most other Democrats agree with your perspective in your message. They/you want Latino noise, black noise any noise but white noise. Then again, you also are "just white noise" yourself as you put it in your message, aren't you? Old white noise - the type of person Oprah and some young Democratic progressives on this forum openly want to die. In 2020 you will have opportunity to vote that you agree with the Democratic Party that you need to die off soon to end your white noise and your white vote.
Click to expand...

I don't think you quite understand what white noise is.

Until you do, please take a seat.
 
JasperL said:
I'm not her biggest fan, but that's completely unfair, bull****. She joined, and volunteered to and did spend a year in a combat zone, and by all accounts did her job very well, then and afterwards. She deserves the same credit as anyone else who joined and put themselves in harms way for this country.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. It does not make them wrong, though.
 
JasperL said:
That standard works both ways, you know. :roll:
Click to expand...

Bush joined the Guard to get out of active service. Gabbard joined the Guard even though no one was forcing her to choose to serve. She served a 12-month deployment in a combat zone.

There is probable cause to believe that Bush did not show up for his obligatory Guard duty. The current news story is about Gabbard actually showing up.


So, no, the standard doesn't work both ways. SLC is trying to do a gotcha with apples and oranges.





I love Bush. I voted for Bush twice. I won't vote for Gabbard in the primary. Will only vote for her if she's the nominee against Trump. But there really is no comparison between Bush and Gabbard as far as military service. Gabbard wins hands down.
 
Last edited:
TheParser said:
In order to restore some civility in politics, all Americans should commend Representative Gabbard for her patriotic duty in the National Guard.

We should avoid casting any aspersions.

The last two and a half years in American politics on both sides of the aisle have been sickening and a disgrace to our country.

No wonder so many of our children behave so badly. They are getting their cues from their "elders."
Click to expand...

That's totally fair and the correct stance IMO. She's not my choice, but she walked the walk, volunteered for a year-long tour overseas, and has remained in the NG and by all accounts served honorably. That's all to the good and I admire her for that service. It's not sufficient, in my view, to make her the best choice for President, but that's OK.
 
Ikari said:
I mean we put a draft dodging conman with zero political experience in office currently, so I think that the bar for "qualifications" is rather low.

lol
Click to expand...

WhataboutTrump?

Both could be unqualified, even for different reasons. The issue here is Gabbard.
 
prometeus said:
Right, because the _______with bone spurs ios so much more qualified and worthy of support.
Click to expand...

More whatabout Trump? This is about Gabbard.
 
Last edited:
Jay59 said:
Fair enough. It does not make them wrong, though.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who "them" is. If it's the person casting baseless aspersions on her motives, no, it doesn't make those allegations wrong, but nor does it make them correct. They're baseless allegations. There is no evidence she joined and volunteered for a tour in Iraq for "political" reasons, but if she did, she joins a long line who joined for their own "selfish" reasons.

Obviously, the military believes things like bigger signing bonuses work, or else they'd not do them. The military also is a great spring board for civilian life in other ways - good training for lots of private sector jobs, free or subsidized college post service, and more. Does that mean that people who only join for the big signing bonus or because they believe it's a good 'career' move don't get credit for putting themselves in harms way serving our country? I don't think so. I'm sure at the upper ranks, some of them are looking for a big post-military payoff if they get that star or whatever. Should we also dismiss their service for selfish motives? No.

Bottom line is anyone who joined the Army NG post 9/11 could assume they'd be called to active duty somewhere in a **** combat zone and deserve credit for that choice. She volunteered for duty overseas, and based on her promotions since has served admirably according to the Army. There's no reason to disparage those choices. It's just partisan hackery.
 
JasperL said:
Volunteering for a tour in a combat zone, serving honorably, and earning promotions disgraces the uniform? Where in your backside did you find that gem to pull out?
Click to expand...

That was a political stunt. She never left the support base. She didn't see any combat. She probably had her own private bunker.
 
JasperL said:
I'm not her biggest fan, but that's completely unfair, bull****. She joined, and volunteered to and did spend a year in a combat zone, and by all accounts did her job very well, then and afterwards. She deserves the same credit as anyone else who joined and put themselves in harms way for this country.
Click to expand...

She didn't go to a "combat zone". Stop overselling it. She was in the rear, with the gear.
 
JasperL said:
I'm not sure who "them" is. If it's the person casting baseless aspersions on her motives, no, it doesn't make those allegations wrong, but nor does it make them correct. They're baseless allegations. There is no evidence she joined and volunteered for a tour in Iraq for "political" reasons, but if she did, she joins a long line who joined for their own "selfish" reasons.

Obviously, the military believes things like bigger signing bonuses work, or else they'd not do them. The military also is a great spring board for civilian life in other ways - good training for lots of private sector jobs, free or subsidized college post service, and more. Does that mean that people who only join for the big signing bonus or because they believe it's a good 'career' move don't get credit for putting themselves in harms way serving our country? I don't think so. I'm sure at the upper ranks, some of them are looking for a big post-military payoff if they get that star or whatever. Should we also dismiss their service for selfish motives? No.

Bottom line is anyone who joined the Army NG post 9/11 could assume they'd be called to active duty somewhere in a **** combat zone and deserve credit for that choice. She volunteered for duty overseas, and based on her promotions since has served admirably according to the Army. There's no reason to disparage those choices. It's just partisan hackery.
Click to expand...
Yes, the people with aspersions on her motives. I respect her service, but that does not invalidate the idea that it was done primarily to further her political career. If she was regular military, then it would be less of a possibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom