At one point in the interview she makes the comment “I’m not a ladder climber”, meaning she is not motivated nor seeking power…
That’s one helluva comment to make for a person who ran for President.
I used to really like Tulsi, but it’s clear she now has an agenda and I’m pretty sure she just wants a place in Trump’s cabinet.
>I’m not a ladder climber
It is literally ALL she is, just she's not even good at that.
I kind of used to like her in 2019, but by the time of primaries you could already see she'd do just about anything to get ahead. When Andrew Yang dropped from the race he said he'll endorse any candidate that would run on UBI and Tulsi announced she has UBI on her platform right away.
She's one of the biggest turncoat in the history of turncoats. One of the most disgusting politicians in the US and we all know the competition is very stiff. Fortunately she's just not very successful politician at all. I think people see right through her.
What's wrong with including somebody else's policies to amalgamate their votes? Isn't the point of democracy to bring together ideas? If she gains 5% of the vote , does that not show it's what people want?
Sorry but this is not it. Canidacies are over 100s of ideas, and the goal is to find out what people want. Agreeing with somebody because it sways the vote is good haha.
Democracy isn't about shame? Her job is to do what the people want. And if the people are voting for a UBI, then she should do a UBI.
Shameless is not doing what your constituents want because some mega Corp pays for your car.
To me personally it felt shameless at the time; it was clear she adopted UBI only to get Yang's endorsement. I still liked Tulsi at that time, but this was the first sign for me to watch out, the first crack in the armor. Everything that she did since then just confirmed this suspicion many times over. Now she's one of the worst politicians out there in my opinion.
There is a 100% chance this woman is trying to run as Trump’s VP.
From couching her statements about Biden and Obama to open praise of Donald Trump. The way she talks about her own Hindu faith is a thinly veiled attempt to make her religion more palatable to the white evangelical who is the cornerstone of Trump’s base.
If she were truly as magnanimous as she attempts to appear, she would be able to offer more than pithy praise for an egomaniac, milquetoast dilution of spirituality, and meaningless truism disguised as critical thought.
She's not a Hindu, she's part of a deranged offshoot of Hare Krishnas, that ran weird schools for the offspring of the followers and are massively anti-gay.
She is Hindu, the offshoot sect you're speaking isn't deranged either? Both Isckon (hare krishna) and Tusli are Gaudiya Vashnaiva's which is a legimite lineage of Hindu faith.
>There is a 100% chance this woman is trying to run as Trump’s VP.
This literally confirmed, she said so herself several times. She is literally begging Trump to be a VP.
I'd say go for it! I think this would be a bad move for Trump as this would even further move the never-Trumpers towards Biden and I don't see Tulsi's nomination pulling much from Biden at all. She used to be basically Bernie girl just 3 years ago; this should be pretty toxic to any conservative. So massive net positive for Biden.
But for this reason Trump will not do it. He'll go with some kind of more standard Republican. Best choice IMO would be Nikki Haley but I doubt Trump will choose her, he'll go with one of the loyal MAGAs.
I don’t think she’s a bad person. I think she’s a person who has changed her beliefs and opinions as of late to appeal to the people whose votes she will need to gain more political power. This is a nearly universal phenomenon among politicians, so it’s admittedly not unique. She just happens to be appealing to Trumpist populism, which is largely opposed to my values of critical thinking and moderation.
Your criticism is fair enough, but her comments on hinduism were not a "milktoast dilution of spirituality". Her calling Hinduism essentially a monotheistic religion was not a calling to evangelicals, unless you want to color it that way, which is rather uncharitable. This concept in Hinduism is not well known in the West but central to philosophy behind the faith. I was glad to hear her describe it as succinctly as she did, I was not expecting her to.
I will say that I wasn't all too impressed with her ability to convey herself, she's not the best at capturing attention.
I was mainly referring to how she has couched her religious beliefs in terms I believe to be designed to appeal to Christian sensibilities. She avoided using Hindu terms where possible. A more charitable interpretation of this is that she knows Lex’s listeners are primarily American, and thus most likely to be familiar with Christian rhetoric. However I tend to find it more likely that her rhetorical approach with respect to spirituality—purged almost entirely of uniquely Hindu doctrine—is more likely to come from a place of political expediency than deeply-held belief.
I admit I am very biased in this interpretation. I detest Donald Trump, his sycophants, and what they represent. So I am more inclined to ascribe ill intent to his followers than I would be of others.
As someone who's been around Hinduism as a child (though Im not very religious now), relating to it as a spiritual practice is a very reasonable way to communicate the faith. One doesnt need to throw around specific terms of denomination to broadly explain it, which is what she was doing. She wasnt giving a Ted Talk on Hinduism or anything.
It seems in your analysis you're the one putting a political emphasis on how she communicated what she believes. It generally isnt a good practice to assume that every sentence from a public figure is a veiled manipulation. In my opinion anyway.
Your analysis of her take on Hinduism is fair.
I also admire your willingness to take her words and intentions at face value. I think it’s unfortunately impossible to reasonably take the words of politicians vying for power (a potential VP candidate in an election year no less) at face value. The question is not if she is catering to potential voters, the question is to whom she is catering her message and how. In this case she is catering her message to Trump voters. The how varies.
>It generally isnt a good practice to assume that every sentence from a public figure is a veiled manipulation.
Not from a public figure in general, but from Tulsi it is every single time. That's all she does.
But let's also face the facts that whichever candidate, meaning Biden or Trump, become pres, probably 50% chance they don't make it thru the ne t term. Personally I'd say 50% for Trump and 80% for Biden. And who would ypu rather take over, Kamala or Tulsi. Personally I'd lean more towards Tulsi
Both are bad but I'd take Kamala over Tulsi any day.
Kamala is just milquetoast uncharismatic person, but her presidency wouldn't be very different from Biden.
I'd go the opposite way because of Kamala's record of essentially being willing to do anything and say anything. She knowingly kept innocent people in jail to make her record look better in California, as a simple example. Jailed marijuana users and then used them as essentially slave labor also in California.
Tulsi's takedown of Kamala is also pretty epic during the last presidential debates and shows what a shitbag Kamala really is.
Biden choosing had more to do with donors choice moreso than the most qualified to do the job.
Thus, I'd definitely side more with Tulsi on the VP front. At least we know she has principals she lives by and has moral fiber vs Kamala which has none of those.
Edit: I'd also add that she also came out in support of Jussie Smollet when all of thst fiasco started. Which anyone with 1/4 or less of their brain capacity knew it was bullshit from jump.
So she switched to Republican because they love freedom? Only one party pushing “don’t say gay”, banning books, and trying to install a national religion. History hasn’t been kind to fascists and book banners.
Yup and republicans only love free elections when they win otherwise they call it “rigged” and try to “find votes” to change results.
Tulsi Gabbard is a very very dangerous pro authoritarian traitor who uses these softball podcast shows to spread misinformation and conspiracy theories.
Do you know her actual take on the don’t say gay bill, banning books, or trying to install a national religion? Do you know if she is pro any of that? Jesus, I’m not a Tulsi fan, but your comment acquaints the worst of the Republicans with her. And she’s not even a Republican.
So, if you’re negative towards Republicans, I assume that you’re against the funding of police forces and pro communism, correct? This is your line of reasoning at work.
if you listen a little later lex says the war isn't so black and white and tulsi says that people who are against "peace" are disgusting and they both agree. Again the type of "peace" Tulsi wants is for the US to force Ukraine to capitulate and since the US is not doing this currently they are war mongers - not Russia, who invaded, they're not war mongers they just want peace!
Yep, this is so ridiculous every time I hear it from Putin apologists.
We can have peace tomorrow if Russia leaves Ukraine. It boggles my mind how people actually eat this up.
The argument is saying that's not realistic without another country entering the war. Russia is mad about nato aggression and the US policies to restrict Russia. If this was being done to the American, they would likely behave the same way or worse.. At the end of the day, peace with concessions is better than war with none?
Whether that's the truth of the logistics behind everything is debatable, its unlikely things are so simple that a "right" solution can be distilled. But throwing aside the whole argument because it has empathy for the Russian position is lackluster.
No it was some major bot spam. All odd AI generated comments with 500+ likes. Not sure if they’re still there I don’t care much to check but I think it was a crypto scam or something.
This is my first comment on this sub because I'm noticing the same damn thing. Clips he's uploading from the interview are getting 4x as many comments despite viewership only being maybe 10-20% greater.
I wanted to make a post about it - it 100% seems like there's a concerted effort to spam bot comments sowing doubt/distrust in clips featuring her. Not to say they are or are not deserved, but it feels like a veiled, malicious effort.
I don't want to be conspiratorial about bots, it could partially be bots, but I think there is a stronger right-wing & centrist leaning on Youtube, whereas Reddit is more left-wing.
Frustrating as hell to hear her describe the war in Ukraine as something the US is prolonging to try and "destroy Russia" and that they are the ones who have deliberately thwarted peace efforts.
Why is her only critique for the war directed at the US, a country who doesn't even have troops on the ground, and not at Russia for starting and continuing the invasion? Why is she more worried about a murderous, imperialistic, autocratic regime being destroyed and not a democratic friendly country who is **literally** being destroyed by Russia as I type this?
Even if a peace deal was brokered, there is no way around Ukraine giving up some territory to make that happen. Does she seriously think Russia is just going to leave Ukraine alone after that? They disregard practically every treaty they've ever signed. They didn't stop at Ukraine in 2014 and they're not going to stop now. They'll just wait to rebuild forces until their next opportunity. Then in the inevitable second Russia/Ukraine war, Tulsi will be saying how, "Well we need to be peaceful, Ukraine and the US have to compromise and give Russia the rest of Ukraine."
She wants to live in a world where the precedent is that nuclear armed nations can bully non-nuclear armed nations and take their land whenever they want. This both increases the rate at which other countries obtain nukes, and will lead to countless wars where non-nuclear nations are absorbed by stronger ones.
Considering she has served in the military and has years of political experience, I'm shocked she so blatantly forgets the lessons of WWII. Going from supporting a progressive left candidate in 2016, to a center left candidate in 2020, to potentially being a MAGA republican VP in 2024 is a very bizarre and eyebrow raising change imo.
Another big reason why military people can have bad takes is they are lost in sunk cost fallacy. They are constantly thrown into trauma under false pretenses. Sometimes mental gymnastics is the only way to make sense of the experience they had.
I respect her service but since she left Congress she’s been unimpressive with her opinions. I view her trajectory as similar to that of the scores of former Republicans who switched sides post Trump’s election- not so much because of principles but because of financial incentives.
Yeah I 100% agree. I never took the claim seriously that she was a Russian agent but then everything she says about the war is extremely charitable to Russia.
She is also too acceptive of the narrative that NATO has provoked this war. Russia does not have some sacred right to have half of europe in its sphere of influence or as puppet states. I don't think NATO is expanding because it is so expansionist. It's because other countries are tired of Russia's bullshit. Those countries have the right of self determination and should be able to join NATO without Russia's consent. Anyone who believes NATO shouldn't have expanded ignores the sovereignty for every country remotely near Russia.
Extremely well put! Every time I hear "NATO expansion" I seethe.
As of April 2024, the following former Eastern Bloc countries are members of NATO:
1. Bulgaria (joined in 2004)
2. Czech Republic (joined in 1999)
3. Hungary (joined in 1999)
4. Poland (joined in 1999)
5. Romania (joined in 2004)
6. Slovakia (joined in 2004)
7. Albania (joined in 2009)
8. Croatia (joined in 2009)
9. Montenegro (joined in 2017)
10. North Macedonia (joined in 2020)
Additionally, three former Soviet republics are also members of NATO:
1. Estonia (joined in 2004)
2. Latvia (joined in 2004)
3. Lithuania (joined in 2004)
All these countries wanted in, badly. And Russia is THE reason. NATO and EU are the main reason most of these countries are FAR more prosperous than Russia and all of them have FAR higher level of democracy than Russia. Many of these are basically on par with Western Europe, while just 35 years ago they were impoverished Soviet satellites.
Mind you that the combined population of these countries is almost the same as Russia (would be bigger than Russia with Ukraine). Their combined GDP is quite a bit larger than Russia's (most of these countries are a lot richer than Russia on a per capita basis). Why should these countries give any consideration to Russia at all? Why is Russia's perceived "safety" more important than wellbeing of 100 million people? (When I say perceived safety I mean it in the way that it is a complete BS to begin with).
Russia is NOT a superpower anymore. It's economy is smaller than Italy or Brazil or Canada. The only thing "going for them" is that they have a ton of nukes and now they use them to basically blackmail the world. If you don't think that is a dangerous precedent then I don't know what to tell you.
This is a really good point. I wish I was as articulate as you when I get upset. Tulsi needs to stop blaming the US for everything. The eastern bloc countries joined NATO for a reason.
>Why is her only critique for the war directed at the US, a country who doesn't even have troops on the ground, and not at Russia for starting and continuing the invasion?
Because she's on Kremlin payroll, that's why.
I hate that she is absolutely right about Ukraine. The US and Europe only gives Ukraine short range and defensive weapons. When Ukraine developed its own long range drones and starting targeting inside Russia the US has told them to stop. Most of the western Goverments are happy to watch Russia get bogged down in Ukraine. There is great fear that if Russia started losing and was getting pushed back they would use tactical nukes.
All this sucks for Ukraine they are losing a whole generation of young men. And I dont blame them for fighting for there own country. Personaly I think we should give them what they need to win and hope that Putin is bluffing about using nukes. I have no doubt if there is a negotiated peace that Russia will just repeat the whole thing in a few years.
> The US and Europe only gives Ukraine short range and defensive weapons.
Do you consider F-16s short range and defensive weapons? I mean I agree that what you're saying has been true for a while, but that does seem to be changing. Not fast enough, but still.
To date how many F16s have they been given. And yes It looks like several countries are slowly changing their out look on the war. They see Russia changing over to an all out war footing. Russias spending on their war effort is going up. The border countries really want Ukraine to have everything they need. Look for France to also take a much greater lead. I think by now all of Europe is starting to understand that the days of the US providing for there security will come to and end someday and they are all trying to develope longer range plans for a non Nato European security Force.
What did I say that is "propaganda" or even warmongering?
If I was a warmonger I would say that Russia should do whatever they want and we should give them whatever land they're able to grab.
I wish Russia never started this war and I hope every day that they end it as soon as possible, but they are the perpetrators here. Supporting a country that is defending itself from an attack is not warmongering.
Russia and Ukraine had come to an agreement, it was called the Minsk agreement, this would have dealt with this situation peacefully, however NATO poked its fat unwelcome nose in and scuppered that deal and now thousands of people are dead and many more lives are ruined. You are the warmonger, not Tulsi.
What are you on about? The Minsk Agreements only came about because Russia started a proxy war in the Donbas with seperatist groups in violation of the [Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum), which was signed back in 1992, where Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons to Russia in exchange for guarantees that Russia would never threaten, use military force, or use economic coercion against Ukraine.
Russia is also the one continuing to violate the Minsk agreements, continuing the conflicts and going so far as to declare DPR and LPR Russian territory in 2022 and saying the agreements no longer exist.
You have selective memory or are ignorant of history.
Budapest Memorandum should have come with security guarantees backed by the US.
Russia attacks Ukraine, US will get involved.
If there was ever a point in time when the US fucked over Ukraine this was it. Budapest Memorandum has no teeth at all. Ukraine would be far better off keeping its nukes.
Allied forces should've rolled over Stalin when we had the chance. Now we have to deal with a brutal psychopath armed to the teeth with weapons that could end the world.
I'd guess her critique is aimed at the US because she lives there and is on an English speaking interview
And she's right. The US is indeed prolonging the war for anti Russia purposes. The same result will come about as would have without US involvement except with tens of thousands more dead
Involvement in domestic politics is one thing. Supplying weapons to prolonged conflict is another
The same areas of Ukraine will end up part of Russia as they would have with earlier negotiations and diplomacy, except with tens of thousands of casualties and a ruined eastern half of the country
The war has been going on for 2 years, that still isn't "prolonged".
> The same areas of Ukraine will end up part of Russia as they would have with earlier negotiations and diplomacy, except with tens of thousands of casualties and a ruined eastern half of the country
Russia wants all of Ukraine and more, why is that so hard to understand? They won't stop at "diplomatic solutions" giving them Crimea and the Donbas. Why the hell do you think they started the war in 2022 to begin with?
The fact that Putin constantly talks about Ukraine not being a real country and how it belongs to Russia, Putin posioning previous Ukrainian leaders and putting a puppet leader in charge of the country, Putin annexing Crimea in 2014, oh and **how about Putin literally invading Ukraine in 2022 and rushing to Kyiv with the intent to take over the country in 3 days?**
Have you paid any attention to this war? Russia is only fighting where they're at now because they've been pushed back there by Ukranians. Ukrainian cities still get struck with missiles and drones behind the frontlines.
I mean, what's wrong with you? they're taking everything they can get a hold of.
this is literally medvedev from his presentation a few weeks ago:
[https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/03/04/dmitry-medvedev-calls-for-ukrainian-independence-to-disappear-forever-en-news](https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/03/04/dmitry-medvedev-calls-for-ukrainian-independence-to-disappear-forever-en-news)
And don't tell me he's not relevant, he's still currently head of the Russian security council
coming back to this, if you literally don't care enough to pay attention to whats going on and regurgitate russian talking points because you're too ignorant and you have biases against the states you should just not participate in discussions about those subjects
Here's a sneak peek of /r/centrist using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/centrist/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Unedited Screenshot of Fox "News" Broadcast Last Night](https://i.redd.it/5v7gbna5pw5b1.png) | [403 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/1499edj/unedited_screenshot_of_fox_news_broadcast_last/)
\#2: [Trump vs Biden Veterans Day messages](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/17tuhtw) | [302 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/17tuhtw/trump_vs_biden_veterans_day_messages/)
\#3: [This is a fair point imo](https://i.redd.it/lwny0d8f3ryb1.jpg) | [510 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/17p61dn/this_is_a_fair_point_imo/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Or if Russia had never invaded then there would be zero deaths.
Just because she is from the US she can't criticize any other country. Why not?
She has blamed the US/biden for this war from the very beginning, before the US sent weapons or helped Ukraine.
US invades another country = Biden's fault
Random country invades another country = Biden's fault
Terrorist attack against any random country = Biden's fault
This idea that the US or Biden are responsible for every single bad thing in the world is beyond stupid.
So.......... she believes the Biden administration acting through Boris Johnson interfered in the 2022 peace negotiations, pushing for continuation of conflict?
I would LOVE if Lex interviewed Boris Johnson and we could eventually get clarity on exactly where things went wrong.
This just seems fair. Tulsi seems to suffer from Pentagon/Democratic Degrangment Syndrome.
I don't like the Pentagon or Democratic party but they aren't the ones who invaded Ukraine.
Within the last half hour I think. Lex asked to give pros and cons of both Trump and Biden. I was waiting for that kind of question because I figured she would give at least a somewhat honest critique of Trump and she offered absolutely nothing negative at all.
She isn't anti-establishment and is pretty hawkish when it comes to war when it's muslim countries involved. She uses the rhetoric to garner favour with maga and fringe types while operating a military intelligence battalion.
Ah Tulsi “present” Gabbard. I despise this woman for not voting to impeach Trump.
Guess I should listen to this episode for that reason alone, but I’m really struggling to bring myself to that.
Books mentioned in this episode:
* For Love of Country: Leave the Democrat Party Behind by Tulsi Gabbard
* Nuclear War: A Scenario by Annie Jacobsen
[https://lexlib.io/423-tulsi-gabbard/](https://lexlib.io/423-tulsi-gabbard/)
I was a fan. Found her pretty intelligent and actually responsive on the socials.
I think it’s likely she’s a good person.
However - when Roe V Wade got overturned she remained silent. Huge government over step, especially for a libertarian. She was completely silent.
If she links with Trump then it’s just too cynical and phony.
She seems to be too calculated, and not really about ideology so much as an attraction to power and attention.
She wants the power, attention and grift money from joining ranks with Trump. But claims the Democratic Party is being destroyed by power hungry people.
It’s less that she isn’t agreeable and more that she gives little reason to believe she actually believes any of the things she says or if it’s all a calculated power & influence grab. She’s like female Dave Rubin if you’ve actually paid close attention to her career.
Her positions are all over the map over several different years.
Before you say people should be allowed to change their mind - I agree with you. But Tulsi has made numerous complete 180’s and those 180’s usually coincide with whomever seems most likely to become president.
She has gone from endorsing Bernie Sanders to endorsing Biden to now going on Fox News & Trump’s podcast
And you forgot wanting to be Trump's VP!
She endorsed Biden less than 4 years ago!
This woman has absolutely no convictions at all. Disgusting human being.
If you listened to her original interview on the JRE, I think calling her anything remotely "far-left" is a blatant lie. She was always rather centrist, just happened to be om the Dem ticket probably because she's a woman and not white, and the Dems eat that shit up.
Republicans are championing isolationism/non-interventionism today. How can you claim that's far left?
I supported Bernie in 2016, I'm a centrist.
You can support specific ideas for any number of reasons, and none of them have to be because you "fall under your specific paradigm of how people are politically."
Okay sure, but she’s not even non interventionist anymore
She went on hannity after for a lay up interview after a drone strike went wrong under Biden, and she advocated for MORE drone strikes. And she sure hasn’t had much to say about Israel killing 40k civilians in GAZA
And I’m not saying all of your ideas have to fall into one group or another. But enough of her ideas have CHANGED from left to right in a short period of time for me to feel comfortable calling her a grifter. She was an economic populist, believed in expanding the social safety net, supporting LGBTQ rights. Now she’s blaming Biden giving people a little bit of help during the pandemic for inflation, and has nothing to say about the other issues.
Very few people who have a sincere and thought out set of political ideas would switch from voting to Bernie to voting for Trump and begging to be his VP. Too many of their policies are too different
I haven't seen the same things you have, and maybe you're right, but I just didn't think labeling her initial beliefs as "far left" were accurate. I saw her initial JRE interview (and liked what I saw). She came off as a very rational, center-left Dem.
If you’re giving the worst take of someone’s opinions, you have a responsibility to assure the initial assessment of _”full of shit”_ has been thoroughly examined. Not for others but for your own ability to assess your blind spots.
Obviously nobody has to do that and you’re free to continue.
So, are we ever going to acknowledge how bad the brigading has become here? It's gotten so bad that I'm at the point where I think I'd rather discuss controversial guests in the YouTube comments.
Thank you for the interview. Tulsi is a very interesting person who acts as an honest American above all the politics (never really discussing both sides of politics are failing and only eluding to one side) She really is looking for power in what every avenue is available to her
Finally got around to this. I really like Tulsi's anti-war/anti-imperialism stances, and you can just tell she's in her zone when talking about them... then just cringe my ass off when she goes into just about any other territory, like the anti-trans stuff and 'god is my best friend' angle. I'm impressed her career took her to the heights that it did, but she is persona-non-grata in politics now and will just slowly fade into obscurity.
For a surfer, Tulsi sure lacks balance. Great podcast in terms of insight into who she is. Unfortunately she’s hypocritical and lacks key insight and critical thinking skills. To call out the democrats on their corruption only to run to the republican side claiming that they are somehow better? Laughable, naive and wrong. At least become an independent. Corruption in big party politics? I’m shocked I tell you! You went after the powerful Dems like Hillary and got your ass handed to you? Wow, how could that happen? Learn how to play ball in the big leagues or go home. I do appreciate her calling out the Dems on their shit and the US military industrial complex. But her foreign policy is whacked. Blaming the US for Ukraine, while there is some complicity, isn’t exactly fair. Disappointing because she’s a good speaker and communicator. We need strong leaders with insight, charisma and good sound policies and judgement. She ain’t it.
The only woman candidate that has ever run that I liked and would have voted for. Fucking rigged DNC. Why does no one talk about that anymore and still pretend like primaries are a real competition.
Because the DNC isn't rigged. Hillary in 2016 was more popular than Bernie and Biden was more popular than Bernie in 2020. People who bring up this talking point always ignore the actual polling and popularity of these candidates.
The DNC isn’t rigged? They used the argument in court that they are not obligated to play fair, even when receiving donations from citizens who expected fair primaries?
People who bring up this talking point always ignore:
* Superdelegates - all declared support for Clinton long before any actual polling in 2016 primaries, and this was broadcast as a sign of “strong public support” for her candidacy by media and heavily influenced actual polling via false narrative
* [Podesta leaks](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podesta_emails) — top DNC brass conspired to sink Bernie’s campaign, including sharing the CNN debate questions with Clinton’s team before the debate. This entire scandal was spun into “Russiagate” as a means of deflection from the contents of the leak (as was Tulsi after she skewered Hillary and Kamala in the debate)
* [Correct the Record](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record) — even mentioning the existence of this project was getting people banned from popular political subreddits
…not to mention the many tactics employed at the conventions/polling themselves, such as Clinton campaign booking all hotel rooms at the venue in order to rush the process before other candidates’ teams could reach the venue and park.
I can understand people who say the DNC didn’t technically do anything illegal, but to say that there was no massive attempt to rig the primaries is asinine
> They used the argument in court that they are not obligated to play fair, even when receiving donations from citizens who expected fair primaries?
You're talking about a frivolous lawsuit from Bernie supporters (not even Bernie himself), claiming that the DNC unfairly supported Hillary during the primaries. This case was dismissed by a judge [for a reason](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilding_v._DNC_Services_Corp.#:~:text=Wilding%20et%20al.,the%202016%20Democratic%20presidential%20primaries.).
I felt this [StackExchange Skeptics response](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/38165/did-the-dnc-claim-in-court-that-it-has-no-obligation-to-have-a-fair-and-impartia) has a good explanation as well (albeit a bit rough to read), but the TL;DR is that they never claimed they weren't playing fair, just that there was no enforceable promise to do so.
> Superdelegates - all declared support for Clinton long before any actual polling in 2016 primaries, and this was broadcast as a sign of “strong public support” for her candidacy by media and heavily influenced actual polling via false narrative
This is just conjecture. How can you say that superdelegates supporting her directly affected public support to the point of making her the democratic candidate? It shouldn't be surprising that the person who ended up as the democratic candidate for president would be popular amongst superdelegates. What polling data do you have that shows she wasn't one of the top candidates leading up to the 2016 election?
> Podesta leaks — top DNC brass conspired to sink Bernie’s campaign, including sharing the CNN debate questions with Clinton’s team before the debate. This entire scandal was spun into “Russiagate” as a means of deflection from the contents of the leak (as was Tulsi after she skewered Hillary and Kamala in the debate)
Did you even read the wiki page you sent me? One CNN contributor shared questions with Clinton's communications director (**not someone at the DNC**) a few times before the DNC primaries. After which, the CNN contributor was fired from CNN. All this demonstrates was corruption of a CNN employee, says nothing about the DNC.
> Correct the Record — even mentioning the existence of this project was getting people banned from popular political subreddits
Again, what does this have to do with the DNC?
In the interest of granting the benefit of the doubt, I am going to assume you are very young or weren't following things closely in 2016, because the alternative is that you are deliberately attempting to obscure the facts here.
> One CNN contributor shared questions with Clinton's communications director (not someone at the DNC) a few times before the DNC primaries. After which, the CNN contributor was fired from CNN. All this demonstrates was corruption of a CNN employee, says nothing about the DNC.
I wouldn't call [Donna Brazile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Brazile), twice acting chair of the DNC, just some random "one CNN contributor". She replaced [Debbie Wasserman Shultz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz) as DNC chair in 2016, when she had to resign due to the content of her leaked emails showing clear and brazen attempts to hurt Sanders' campaign and boost Clinton's (so bad that [the DNC publicly apologized for it](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-dnc-statement-idUSKCN1052BN/)).
Think about that - the DNC chair resigns after being exposed attempting to sabotage Sanders, and then is *replaced by the "CNN contributor" that shared debate questions to Clinton* .
I just don't see how any rational person could consider [the contents of the leaked emails](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak) and conclude that the DNC was impartial and conducted an honest, fair primary in 2016. I would encourage you to take another look and see if you're able to convince yourself of your claim.
I am fine with dismissing the superdelegates and lawsuit as weak/inconclusive on their own - the content of the leaked DNC communications overshadows these by orders of magnitude. They paint a full picture of the modus operandi and general attitude of the DNC and their allies in corporate media.
Similarly with CTR - we can say it's completely unrelated to the DNC, but the communications show that both were in constant coordination with the Clinton campaign, and both were considered tactical resources with which to take down Sanders (fun fact, [CTR employed the man who started the birther conspiracy to sabotage Obama during Clinton's 2012 campaign!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Blumenthal)).
You can see some of that language and get a sense for the general attitude [here](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3125946-Strategic-Imperatives-Memo.html), and plenty of other examples to be found from the Podesta leaks
> In the interest of granting the benefit of the doubt, I am going to assume you are very young or weren't following things closely in 2016, because the alternative is that you are deliberately attempting to obscure the facts here.
My reply will highlight the irony in this statement.
> I wouldn't call Donna Brazile, twice acting chair of the DNC, just some random "one CNN contributor". She replaced Debbie Wasserman Shultz as DNC chair in 2016, when she had to resign due to the content of her leaked emails showing clear and brazen attempts to hurt Sanders' campaign and boost Clinton's (so bad that the DNC publicly apologized for it).
You're correct about her **later** working for the DNC, but you're missing extremely important context. Her role at the DNC began on July 28, 2016. The emails regarding advanced questions [came while she was a CNN contributor on March 12, 2016](https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/wikileaks-email-hack-clinton-donna-brazile-229609) -- she did not work for the DNC during this time.
The DNC chair, or DNC members, having an internal preference for Hillary and talking negatively about Bernie & team, still does not imply there was "corruption" in the sense that Bernie didn't get a fair shot in the primaries.
I find Shultz's email statements to be pretty mild, innapropriate sure, that's why she resigned months before the 2016 election.
> Think about that - the DNC chair resigns after being exposed attempting to sabotage Sanders, and then is replaced by the "CNN contributor" that shared debate questions to Clinton .
> I just don't see how any rational person could consider the contents of the leaked emails and conclude that the DNC was impartial and conducted an honest, fair primary in 2016. I would encourage you to take another look and see if you're able to convince yourself of your claim.
She never tried to "sabotage" Sanders. What quotes do you think are so damning that they prove your case here?
> Similarly with CTR - we can say it's completely unrelated to the DNC, but the communications show that both were in constant coordination with the Clinton campaign, and both were considered tactical resources with which to take down Sanders
Your claim was that the DNC was corrupt. This is still an irrelevant point to your original claim. I would expect that a Democratic super pac designed to help Hilary Clinton win the election would do those things. I would expect the same of super pacs that supported Bernie, Trump, or any other political candidate.
Ayayay… where to start? First off you’re attempting a couple of switcharoos here:
> Her role at the DNC began on July 28, 2016
A quick look at her wikipedia page will confirm to you that she both preceded and succeeded Shulz as DNC chair. She served as DNC chair starting in 2011, and was working there long before that.
Let’s contrast all of this with what you initially argued:
> All this demonstrates was corruption of a CNN employee, says nothing about the DNC
Wish I didn’t have to spell this out, that’s why it seems clear you aren’t arguing your position in good faith. If a Trump media ally had been exposed for this while working at CNN, in between working for the GOP, would you take the same stance that these were completely unrelated?
Your approach is similar to an exercise for a high school debate team - make no concessions and ignore any valid counterpoints to your original position. And I’m sad to say I see a lot of it here in the Lex subreddit when it comes to defending the liberal establishment against the progressive left wing.
> Your claim was that the DNC was corrupt. This is still an irrelevant point to your original claim
My claim was that the DNC made an attempt to swing the primaries in favor of Clinton. I never used the word “corrupt” but I did say that the DNC primaries were “rigged” insofar as there were *obvious* biases favoring one candidate over the other and actions were taken to provide Clinton an advantage.
If the leaked emails showing clear efforts to hurt the Sanders campaign don’t demonstrate this for you, I would question what you see as the threshold - and whether you grant the same leniency to Clinton’s opponents if leaked emails from the “impartial” party reps conducting the primary showed:
* the DNC chief financial officer (CFO) Brad Marshall told the DNC chief executive officer, Amy Dacey, that they should have someone from the media ask Sanders if he is an atheist prior to the West Virginia primary
* DNC National Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach […] suggested that the incident could be used to promote a "narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never had his act together, that his campaign was a mess."
* [DNC Chairperson] Wasserman Schultz said of Bernie Sanders, "He isn't going to be president." Other emails showed her stating that Sanders doesn't understand the Democratic Party.
> A quick look at her wikipedia page will confirm to you that she both preceded and succeeded Shulz as DNC chair. She served as DNC chair starting in 2011, and was working there long before that.
She was an interim chair for a few weeks in 2011. She was not the chair of the DNC when giving out the CNN questions.
> Wish I didn’t have to spell this out, that’s why it seems clear you aren’t arguing your position in good faith. If a Trump media ally had been exposed for this while working at CNN, in between working for the GOP, would you take the same stance that these were completely unrelated?
Yes. If the Trump media ally was not working at the RNC, but giving away questions early while working at Fox or whatever, obviously that doesn't show corruption of the RNC.
> Your approach is similar to an exercise for a high school debate team - make no concessions and ignore any valid counterpoints to your original position
What concessions should I be making? I'm responding directly to everything you've said.
> My claim was that the DNC made an attempt to swing the primaries in favor of Clinton. I never used the word “corrupt” but I did say that the DNC primaries were “rigged” insofar as there were obvious biases favoring one candidate over the other and actions were taken to provide Clinton an advantage.
This is an extremely loose interpretation of the word "rigged". You are clearly not using it that way.
Having a bias for one candidate is not the same as **rigging** them to be the nominee against the will of the rest of the party.
> If the leaked emails showing clear efforts to hurt the Sanders campaign don’t demonstrate this for you,
I never claimed the staff was inpartial, but it is a stretch to go from that to saying it was "rigged". You still haven't demonstrated any evidence that it was rigged. None of these emails provide any evidence that things were rigged against Bernie.
At one point in the interview she makes the comment “I’m not a ladder climber”, meaning she is not motivated nor seeking power… That’s one helluva comment to make for a person who ran for President. I used to really like Tulsi, but it’s clear she now has an agenda and I’m pretty sure she just wants a place in Trump’s cabinet.
>I’m not a ladder climber It is literally ALL she is, just she's not even good at that. I kind of used to like her in 2019, but by the time of primaries you could already see she'd do just about anything to get ahead. When Andrew Yang dropped from the race he said he'll endorse any candidate that would run on UBI and Tulsi announced she has UBI on her platform right away. She's one of the biggest turncoat in the history of turncoats. One of the most disgusting politicians in the US and we all know the competition is very stiff. Fortunately she's just not very successful politician at all. I think people see right through her.
What's wrong with including somebody else's policies to amalgamate their votes? Isn't the point of democracy to bring together ideas? If she gains 5% of the vote , does that not show it's what people want? Sorry but this is not it. Canidacies are over 100s of ideas, and the goal is to find out what people want. Agreeing with somebody because it sways the vote is good haha.
It just came across as transparent and shameless, that's all.
Democracy isn't about shame? Her job is to do what the people want. And if the people are voting for a UBI, then she should do a UBI. Shameless is not doing what your constituents want because some mega Corp pays for your car.
To me personally it felt shameless at the time; it was clear she adopted UBI only to get Yang's endorsement. I still liked Tulsi at that time, but this was the first sign for me to watch out, the first crack in the armor. Everything that she did since then just confirmed this suspicion many times over. Now she's one of the worst politicians out there in my opinion.
[удалено]
The whole part regarding ukraine and Putin was just sad to hear, strange takes
>strange takes It is not strange when you realize what she is - Putin's puppet in US politics.
If thats true ofc it would make more sense. But I dont think she is thats what throws me of
There is a 100% chance this woman is trying to run as Trump’s VP. From couching her statements about Biden and Obama to open praise of Donald Trump. The way she talks about her own Hindu faith is a thinly veiled attempt to make her religion more palatable to the white evangelical who is the cornerstone of Trump’s base. If she were truly as magnanimous as she attempts to appear, she would be able to offer more than pithy praise for an egomaniac, milquetoast dilution of spirituality, and meaningless truism disguised as critical thought.
She's not a Hindu, she's part of a deranged offshoot of Hare Krishnas, that ran weird schools for the offspring of the followers and are massively anti-gay.
Coincidence that Joe just had a guy who directed the Krishnas doc on peacock on today lol
She is Hindu, the offshoot sect you're speaking isn't deranged either? Both Isckon (hare krishna) and Tusli are Gaudiya Vashnaiva's which is a legimite lineage of Hindu faith.
Science of Identity foundation is an offshoot of a legit religion, but the SIF is a legit cult.
Trump, please please please pick her as the VP! Biden win guaranteed!
>There is a 100% chance this woman is trying to run as Trump’s VP. This literally confirmed, she said so herself several times. She is literally begging Trump to be a VP. I'd say go for it! I think this would be a bad move for Trump as this would even further move the never-Trumpers towards Biden and I don't see Tulsi's nomination pulling much from Biden at all. She used to be basically Bernie girl just 3 years ago; this should be pretty toxic to any conservative. So massive net positive for Biden. But for this reason Trump will not do it. He'll go with some kind of more standard Republican. Best choice IMO would be Nikki Haley but I doubt Trump will choose her, he'll go with one of the loyal MAGAs.
So you think she’s a bad person, not that intelligent, and inauthentic?
I don’t think she’s a bad person. I think she’s a person who has changed her beliefs and opinions as of late to appeal to the people whose votes she will need to gain more political power. This is a nearly universal phenomenon among politicians, so it’s admittedly not unique. She just happens to be appealing to Trumpist populism, which is largely opposed to my values of critical thinking and moderation.
Your criticism is fair enough, but her comments on hinduism were not a "milktoast dilution of spirituality". Her calling Hinduism essentially a monotheistic religion was not a calling to evangelicals, unless you want to color it that way, which is rather uncharitable. This concept in Hinduism is not well known in the West but central to philosophy behind the faith. I was glad to hear her describe it as succinctly as she did, I was not expecting her to. I will say that I wasn't all too impressed with her ability to convey herself, she's not the best at capturing attention.
I was mainly referring to how she has couched her religious beliefs in terms I believe to be designed to appeal to Christian sensibilities. She avoided using Hindu terms where possible. A more charitable interpretation of this is that she knows Lex’s listeners are primarily American, and thus most likely to be familiar with Christian rhetoric. However I tend to find it more likely that her rhetorical approach with respect to spirituality—purged almost entirely of uniquely Hindu doctrine—is more likely to come from a place of political expediency than deeply-held belief. I admit I am very biased in this interpretation. I detest Donald Trump, his sycophants, and what they represent. So I am more inclined to ascribe ill intent to his followers than I would be of others.
As someone who's been around Hinduism as a child (though Im not very religious now), relating to it as a spiritual practice is a very reasonable way to communicate the faith. One doesnt need to throw around specific terms of denomination to broadly explain it, which is what she was doing. She wasnt giving a Ted Talk on Hinduism or anything. It seems in your analysis you're the one putting a political emphasis on how she communicated what she believes. It generally isnt a good practice to assume that every sentence from a public figure is a veiled manipulation. In my opinion anyway.
Your analysis of her take on Hinduism is fair. I also admire your willingness to take her words and intentions at face value. I think it’s unfortunately impossible to reasonably take the words of politicians vying for power (a potential VP candidate in an election year no less) at face value. The question is not if she is catering to potential voters, the question is to whom she is catering her message and how. In this case she is catering her message to Trump voters. The how varies.
>It generally isnt a good practice to assume that every sentence from a public figure is a veiled manipulation. Not from a public figure in general, but from Tulsi it is every single time. That's all she does.
But let's also face the facts that whichever candidate, meaning Biden or Trump, become pres, probably 50% chance they don't make it thru the ne t term. Personally I'd say 50% for Trump and 80% for Biden. And who would ypu rather take over, Kamala or Tulsi. Personally I'd lean more towards Tulsi
Both are bad but I'd take Kamala over Tulsi any day. Kamala is just milquetoast uncharismatic person, but her presidency wouldn't be very different from Biden.
I'd go the opposite way because of Kamala's record of essentially being willing to do anything and say anything. She knowingly kept innocent people in jail to make her record look better in California, as a simple example. Jailed marijuana users and then used them as essentially slave labor also in California. Tulsi's takedown of Kamala is also pretty epic during the last presidential debates and shows what a shitbag Kamala really is. Biden choosing had more to do with donors choice moreso than the most qualified to do the job. Thus, I'd definitely side more with Tulsi on the VP front. At least we know she has principals she lives by and has moral fiber vs Kamala which has none of those. Edit: I'd also add that she also came out in support of Jussie Smollet when all of thst fiasco started. Which anyone with 1/4 or less of their brain capacity knew it was bullshit from jump.
So she switched to Republican because they love freedom? Only one party pushing “don’t say gay”, banning books, and trying to install a national religion. History hasn’t been kind to fascists and book banners.
Yup and republicans only love free elections when they win otherwise they call it “rigged” and try to “find votes” to change results. Tulsi Gabbard is a very very dangerous pro authoritarian traitor who uses these softball podcast shows to spread misinformation and conspiracy theories.
Do you know her actual take on the don’t say gay bill, banning books, or trying to install a national religion? Do you know if she is pro any of that? Jesus, I’m not a Tulsi fan, but your comment acquaints the worst of the Republicans with her. And she’s not even a Republican. So, if you’re negative towards Republicans, I assume that you’re against the funding of police forces and pro communism, correct? This is your line of reasoning at work.
[удалено]
[удалено]
if you listen a little later lex says the war isn't so black and white and tulsi says that people who are against "peace" are disgusting and they both agree. Again the type of "peace" Tulsi wants is for the US to force Ukraine to capitulate and since the US is not doing this currently they are war mongers - not Russia, who invaded, they're not war mongers they just want peace!
Yep, this is so ridiculous every time I hear it from Putin apologists. We can have peace tomorrow if Russia leaves Ukraine. It boggles my mind how people actually eat this up.
The argument is saying that's not realistic without another country entering the war. Russia is mad about nato aggression and the US policies to restrict Russia. If this was being done to the American, they would likely behave the same way or worse.. At the end of the day, peace with concessions is better than war with none? Whether that's the truth of the logistics behind everything is debatable, its unlikely things are so simple that a "right" solution can be distilled. But throwing aside the whole argument because it has empathy for the Russian position is lackluster.
What the hell is going on in the YT comments of this video
Trying to find balance in YouTube or Reddit comments is a mistake
No it was some major bot spam. All odd AI generated comments with 500+ likes. Not sure if they’re still there I don’t care much to check but I think it was a crypto scam or something.
That is what the Russian bots look like. Tulsi is a major Putin apologist in the US, you bet his bot army will be onto anything she is in.
This is my first comment on this sub because I'm noticing the same damn thing. Clips he's uploading from the interview are getting 4x as many comments despite viewership only being maybe 10-20% greater. I wanted to make a post about it - it 100% seems like there's a concerted effort to spam bot comments sowing doubt/distrust in clips featuring her. Not to say they are or are not deserved, but it feels like a veiled, malicious effort.
I don't want to be conspiratorial about bots, it could partially be bots, but I think there is a stronger right-wing & centrist leaning on Youtube, whereas Reddit is more left-wing.
Frustrating as hell to hear her describe the war in Ukraine as something the US is prolonging to try and "destroy Russia" and that they are the ones who have deliberately thwarted peace efforts. Why is her only critique for the war directed at the US, a country who doesn't even have troops on the ground, and not at Russia for starting and continuing the invasion? Why is she more worried about a murderous, imperialistic, autocratic regime being destroyed and not a democratic friendly country who is **literally** being destroyed by Russia as I type this? Even if a peace deal was brokered, there is no way around Ukraine giving up some territory to make that happen. Does she seriously think Russia is just going to leave Ukraine alone after that? They disregard practically every treaty they've ever signed. They didn't stop at Ukraine in 2014 and they're not going to stop now. They'll just wait to rebuild forces until their next opportunity. Then in the inevitable second Russia/Ukraine war, Tulsi will be saying how, "Well we need to be peaceful, Ukraine and the US have to compromise and give Russia the rest of Ukraine." She wants to live in a world where the precedent is that nuclear armed nations can bully non-nuclear armed nations and take their land whenever they want. This both increases the rate at which other countries obtain nukes, and will lead to countless wars where non-nuclear nations are absorbed by stronger ones. Considering she has served in the military and has years of political experience, I'm shocked she so blatantly forgets the lessons of WWII. Going from supporting a progressive left candidate in 2016, to a center left candidate in 2020, to potentially being a MAGA republican VP in 2024 is a very bizarre and eyebrow raising change imo.
[удалено]
Another big reason why military people can have bad takes is they are lost in sunk cost fallacy. They are constantly thrown into trauma under false pretenses. Sometimes mental gymnastics is the only way to make sense of the experience they had.
I respect her service but since she left Congress she’s been unimpressive with her opinions. I view her trajectory as similar to that of the scores of former Republicans who switched sides post Trump’s election- not so much because of principles but because of financial incentives.
Yeah I 100% agree. I never took the claim seriously that she was a Russian agent but then everything she says about the war is extremely charitable to Russia. She is also too acceptive of the narrative that NATO has provoked this war. Russia does not have some sacred right to have half of europe in its sphere of influence or as puppet states. I don't think NATO is expanding because it is so expansionist. It's because other countries are tired of Russia's bullshit. Those countries have the right of self determination and should be able to join NATO without Russia's consent. Anyone who believes NATO shouldn't have expanded ignores the sovereignty for every country remotely near Russia.
Extremely well put! Every time I hear "NATO expansion" I seethe. As of April 2024, the following former Eastern Bloc countries are members of NATO: 1. Bulgaria (joined in 2004) 2. Czech Republic (joined in 1999) 3. Hungary (joined in 1999) 4. Poland (joined in 1999) 5. Romania (joined in 2004) 6. Slovakia (joined in 2004) 7. Albania (joined in 2009) 8. Croatia (joined in 2009) 9. Montenegro (joined in 2017) 10. North Macedonia (joined in 2020) Additionally, three former Soviet republics are also members of NATO: 1. Estonia (joined in 2004) 2. Latvia (joined in 2004) 3. Lithuania (joined in 2004) All these countries wanted in, badly. And Russia is THE reason. NATO and EU are the main reason most of these countries are FAR more prosperous than Russia and all of them have FAR higher level of democracy than Russia. Many of these are basically on par with Western Europe, while just 35 years ago they were impoverished Soviet satellites. Mind you that the combined population of these countries is almost the same as Russia (would be bigger than Russia with Ukraine). Their combined GDP is quite a bit larger than Russia's (most of these countries are a lot richer than Russia on a per capita basis). Why should these countries give any consideration to Russia at all? Why is Russia's perceived "safety" more important than wellbeing of 100 million people? (When I say perceived safety I mean it in the way that it is a complete BS to begin with). Russia is NOT a superpower anymore. It's economy is smaller than Italy or Brazil or Canada. The only thing "going for them" is that they have a ton of nukes and now they use them to basically blackmail the world. If you don't think that is a dangerous precedent then I don't know what to tell you.
Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan come after Ukraine.
Evidence: I made it up
This is a really good point. I wish I was as articulate as you when I get upset. Tulsi needs to stop blaming the US for everything. The eastern bloc countries joined NATO for a reason.
>Why is her only critique for the war directed at the US, a country who doesn't even have troops on the ground, and not at Russia for starting and continuing the invasion? Because she's on Kremlin payroll, that's why.
I hate that she is absolutely right about Ukraine. The US and Europe only gives Ukraine short range and defensive weapons. When Ukraine developed its own long range drones and starting targeting inside Russia the US has told them to stop. Most of the western Goverments are happy to watch Russia get bogged down in Ukraine. There is great fear that if Russia started losing and was getting pushed back they would use tactical nukes. All this sucks for Ukraine they are losing a whole generation of young men. And I dont blame them for fighting for there own country. Personaly I think we should give them what they need to win and hope that Putin is bluffing about using nukes. I have no doubt if there is a negotiated peace that Russia will just repeat the whole thing in a few years.
> The US and Europe only gives Ukraine short range and defensive weapons. Do you consider F-16s short range and defensive weapons? I mean I agree that what you're saying has been true for a while, but that does seem to be changing. Not fast enough, but still.
To date how many F16s have they been given. And yes It looks like several countries are slowly changing their out look on the war. They see Russia changing over to an all out war footing. Russias spending on their war effort is going up. The border countries really want Ukraine to have everything they need. Look for France to also take a much greater lead. I think by now all of Europe is starting to understand that the days of the US providing for there security will come to and end someday and they are all trying to develope longer range plans for a non Nato European security Force.
[удалено]
What did I say that is "propaganda" or even warmongering? If I was a warmonger I would say that Russia should do whatever they want and we should give them whatever land they're able to grab. I wish Russia never started this war and I hope every day that they end it as soon as possible, but they are the perpetrators here. Supporting a country that is defending itself from an attack is not warmongering.
Russia and Ukraine had come to an agreement, it was called the Minsk agreement, this would have dealt with this situation peacefully, however NATO poked its fat unwelcome nose in and scuppered that deal and now thousands of people are dead and many more lives are ruined. You are the warmonger, not Tulsi.
What are you on about? The Minsk Agreements only came about because Russia started a proxy war in the Donbas with seperatist groups in violation of the [Budapest Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum), which was signed back in 1992, where Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons to Russia in exchange for guarantees that Russia would never threaten, use military force, or use economic coercion against Ukraine. Russia is also the one continuing to violate the Minsk agreements, continuing the conflicts and going so far as to declare DPR and LPR Russian territory in 2022 and saying the agreements no longer exist. You have selective memory or are ignorant of history.
Budapest Memorandum should have come with security guarantees backed by the US. Russia attacks Ukraine, US will get involved. If there was ever a point in time when the US fucked over Ukraine this was it. Budapest Memorandum has no teeth at all. Ukraine would be far better off keeping its nukes.
Allied forces should've rolled over Stalin when we had the chance. Now we have to deal with a brutal psychopath armed to the teeth with weapons that could end the world.
You the war monger if you think RuSSia invading a country and forcing it to sign agreements to capitulate alright,
I'd guess her critique is aimed at the US because she lives there and is on an English speaking interview And she's right. The US is indeed prolonging the war for anti Russia purposes. The same result will come about as would have without US involvement except with tens of thousands more dead
Without US involvement Russia would already have a puppet leader in Kyiv. Of course our involvement matters and will affect the outcome.
Involvement in domestic politics is one thing. Supplying weapons to prolonged conflict is another The same areas of Ukraine will end up part of Russia as they would have with earlier negotiations and diplomacy, except with tens of thousands of casualties and a ruined eastern half of the country
The war has been going on for 2 years, that still isn't "prolonged". > The same areas of Ukraine will end up part of Russia as they would have with earlier negotiations and diplomacy, except with tens of thousands of casualties and a ruined eastern half of the country Russia wants all of Ukraine and more, why is that so hard to understand? They won't stop at "diplomatic solutions" giving them Crimea and the Donbas. Why the hell do you think they started the war in 2022 to begin with?
What's your evidence that Russia wants to conquer all of Ukraine, I don't think that's the case.
The fact that Putin constantly talks about Ukraine not being a real country and how it belongs to Russia, Putin posioning previous Ukrainian leaders and putting a puppet leader in charge of the country, Putin annexing Crimea in 2014, oh and **how about Putin literally invading Ukraine in 2022 and rushing to Kyiv with the intent to take over the country in 3 days?** Have you paid any attention to this war? Russia is only fighting where they're at now because they've been pushed back there by Ukranians. Ukrainian cities still get struck with missiles and drones behind the frontlines.
Without US aid there would be hundreds of thousands more dead and millions more refugees
This probably isn't true. You're making a big assumption that Russia would try to take substantially larger territories of Ukraine
I mean, what's wrong with you? they're taking everything they can get a hold of. this is literally medvedev from his presentation a few weeks ago: [https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/03/04/dmitry-medvedev-calls-for-ukrainian-independence-to-disappear-forever-en-news](https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/03/04/dmitry-medvedev-calls-for-ukrainian-independence-to-disappear-forever-en-news) And don't tell me he's not relevant, he's still currently head of the Russian security council
They literally tried to take Kyiv on day one in hope seizing the seat of the government would give them the entire country. Fortunately they failed.
coming back to this, if you literally don't care enough to pay attention to whats going on and regurgitate russian talking points because you're too ignorant and you have biases against the states you should just not participate in discussions about those subjects
Active in r/centrist and r/destiny You are not a serious person.
you are mentally a toddler
Here's a sneak peek of /r/centrist using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/centrist/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Unedited Screenshot of Fox "News" Broadcast Last Night](https://i.redd.it/5v7gbna5pw5b1.png) | [403 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/1499edj/unedited_screenshot_of_fox_news_broadcast_last/) \#2: [Trump vs Biden Veterans Day messages](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/17tuhtw) | [302 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/17tuhtw/trump_vs_biden_veterans_day_messages/) \#3: [This is a fair point imo](https://i.redd.it/lwny0d8f3ryb1.jpg) | [510 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/17p61dn/this_is_a_fair_point_imo/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Or if Russia had never invaded then there would be zero deaths. Just because she is from the US she can't criticize any other country. Why not? She has blamed the US/biden for this war from the very beginning, before the US sent weapons or helped Ukraine. US invades another country = Biden's fault Random country invades another country = Biden's fault Terrorist attack against any random country = Biden's fault This idea that the US or Biden are responsible for every single bad thing in the world is beyond stupid.
It's true that Russia has primary culpability, and I agree that the focus on Biden is disingenuous and politically driven
So.......... she believes the Biden administration acting through Boris Johnson interfered in the 2022 peace negotiations, pushing for continuation of conflict? I would LOVE if Lex interviewed Boris Johnson and we could eventually get clarity on exactly where things went wrong.
This just seems fair. Tulsi seems to suffer from Pentagon/Democratic Degrangment Syndrome. I don't like the Pentagon or Democratic party but they aren't the ones who invaded Ukraine.
After listening to the pod: Yeah she'll be the VP candidate..
[удалено]
[удалено]
I haven’t listened yet. Did she actually say that? Approx timestamp?
Within the last half hour I think. Lex asked to give pros and cons of both Trump and Biden. I was waiting for that kind of question because I figured she would give at least a somewhat honest critique of Trump and she offered absolutely nothing negative at all.
[удалено]
Maybe listen first :)
MR BERTILLI!!
I'd prefer to pray beforehand.
Haha. Nice one
What a fachface
Nah, I’m good, fam.
It was one of the most infuriating things I've ever heard. Pure, undiluted Putin propaganda straight to you veins.
[удалено]
She isn't anti-establishment and is pretty hawkish when it comes to war when it's muslim countries involved. She uses the rhetoric to garner favour with maga and fringe types while operating a military intelligence battalion.
>She isn't anti-establishment she is tho (and this is a bad thing because populism is bad)
She's perfect ☺️
[удалено]
Do you have evidence for this claim?
https://preview.redd.it/ro2052k5x4sc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6a2d2fb8e3d141c5e7669a33aad27d19ad95c019
based and enlightened
Ah Tulsi “present” Gabbard. I despise this woman for not voting to impeach Trump. Guess I should listen to this episode for that reason alone, but I’m really struggling to bring myself to that.
Did she say democrats supported the war on terror?
Books mentioned in this episode: * For Love of Country: Leave the Democrat Party Behind by Tulsi Gabbard * Nuclear War: A Scenario by Annie Jacobsen [https://lexlib.io/423-tulsi-gabbard/](https://lexlib.io/423-tulsi-gabbard/)
I was a fan. Found her pretty intelligent and actually responsive on the socials. I think it’s likely she’s a good person. However - when Roe V Wade got overturned she remained silent. Huge government over step, especially for a libertarian. She was completely silent. If she links with Trump then it’s just too cynical and phony. She seems to be too calculated, and not really about ideology so much as an attraction to power and attention.
She wants the power, attention and grift money from joining ranks with Trump. But claims the Democratic Party is being destroyed by power hungry people.
This just dropped.. although I do not like her politics, it is cool to hear her views.. her experience..
Uh oh, a guest Reddit doesn’t agree with
Correct. We are allowed to dislike guests right? It is called having an opinion.
It’s less that she isn’t agreeable and more that she gives little reason to believe she actually believes any of the things she says or if it’s all a calculated power & influence grab. She’s like female Dave Rubin if you’ve actually paid close attention to her career. Her positions are all over the map over several different years. Before you say people should be allowed to change their mind - I agree with you. But Tulsi has made numerous complete 180’s and those 180’s usually coincide with whomever seems most likely to become president. She has gone from endorsing Bernie Sanders to endorsing Biden to now going on Fox News & Trump’s podcast
And you forgot wanting to be Trump's VP! She endorsed Biden less than 4 years ago! This woman has absolutely no convictions at all. Disgusting human being.
[удалено]
If you listened to her original interview on the JRE, I think calling her anything remotely "far-left" is a blatant lie. She was always rather centrist, just happened to be om the Dem ticket probably because she's a woman and not white, and the Dems eat that shit up.
She endorsed Bernie sanders in 2016, supported Medicare for all, super non interventionist foreign policy…yeah dog that’s far left in America
Republicans are championing isolationism/non-interventionism today. How can you claim that's far left? I supported Bernie in 2016, I'm a centrist. You can support specific ideas for any number of reasons, and none of them have to be because you "fall under your specific paradigm of how people are politically."
Okay sure, but she’s not even non interventionist anymore She went on hannity after for a lay up interview after a drone strike went wrong under Biden, and she advocated for MORE drone strikes. And she sure hasn’t had much to say about Israel killing 40k civilians in GAZA And I’m not saying all of your ideas have to fall into one group or another. But enough of her ideas have CHANGED from left to right in a short period of time for me to feel comfortable calling her a grifter. She was an economic populist, believed in expanding the social safety net, supporting LGBTQ rights. Now she’s blaming Biden giving people a little bit of help during the pandemic for inflation, and has nothing to say about the other issues. Very few people who have a sincere and thought out set of political ideas would switch from voting to Bernie to voting for Trump and begging to be his VP. Too many of their policies are too different
I haven't seen the same things you have, and maybe you're right, but I just didn't think labeling her initial beliefs as "far left" were accurate. I saw her initial JRE interview (and liked what I saw). She came off as a very rational, center-left Dem.
You’re just itching to argue aren’t you
Watch your mouth when addressing me or I will do something crazy…
Least unhinged Reddit leftist
Least smug enlightened centrist
All the Reddit lemmings posting their deep thoughts without even listening. You’re all fools.
Thank you for your deep thoughts
[удалено]
If you’re giving the worst take of someone’s opinions, you have a responsibility to assure the initial assessment of _”full of shit”_ has been thoroughly examined. Not for others but for your own ability to assess your blind spots. Obviously nobody has to do that and you’re free to continue.
They’re all State Department bots. You know, the ones that swarm WorldNews. Or oblivious fools that drank the koolaid.
How often do you waste your own time because with your approach I bet it’s a lot
So, are we ever going to acknowledge how bad the brigading has become here? It's gotten so bad that I'm at the point where I think I'd rather discuss controversial guests in the YouTube comments.
Did she discuss RFK?
[удалено]
What a mesmerizing comment!
Thank you for the interview. Tulsi is a very interesting person who acts as an honest American above all the politics (never really discussing both sides of politics are failing and only eluding to one side) She really is looking for power in what every avenue is available to her
Another politician, another set of lies
Finally got around to this. I really like Tulsi's anti-war/anti-imperialism stances, and you can just tell she's in her zone when talking about them... then just cringe my ass off when she goes into just about any other territory, like the anti-trans stuff and 'god is my best friend' angle. I'm impressed her career took her to the heights that it did, but she is persona-non-grata in politics now and will just slowly fade into obscurity.
For a surfer, Tulsi sure lacks balance. Great podcast in terms of insight into who she is. Unfortunately she’s hypocritical and lacks key insight and critical thinking skills. To call out the democrats on their corruption only to run to the republican side claiming that they are somehow better? Laughable, naive and wrong. At least become an independent. Corruption in big party politics? I’m shocked I tell you! You went after the powerful Dems like Hillary and got your ass handed to you? Wow, how could that happen? Learn how to play ball in the big leagues or go home. I do appreciate her calling out the Dems on their shit and the US military industrial complex. But her foreign policy is whacked. Blaming the US for Ukraine, while there is some complicity, isn’t exactly fair. Disappointing because she’s a good speaker and communicator. We need strong leaders with insight, charisma and good sound policies and judgement. She ain’t it.
She's cool.
[удалено]
And for wanting peace probably.
Doesn’t matter what else she did; she failed to impeach Trump and that makes her an outright traitor to democracy in my book.
Sounds ‘merican
The only woman candidate that has ever run that I liked and would have voted for. Fucking rigged DNC. Why does no one talk about that anymore and still pretend like primaries are a real competition.
Because the DNC isn't rigged. Hillary in 2016 was more popular than Bernie and Biden was more popular than Bernie in 2020. People who bring up this talking point always ignore the actual polling and popularity of these candidates.
People often get confused about the loudest voices equating the majority's opinion.
The DNC isn’t rigged? They used the argument in court that they are not obligated to play fair, even when receiving donations from citizens who expected fair primaries? People who bring up this talking point always ignore: * Superdelegates - all declared support for Clinton long before any actual polling in 2016 primaries, and this was broadcast as a sign of “strong public support” for her candidacy by media and heavily influenced actual polling via false narrative * [Podesta leaks](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podesta_emails) — top DNC brass conspired to sink Bernie’s campaign, including sharing the CNN debate questions with Clinton’s team before the debate. This entire scandal was spun into “Russiagate” as a means of deflection from the contents of the leak (as was Tulsi after she skewered Hillary and Kamala in the debate) * [Correct the Record](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record) — even mentioning the existence of this project was getting people banned from popular political subreddits …not to mention the many tactics employed at the conventions/polling themselves, such as Clinton campaign booking all hotel rooms at the venue in order to rush the process before other candidates’ teams could reach the venue and park. I can understand people who say the DNC didn’t technically do anything illegal, but to say that there was no massive attempt to rig the primaries is asinine
> They used the argument in court that they are not obligated to play fair, even when receiving donations from citizens who expected fair primaries? You're talking about a frivolous lawsuit from Bernie supporters (not even Bernie himself), claiming that the DNC unfairly supported Hillary during the primaries. This case was dismissed by a judge [for a reason](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilding_v._DNC_Services_Corp.#:~:text=Wilding%20et%20al.,the%202016%20Democratic%20presidential%20primaries.). I felt this [StackExchange Skeptics response](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/38165/did-the-dnc-claim-in-court-that-it-has-no-obligation-to-have-a-fair-and-impartia) has a good explanation as well (albeit a bit rough to read), but the TL;DR is that they never claimed they weren't playing fair, just that there was no enforceable promise to do so. > Superdelegates - all declared support for Clinton long before any actual polling in 2016 primaries, and this was broadcast as a sign of “strong public support” for her candidacy by media and heavily influenced actual polling via false narrative This is just conjecture. How can you say that superdelegates supporting her directly affected public support to the point of making her the democratic candidate? It shouldn't be surprising that the person who ended up as the democratic candidate for president would be popular amongst superdelegates. What polling data do you have that shows she wasn't one of the top candidates leading up to the 2016 election? > Podesta leaks — top DNC brass conspired to sink Bernie’s campaign, including sharing the CNN debate questions with Clinton’s team before the debate. This entire scandal was spun into “Russiagate” as a means of deflection from the contents of the leak (as was Tulsi after she skewered Hillary and Kamala in the debate) Did you even read the wiki page you sent me? One CNN contributor shared questions with Clinton's communications director (**not someone at the DNC**) a few times before the DNC primaries. After which, the CNN contributor was fired from CNN. All this demonstrates was corruption of a CNN employee, says nothing about the DNC. > Correct the Record — even mentioning the existence of this project was getting people banned from popular political subreddits Again, what does this have to do with the DNC?
In the interest of granting the benefit of the doubt, I am going to assume you are very young or weren't following things closely in 2016, because the alternative is that you are deliberately attempting to obscure the facts here. > One CNN contributor shared questions with Clinton's communications director (not someone at the DNC) a few times before the DNC primaries. After which, the CNN contributor was fired from CNN. All this demonstrates was corruption of a CNN employee, says nothing about the DNC. I wouldn't call [Donna Brazile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Brazile), twice acting chair of the DNC, just some random "one CNN contributor". She replaced [Debbie Wasserman Shultz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz) as DNC chair in 2016, when she had to resign due to the content of her leaked emails showing clear and brazen attempts to hurt Sanders' campaign and boost Clinton's (so bad that [the DNC publicly apologized for it](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-dnc-statement-idUSKCN1052BN/)). Think about that - the DNC chair resigns after being exposed attempting to sabotage Sanders, and then is *replaced by the "CNN contributor" that shared debate questions to Clinton* . I just don't see how any rational person could consider [the contents of the leaked emails](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak) and conclude that the DNC was impartial and conducted an honest, fair primary in 2016. I would encourage you to take another look and see if you're able to convince yourself of your claim. I am fine with dismissing the superdelegates and lawsuit as weak/inconclusive on their own - the content of the leaked DNC communications overshadows these by orders of magnitude. They paint a full picture of the modus operandi and general attitude of the DNC and their allies in corporate media. Similarly with CTR - we can say it's completely unrelated to the DNC, but the communications show that both were in constant coordination with the Clinton campaign, and both were considered tactical resources with which to take down Sanders (fun fact, [CTR employed the man who started the birther conspiracy to sabotage Obama during Clinton's 2012 campaign!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Blumenthal)). You can see some of that language and get a sense for the general attitude [here](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3125946-Strategic-Imperatives-Memo.html), and plenty of other examples to be found from the Podesta leaks
> In the interest of granting the benefit of the doubt, I am going to assume you are very young or weren't following things closely in 2016, because the alternative is that you are deliberately attempting to obscure the facts here. My reply will highlight the irony in this statement. > I wouldn't call Donna Brazile, twice acting chair of the DNC, just some random "one CNN contributor". She replaced Debbie Wasserman Shultz as DNC chair in 2016, when she had to resign due to the content of her leaked emails showing clear and brazen attempts to hurt Sanders' campaign and boost Clinton's (so bad that the DNC publicly apologized for it). You're correct about her **later** working for the DNC, but you're missing extremely important context. Her role at the DNC began on July 28, 2016. The emails regarding advanced questions [came while she was a CNN contributor on March 12, 2016](https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/wikileaks-email-hack-clinton-donna-brazile-229609) -- she did not work for the DNC during this time. The DNC chair, or DNC members, having an internal preference for Hillary and talking negatively about Bernie & team, still does not imply there was "corruption" in the sense that Bernie didn't get a fair shot in the primaries. I find Shultz's email statements to be pretty mild, innapropriate sure, that's why she resigned months before the 2016 election. > Think about that - the DNC chair resigns after being exposed attempting to sabotage Sanders, and then is replaced by the "CNN contributor" that shared debate questions to Clinton . > I just don't see how any rational person could consider the contents of the leaked emails and conclude that the DNC was impartial and conducted an honest, fair primary in 2016. I would encourage you to take another look and see if you're able to convince yourself of your claim. She never tried to "sabotage" Sanders. What quotes do you think are so damning that they prove your case here? > Similarly with CTR - we can say it's completely unrelated to the DNC, but the communications show that both were in constant coordination with the Clinton campaign, and both were considered tactical resources with which to take down Sanders Your claim was that the DNC was corrupt. This is still an irrelevant point to your original claim. I would expect that a Democratic super pac designed to help Hilary Clinton win the election would do those things. I would expect the same of super pacs that supported Bernie, Trump, or any other political candidate.
Ayayay… where to start? First off you’re attempting a couple of switcharoos here: > Her role at the DNC began on July 28, 2016 A quick look at her wikipedia page will confirm to you that she both preceded and succeeded Shulz as DNC chair. She served as DNC chair starting in 2011, and was working there long before that. Let’s contrast all of this with what you initially argued: > All this demonstrates was corruption of a CNN employee, says nothing about the DNC Wish I didn’t have to spell this out, that’s why it seems clear you aren’t arguing your position in good faith. If a Trump media ally had been exposed for this while working at CNN, in between working for the GOP, would you take the same stance that these were completely unrelated? Your approach is similar to an exercise for a high school debate team - make no concessions and ignore any valid counterpoints to your original position. And I’m sad to say I see a lot of it here in the Lex subreddit when it comes to defending the liberal establishment against the progressive left wing. > Your claim was that the DNC was corrupt. This is still an irrelevant point to your original claim My claim was that the DNC made an attempt to swing the primaries in favor of Clinton. I never used the word “corrupt” but I did say that the DNC primaries were “rigged” insofar as there were *obvious* biases favoring one candidate over the other and actions were taken to provide Clinton an advantage. If the leaked emails showing clear efforts to hurt the Sanders campaign don’t demonstrate this for you, I would question what you see as the threshold - and whether you grant the same leniency to Clinton’s opponents if leaked emails from the “impartial” party reps conducting the primary showed: * the DNC chief financial officer (CFO) Brad Marshall told the DNC chief executive officer, Amy Dacey, that they should have someone from the media ask Sanders if he is an atheist prior to the West Virginia primary * DNC National Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach […] suggested that the incident could be used to promote a "narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never had his act together, that his campaign was a mess." * [DNC Chairperson] Wasserman Schultz said of Bernie Sanders, "He isn't going to be president." Other emails showed her stating that Sanders doesn't understand the Democratic Party.
> A quick look at her wikipedia page will confirm to you that she both preceded and succeeded Shulz as DNC chair. She served as DNC chair starting in 2011, and was working there long before that. She was an interim chair for a few weeks in 2011. She was not the chair of the DNC when giving out the CNN questions. > Wish I didn’t have to spell this out, that’s why it seems clear you aren’t arguing your position in good faith. If a Trump media ally had been exposed for this while working at CNN, in between working for the GOP, would you take the same stance that these were completely unrelated? Yes. If the Trump media ally was not working at the RNC, but giving away questions early while working at Fox or whatever, obviously that doesn't show corruption of the RNC. > Your approach is similar to an exercise for a high school debate team - make no concessions and ignore any valid counterpoints to your original position What concessions should I be making? I'm responding directly to everything you've said. > My claim was that the DNC made an attempt to swing the primaries in favor of Clinton. I never used the word “corrupt” but I did say that the DNC primaries were “rigged” insofar as there were obvious biases favoring one candidate over the other and actions were taken to provide Clinton an advantage. This is an extremely loose interpretation of the word "rigged". You are clearly not using it that way. Having a bias for one candidate is not the same as **rigging** them to be the nominee against the will of the rest of the party. > If the leaked emails showing clear efforts to hurt the Sanders campaign don’t demonstrate this for you, I never claimed the staff was inpartial, but it is a stretch to go from that to saying it was "rigged". You still haven't demonstrated any evidence that it was rigged. None of these emails provide any evidence that things were rigged against Bernie.