If you still support Tulsi, don’t pretend to be anti war.

[-]

Fractoman@reddit

If you think any other pertinent super-power is going to give two shits about Iran being bombed you're on some shit, man.

[-]

And while the media is covering hegseth’s crazy rant against the media, trump is meeting at the White House with Putin’s messengers. But hey, trump isn’t Putin’s bitch, he’s got tulsi there for him to make scary doomsday videos about what’ll happen if we go to war. Oops! We went to war and she flip flopped again!

[-]

Moonbeam_86@reddit

Ok first off, I don't think Tulsi Gabbard would ever call herself "anti-war."

She served in the military -- and even after serving DURING WAR, she CONTINUED willingly serving in the military.

I think Gabbard is awesome and have liked her for a long time (since her 2016 presidential run put her on my radar). But I am not "anti-war," nor have I ever been.

[-]

CambionClan@reddit

Tulsi should resign from her position and condemn this war. This is a chance for her to take a stand.

[-]

Moonbeam_86@reddit

What “war?” Jeez - our pilots are back home in their beds in Missouri, and Iran says nobody was killed. All that happened was we now know Iran isn’t making a bomb in those places.

Seriously - where were you guys when we were bombing the crap out of Yemen? Now, THAT was a war.

[-]

CambionClan@reddit

So Pearl Harbor wasn’t the beginning of a war? This is a fucking war and when Iran strikes back, the warmongers will play victim.

I was 100% against the bombing in Yemen.

[-]

Moonbeam_86@reddit

Sorry - I didn't mean to minimize your concerns.

[-]

DaraParsavand@reddit

It was a chance all right. I was pretty sure she wouldn’t take it as I don’t think she has any principles left. I know Glenn Greenwald (who I do respect) thinks her leaving the DNC was some type of career defining moment showing she can stand up to power. Looks like this power seeker learned something from that experience and won’t be doing that again. She’s already flopped.

Someone like Dave Smith has integrity going on the record that Trump should be impeached just for colluding with Israel before let alone our own strikes yesterday. Wake me up when Tulsi resigns and does that. Given what she’s said in the past on regime change wars, that’s the absolute minimum she should do.

I lost all respect for Tulsi who I sent a few bucks to so she could qualify for 2020 debates and bailed on her when she told Jimmy Dore that taking away your choice of health insurance provider was unamerican indicating she had no idea what Medicare for All was even though she claimed to be a backer. She is not a serious person and like when I was conned by Obama (absolutely not the progressive he seemed to be claiming he was in 2008), I really hate being duped politically.

[-]

NickDixon37@reddit

Medicare sucks, as among other things, when doctors run out of things to try for someone who's very ill - Medicare stops paying for healthcare. And in 2020 I don't think anyone really thought that Medicare could be extended to everyone without there being some major changes.

In 2020 Tulsi supported a Modified Medicare for All that included having private insurance available and a public option that would be available to everyone.

[-]

DaraParsavand@reddit

Medicare does have many issues which is why I never wanted the name change from Single Payer to Medicare for All. Advocates for the name change overestimate the degree to which people love Medicare (though many appreciate it vs having to deal with private markets only after retirement). These advocates also try to emphasize they are pushing for "National Improved Medicare for All (NIMA)" and you shouldn't presume any deficiencies of current Medicare would carry over to what the new universal Medicare would be. Again, I see a lot of problems with that tactic - a new name is better.

However as a kid of two doctors who supported the idea of single payer, a close friend of another doctor who took me PNHP (physicians for a national health plan) meetings in the late 80s, and someone who has been solidly in the pro single payer movement since that time, Tulsi's idea is bullshit and she absolutely can't appropriate the name Medicare for All for her idea. She isn't modifying it - she's killing it. It doesn't work without universal buy in at a minimum (and how many of those advocating for what is more fairly called the public option do you think are OK still paying the taxes for universal care and then also paying a private insurer?), and even if you have universal buy in and people are allowed to get side medical care you are definitely going to get major problems with the universal care being second rate as rich people (who are often our politicians too) get their needs met outside the system.

Some people tried to coin the name Medicare for Some but I don't think it took off. At least when you use that term (or saying you are backing the public option), it is clear you are NOT a supporter of Medicare for All. Tulsi raised her hand on that famous debate question from the moderators on do you support M4A and gave me no hint she was this far away from what M4A means until I heard that interview. If it was buried in a position paper on her website, I missed it (and that's not good enough anyway). She is not an honest person.

[-]

CambionClan@reddit

I hate being duped too and it looks like we’re in that situation now. It sucks because all too often we’re put in a position between politicians who say the right things but may be lying or politicians who advocate for terrible things and are certainly telling the true.

[-]

blakefoster@reddit (OP)

Part of me wants to advocate for her staying in her position so she can push for peace, but we all know that won’t influence jack shit. It’s only a matter of time before she gets fired anyway, so she may as well resign.

[-]

CambionClan@reddit

Yeah, she could just speak out against the war until Trump fires her. That works too. A think that a resignation is more powerful especially combined with a public statement about why.

If Tulsi just sells out, she will never have the respect of her supporters again. She might have a lucrative career though.

[-]

blakefoster@reddit (OP)

If that career was in the Republican Party though, she would have a looong way to go in distancing herself from the fascism/authoritarianism of MAGA that she aligned herself with. Not that she has any future with the Democrats either…

[-]

serpicowasright@reddit

As if the democrats party is any better. Israel controls both parties. We need new parties that are not influenced by nations that want to use us as cannon fodder and an unlimited bank.

[-]

username3848499329@reddit

MIGA!!!

[-]

CambionClan@reddit

She has no future in the Democrat Party, full stop.

I think that with this war, Donald Trump has destroyed what ever legacy he might have had. He has split his base and betrayed America First. The left already hates him, but he could have been a hero to the right, but that is over with now.

Tulsi would have a better future in the non-interventionist wing of the GOP if she immediately distances herself from Trump. Sticking with Trump on this, selling out, isn’t going to win her any popular support, just the favor of the ruling elites.

[-]

serpicowasright@reddit

👆👆👆

[-]

paultheschmoop@reddit

if tulsi just sells out

If? Lmao

[-]

SeasonsGone@reddit

You don’t get added to the Cabinet if you’re going to criticize or challenge Trump—there’s so much evidence of this going back a decade.

[-]

username3848499329@reddit

if she doesnt then shes a sellout cause nobodys delusional enough to think shes got any influence, tss above her paygrade

[-]

SoundHearing@reddit

Ok, what about us ‘minimise war’ realists, do we get a prize if the number and duration of wars started is lower than the average since JfK got popped?

[-]

Moonbeam_86@reddit

The problem is, of course, when did the “war” between the U.S. and Iran start? 1979 when they kidnapped Americans? 2020 when we killed Qasem Soleimani? Or 2024 when they killed 3 of our servicemen at Tower 22?

[-]

HeRoiN_cHic_@reddit

In other words you all don’t even know what the conflict is about? Or why it’s happened?

You obviously don’t know it’s over already.

You can calm down. Damn.

[-]

Moonbeam_86@reddit

Or maybe in 1983 with the Beirut barracks bombings?

[-]

DaraParsavand@reddit

Or 1953 when we stole their Democracy. Could turn out that was the single dumbest thing post WWII we have ever done. We sure wouldn’t be in this position we are in now had Eisenhower had some actual ethics and prevented that CIA move instead of just giving a nice speech at the end of his presidency that resulted in exactly nothing.

[-]

PLUTO_HAS_COME_BACK@reddit

For some reason, she didn't stick to what she knew and what she said she knew.

If she quit the administration, her political career would end there. She'd become an activist.

We may never know the true story.

[-]

NickDixon37@reddit

We ARE anti-war. For me, 55 years ago it was Vietnam, and now it's Ukraine and Gaza and Iran. But I haven't experienced war first hand (the year I would have been drafted was the first year that they didn't take anyone).

While Tulsi is both anti-war, AND she's put her life on the line for our country. She's seen first hand the horrors of war, and she's seen the corruption that's perpetuated our never ending warmongering. And she knows that one nuclear exchange could end human life on this planet. Tulsi is Really anti-war, unlike those of us who just go to occasional protests - and talk about peace, when it seems that the rest of the world is fixated on violence.

[-]

ReadingKing@reddit

Disgusted and disappointed

[-]

Reag24@reddit

Merica great yet?!? 😂

[-]

ReadingKing@reddit

I haven’t supported her years. I appreciated her when she ran as a dem candidate and stuck up for Bernie. Idk why she changed so much

[-]

JumboMcCloony@reddit

It’s an unfortunate reality of politics, the dems blacklist her so she’s forced to the right, now she has to go along with Don to stay politically relevant. It sucks but it’s the reality of politics my guy.

[-]

MalcolmSupleX@reddit

No one forced her to do anything. She chose to grift and choose money and power over morals.

[-]

JumboMcCloony@reddit

I envy the idealistic bubble you seem to live in, this is how it works with every politician. If you want to implement real change, you have to go along to get along some times

[-]

MalcolmSupleX@reddit

You’re mistaking cynicism for realism. “Go along to get along” is how nothing meaningful ever changes. Plenty of politicians have taken risks for principles—some win, some don’t—but selling out isn’t the only option. It’s a choice. She made hers.

[-]

JumboMcCloony@reddit

Genuinely curious and if you could enlighten me I’d really appreciate it, but when has there ever been a politician that stood on principle and it worked without having done something they didn’t want to do beforehand to get into that position? Every politician I support has had at least one vote I don’t love or that doesn’t represent their values to the fullest. It’s part of the game, you’re saying she has a choice, but the only choice I see is to give up politically or go along to stay relevant.

[-]

MalcolmSupleX@reddit

Nobody has a perfect record, and compromise happens—sometimes even to get into office. But saying the only choice is to "go along or give up" oversimplifies it. There are too many politicians, across too many decades, to say “everyone” does the same thing. And no one has to give up every principle just to stay in the game.

Some politicians have risen without betraying their morals. Maxwell Frost won his House seat without taking corporate PAC money, running on a grassroots platform focused on issues like gun reform, housing, and climate. He didn’t water it down to gain establishment support—and he’s continued to push for what he ran on.

Then there are those who already held real power and still chose principle over political safety.

- Abraham Lincoln could’ve kept the peace by allowing slavery to expand. Many wanted him to. He refused. That decision helped trigger a civil war, but he stood firm.

- Harry Truman desegregated the military, knowing it would cost him politically—especially with his own party in the South. He did it anyway.

- Liz Cheney lost her seat for rejecting Trump’s election lies. Whether you agree with her politics or not, that wasn’t a move for clout. It was a risk she knew could end her career—and it did.

Saying “everyone’s corrupt” is the kind of thinking that plays right into the hands of those who want people to disengage. That cynicism has been a tool since the Southern Strategy—convince people that nothing can change, so they stop trying.

So no, not everyone sells out. Some actually make hard calls and live with the fallout. Saying “that’s just how it works” is how nothing ever changes.

[-]

JumboMcCloony@reddit

I appreciate the well thought out answer, your examples kind of prove my point though, Lincoln and Truman were already president and could expend the political capital, and like you said Liz did it to her detriment, the same way tulsi supporting Bernie in 2016 destroyed her political futures amongst the democratic party establishment. She was supposed to get in line and follow along but stood by her principles and felt the consequences. I do think we agree more than we disagree though. I’m not saying it should be this way or that everyone is corrupt, but even you just said that nobody has a perfect record and compromise happens. And in her exact situation, the options are go along to stay relevant and then make a push in 2028/32 or be blacklisted again for standing on principle. It seems like a simple choice

[-]

MalcolmSupleX@reddit

Appreciate the thoughtful reply, and yeah—I think we do agree more than not. But I don’t think my examples prove your point. They show that standing on principle often comes with consequences—but that’s not the same as saying everyone has to sell out to survive.

Lincoln and Truman didn’t act because they had power—they used their power to make hard, unpopular decisions. That’s still a choice. Cheney was kicked out and then lost her seat for sticking to her values. And Tulsi made choices, she wasn't kicked out, didn't lose her seat, nothing. she chose to betray her values. That’s not the same situation at all.

I said no one has a perfect record, and compromise happens—but there’s a difference between strategy and abandoning what you claim to believe in. “Go along to stay relevant” makes it sound like people don’t have agency. They do. And some choose to take the hit rather than cross a line.

It’s not about pretending the system’s fair. It’s about recognizing that how you move through it still matters.

[-]

JumboMcCloony@reddit

I see what you mean but what do you mean “wasn’t kicked out” ? She was actively blacklisted by the democratic establishment and Hillary Clinton for her support of Bernie, it made the 2020 primaries impossible for her and left her only political avenue being the GOP.

At the end of the day I think her best option is to ride out this term with as little scandal as possible and then go scorched earth on maga in 2028.

[-]

MalcolmSupleX@reddit

She was not. Tulsi chose to leave the DNC. She remained on her committees in Congress, ran for president, and participated in the debates. The party didn’t do anything to her. She chose on her own to leave the party. Cheney, on the other hand, was removed from leadership for doing the right thing—telling the truth about Trump. Let’s stick to the facts.

[-]

JumboMcCloony@reddit

Why do you think she left? She refused to go along with the rigging of the 2016 primaries for Hillary, and was internally put on a blacklist in the Democratic Party. They restricted funds and changed the primary rules to keep her out of the debates, she only participated in one debate that cycle. As well as constant smearing and slander from Hillary and other notable democrats calling her a Russian asset. How is that not getting kicked out by the party? Believe what you want I guess but her leaving the party wasn’t some random thing she decided to do. As much as I dislike it, it was a political necessity

[-]

MalcolmSupleX@reddit

I like I said. Let's stick to the facts.

[-]

JumboMcCloony@reddit

Your view on her makes more sense now lol

[-]

MalcolmSupleX@reddit

If you’re not interested in a factual discussion, that’s fine. But dismissing someone with “lol” doesn’t make your point stronger.

[-]

JumboMcCloony@reddit

Just because you aren’t aware of certain facts doesn’t make them not facts, that’s why I find it funny. Go ahead and believe what you want though

[-]

MalcolmSupleX@reddit

Ok, what facts did you give?

[-]

clowndawg1@reddit

That's the only way to get a seat at the table.

[-]

MalcolmSupleX@reddit

Getting a seat at the table means nothing if you have to abandon everything you claimed to stand for to get there. At that point, you're just another person keeping the same broken system in place.

[-]

clowndawg1@reddit

I agree with you but at the very least she has the chance to make a difference, Tulsi being completely cast out doesn't do anyone any good. Hopefully she can help the US prevent ww3 and end the genocide in Gaza. Israel knows no bounds.

[-]

paultheschmoop@reddit

She got a seat at a table notorious for kicking people out of their chairs and into irrelevance, and is now about to suffer the same fate.

[-]

clowndawg1@reddit

Yeah but thats big league politics regardless. At least she has a shot currently at swaying Trump towards being reasonable.

[-]

Material-Style4019@reddit

Name me another female US politician who would go toe to toe with Orban or Putin in a conference room?

Amy Klobechar? Harris?

Get real!

Tulsi is the only one we got for first female prez.

She's just choosing her battles.

[-]

SeasonsGone@reddit

I’m not even challenging your opinion but I don’t get what evidence you’ve seen of Tulsi challenging world leaders in general. How did you arrive at this opinion of her? Her podcast..?

[-]

barryvon@reddit

she can’t even go toe to toe with pete hegseth

[-]

juflyingwild@reddit

Dr Jill Stein

[-]

paultheschmoop@reddit

Tulsi was a non factor in the last presidential primary she took part in and is now about to be on the bad side of Trump. She has no political future.

She gambled and lost.

[-]

SeaBass1898@reddit

Honestly, I would trust both Klobuchar and definitely Harris to go toe to toe with Putin, especially compared to our current president.

[-]

SeasonsGone@reddit

What irritates me even more is that people used to say “there were no new wars under Trump’s first term” and while that is semantically true it means very little in practice—this was used to somehow contrast Trump to the Democratic Party that was overseeing our interaction with Ukraine during the initial invasion and now ongoing war.

Trump approved and conducted all sorts of military operations just like the one he did just now. This idea that Trump has suddenly turned out to be a Warhawk and that Tulsi should resign in protest is revisionist. This has always been on Trump’s table and she was well aware of it when she was campaigning on behalf of him and lying about how he’s not someone who is interested in regime change or unnecessary military conflict.

[-]

JumboMcCloony@reddit

I see what you mean but what do you mean “wasn’t kicked out” ? She was actively blacklisted by the democratic establishment and Hillary Clinton for her support of Bernie, it made the 2020 primaries impossible for her and left her only political avenue being the GOP.

At the end of the day I think her best option is to ride out this term with as little scandal as possible and then go scorched earth on maga in 2028.

[-]

mpdmax82@reddit

false dichotomy

[-]

tehillim@reddit

For ME, i believe she has to play the long game. Trump has already chastised one of her posts. I think (and my opinion of her has declined precipitously), since all she has left is Republican, that she is quiet (didn’t see her at the podium but we saw Rubio and Hegseth) so as to not draw active criticism from Trump. She remains viable to enter into the 2028 race as best she can. I honestly believe that she shot her shot in 2016 and there are no more viable opportunities. Which is too bad. I had great faith in her. I still want to have faith in her.

[-]

wood-is-good@reddit

I think we all need to understand that even folks with the strongest convictions can fold their personal beliefs on behalf of leadership. Given her title, duty, and platform.

I truly hope, behind closed doors, Tulsi would advocate for her noninterventist principles. However, once things fall into motion, and are settled against your consultation, an official in her power SHOULD NOT publicly dissent against the leadership.

You may not like the status quo. But don’t pretend you’d act different in her shoes. You wouldn’t.

She’s not the commander in chief. We don’t know where she personally stands on any matter. I, personally, am giving her the benefit of the doubt, but you may disagree

[-]

MalcolmSupleX@reddit

I wouldn't choose to work for a rapist and a felon, but that's just me.

[-]

wood-is-good@reddit

She’s choosing to serve her country…

[-]

MalcolmSupleX@reddit

There's many ways to serve her country than to work directly with a felon and a rapist.

[-]

therin_88@reddit

What happened tonight isn't war. It's a decapitation of a nuclear program of a state that has been sponsoring terrorism since 1979.

Any anf all peace loving Americans should be celebrating this tactical victory.

[-]

plsobeytrafficlights@reddit

according to trumps people, no release of radiation was detected after the destruction of a "nuclear weapons enrichment facility" ..almost as if there was nothing there and it was all a lie.

[-]

Prg3K@reddit

Anyone concerned with peace should take an objective look at our relations with that country over the past 80 years. They tried the modern secular state thing in ‘53. We overthrew it. The Islamic Republic is the fallout.

Even so, the moderates over there somehow convinced the Mullah’s to agree to Obama’s nuclear deal, and the Supreme Leader even acquiesced but warned that the moderates would end up w egg on their faces bc US ‘fundamentally could not be trusted.’

By the IAEA’s own account, Iran was abiding by the nuclear deal when, lo and behold, a buffoon comes along and tears it up. That could’ve been a watershed moment for relations between us. But one can only speculate. From an Iranian citizens perspective, though, the extremists were right.

You’re Iran. You see Iraq get invaded. You see Libya denuclearize. Then Libya gets invaded. No one is seriously talks about invading North Korea. The more saber-rattling, the more it seems like nuclear capability is the only guarantee against full-scale US invasion.

[-]

zzt0pp@reddit

Dropping bombs once does not immediately neuter their nuclear program. Has to be more than that.

[-]

omegaphallic@reddit

There is no nuclear weapons program in Iran.

[-]

alivenotdead1@reddit

Destroying nuclear sites used to make weapons-grade uranium seems pretty anti-war to me.

[-]

MeteorPunch@reddit

Since when is she pro war?

[-]

jstohler@reddit

She supports the guy who just went to war.

[-]

MeteorPunch@reddit

You or I could support a pro war person while not being pro war ourselves. That's her stance.

[-]

jstohler@reddit

You're quite the logical gymnast.

[-]

blakefoster@reddit (OP)

Keep drinking that kool aid bud

[-]

MalcolmSupleX@reddit

When she got into bed with a felon.

[-]

Smiles4YouRawrX3@reddit

OP is a bot whose account awakened after two years to magically start posting again and just so happens to post astroturfing nonsense here in this sub as well

And of course the leftist lurkers in this sub don't gaf and will upvote literally anything as long as it agrees with them

This sub has been cooked by bots and tourists lol I'm out, W Tulsi

[-]

blakefoster@reddit (OP)

Lol this sub isn’t big enough to be infiltrated by bots. Go to r/conservative if you want to see what a sub infiltrated by bots really looks like.

[-]

Playful-Country-9849@reddit

It's 144D chess and you took her out of context. Saying a country would build deadly WMDs quickly doesn't make countries intervene at all! We aren't having war with Iran, we're just assisting Israel in war are killing Iran's negotiators and breaking our promises with them.

At least we made the military industrial complex less woke since she fired transgenders from the NSA, PHEW!

[-]

Material-Style4019@reddit

Y'all really want to just skip first female president and go to first TG president, yeah?

[-]

Prg3K@reddit

“Look out kids, we’re being bombed!” “Wait, I hear they’re being sent by a WOMAN President.” “Wow! What a landmark moment for us all.” /splat

[-]

Material-Style4019@reddit

Om just elect another man because obviously Biden theb Trump have done so much for America.

[-]

DopeAsDaPope@reddit

Bro this is not the time or place for this lmao

[-]

paultheschmoop@reddit

What if I told you that I don’t give a fuck what gender the president is?

[-]

Playful-Country-9849@reddit

Any president is better than a convicted felon who breaks all of his promises. You're excusing GWB/Reagan 2.0

[-]

blakefoster@reddit (OP)

It’s wild how far we’ve come since 2019. I still have a “Tulsi 2020 Love > War” sticker on my old guitar case. Now she supports both insurrectionists and interventionists.

[-]

Last_Crazy_5357@reddit

This type of discourse is so pointless. It relies on rhetoric that is fundamentally judgmental and lacking in nuance or specificity.

It is critical to recognize the existence of complexity and subjectivity and avoid blanket statements rooted in antagonist judgmentalism. More importantly we can have richer, more meaningful and bonding discussions when we allow for this instead of lashing out into cyberspace through toxic rhetoric.

If WWIII is indeed upon us, who benefits from a rage post like this?

I invite you to restate your premises more constructively, inclusively and purposefully for the benefit of everyone and for the sake of meaningful discourse.

[-]

Hookworm_Jim@reddit

Israel has footage of Trump on Epstein Island.

[-]

IVcrushonYou@reddit

Or she will be remembered in history for preventing a nuclear bomb being dropped on Jews. I think she made the best decision here.

[-]

omegaphallic@reddit

There not only doesn't Iran have a nuke, it's doesn't have a nuclear weapons program to develop and make one. What part of this confuses you.

[-]

IVcrushonYou@reddit

Of course, Khamenei, of course.

[-]

omegaphallic@reddit

Dude's ready to die anytime, he's picked his successors.

[-]

omegaphallic@reddit

I'm hoping that this is just the stupid game she has to play in public to stay in Trump's inner circle, so that she can descasalate behind the scenes, I mean we have heard that it was Tulsi & JD Vance that stopped the US from going to war with Iran months earlier.

[-]

MemePizzaPie@reddit

No one who matters supports tulsi