So what is the deal with the Right and Tulsi Gabbard?

Okay, so it looks by all the responses thus far, that no one has actually given a hard concrete answer as to why they like Tulsi Gabbard for president other than light aired nebulous responses that indicate she is just a sex symbol and represents visually at least, all the iconic tropes of the far right.

So how did she develop this strange cult following from Trumpsters?

That's right, Fox News. A little over a year ago, Tucker Carlson started mentioning her on his show, along with the rest of the far right Internet.

Why Conservative Media and the Far Right Love Tulsi Gabbard for President

How Tulsi Gabbard Hacked the Right-Wing Media Feedback Loop

Now granted, Gabbard did purposely score points with them by attacking Hillary Clinton, and Clinton did fire off an incendiary albeit obfuscated comment directed towards her about being the preferred candidate of Russia. This tussle didn't get too much traction on the left, but the right gobbled it up.

You know something indeed is going on when you have the likes of Steve Bannon and David Duke praising and encouraging her, in addition to all the social media hits under 4chan and other extreme far right groups.

And you still doubt that Russia interfered in 2016 with our elections? They're still doing it!

 

Lucifer, John McCain was a bit of a mystery to me. This was a man who suffered as a POW in a war. He would have been acutely and personally aware of the horrors of war. I would have thought he would be the voice of reason when it came to war after all he had been through. But Lucifer, that was not the case. John McCain, with his friend Lindsey Graham, was one of the most hawkish members of Congress throughout his career. I know it doesn't make sense, but that is the truth.

As far as which party's president has gotten us involved in war, let's take a look starting with after WW2 ...

Korean War - Truman (D)
Viet Nam - Kennedy/Johnson (D) ... Nixon (R) got us out of Viet Nam
Invasion of Grenada - Reagan (R)
Invasion of Panama - Bush 1 (R)
Gulf War - Bush 1 (R)
Somalia - Bush 1 (R)
Balkans - Clinton (D)
Iraq Liberation Act (removal of Saddam Hussein) - Clinton (D) (not an act of war, but a statement of resolve to remove Hussein from power)
Operation Northern Watch/Provide Comfort (Iraq) - Clinton (D)
Afghanistan - Bush 2 (R)
Iraq - Bush 2 (R)
continuation of war in Afghanistan - Obama (D)
Libya - Obama (D)
Syria (CIA support and training, weapons) - Obama (D)
War against ISIS/Re-entry to Iraq - Obama (D)
War against ISIS (Operation Inherent Resolve) (completed) - Trump (R)

What we see is that both parties have gotten us into wars since WW2.

Trump has tried hard not to get us involved in new wars.

He has made peace overtures to North Korea by directly and personally engaging the North Korean leader.
He has been negotiating with the Afghan taliban for a peace agreement.
He has not engaged the Syrian civil war between the Assad government and the Syrian rebels.
He has withdrawn some of our forces from Syria.
He has announced intended troop reductions in Afghanistan.
He did respond to Iranian proxy attacks on our military and civilians in Iraq, but he also stopped the escalation.
He has fired (or they resigned) notable hawks in his administration - John Bolton and James Mattis.

My son fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. He fought on the ground, and he has the scars and Purple Heart to prove it. After all we've been through; after all he's been through, I like having a president who admires our military, wants it to be strong, but who seeks peace, not war.

Seth

 

Oh good grief. Doesn't the cult of Leftism go gaga over anyone who is a thorn in the side of Trump? Don't they shower praise over any GOP who takes sides against Trump? Just look at how they praise Romney now when a few years before they hit him with all the usual vile names they use for nearly all of the GOP. Now he is their hero. Some on the Right give Gabbard too much credit, if they looked at her policy statements, she's out there with Bernie. But most only like that she's one of the few Democrats who don't act as a group think NPC and is outspoken about things she sees wrong about her party.

 

They have been doing it since the dawn of the digital age. We do it too.

 

Sorry, informed common sense is required.

 

Once again, Seth, thank you for providing a detailed response.

When Eisenhower gave his farewell speech on January 17, 1961, he gave a stark warning about the rise of the military industrial complex. There have been countless debates about his warning and what it means to our nation as we moved into the 2nd half of the 20th century. It could even be said it is one of the foundations which created the peace movement as it has evolved throughout the years.

I have vacillated over my lifetime on this issue, primarily because of the events of 9/11. I was all for the invasion of Afghanistan, but when the Bush administration started talking about Iraq, I knew we were headed for trouble and sure enough, all my fears were realized. The reality is that once military action is undertaken, no one knows for sure what the outcome will be. In spite of all the best Intel, strategic planning, and military hardware advantages, we are still relying on what elected officials decide to release to the public to get a picture of what their thinking is, all the while trying to maintain some degree of secrecy. In general, it may be several years before historians unravel the details of any particular conflict.

With that being said, I think it is way too premature to be crediting Trump for peace in foreign affairs. Now traditionally, this is the sort of debate Republicans and Democrats could tangle with on the Hill. What is unique about the Trump administration is that at no other time in history has an outside non-government or elected entity wound up affecting the debate so profoundly as the influence of Fox News. It is this very weird symbiotic relationship between the White House and the political pundits of Fox News that creates of very dangerous mix. It's not to say that we have not had political pundits before. They've been around for a very long time, but never to the degree we currently see.

I could go into detail over why I disagree with your assessments of Trump's foreign accomplishments, but that is not the point of this thread and is best left as a topic for another day. My point was to underscore the influence Fox News in shaping not just the right wing position, but also the left.

 

Well, you seem to be short of that yourself. I asked kindly on what you based your assertion, and you provided a wimpy response. Noted.

 

I just see Fox as a counter balance to CNN, CBS, and NBC.

I remember well Ike's words in his farewell address. I wish we could resurrect him.

I too was all for the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11. I still see Al Qaeda as an enemy that should be confronted.

I thought Hillary Clinton was just as hawkish and interventionist as any right wing hawk could possibly be. I'm glad she is not the president. I thought of her as completely irresponsible with military power. I think Trump does not want the U.S. involved in useless mideast wars or any new wars. He prefers negotiation and economic carrots and sticks. I know he'll defend the country with military force if it's absolutely necessary, but I don't think he will use the military to simply impose our will, our culture, or our politics on foreign lands and peoples who don't want us there. I strongly suspect that this is why Bolton and Mattis are gone from the administration. And I'm fine with that.