Go back to previous topic
Forum nameGeneral Discussion
Topic subjectMy point was the false equivalency comparing what Obama
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13342507&mesg_id=13343567
13343567, My point was the false equivalency comparing what Obama
Posted by Stadiq, Fri Aug-16-19 02:05 PM

said he would do *as president* and what Tulsi actually did as a rep.

The same way you compare Steven Bannon liking AOC's fight but hating her policies with Steven Bannon liking Tulsi's actual policies.

It comes off like you can't actually talk about what Tulsi has done/said/etc...so you have to distract or make it look like its no different than the other examples, when we all know it is.

Instead, you like to set up a false comparison or just say "fake news"!

Again, these were the same tactics used by Hillary supporters. In my experience.

>Obama was campaigning in 2008 at the time when he was being
>ostracized for saying he'd meet with Iran and other
>adversaries.
>
>At that time, the right were the critics. Now, it's the left
>who are doing it to Tulsi - which is appropriate given the
>bi-partisan support in Congress for never-ending war.
>
>Definitely not going to engage in a circular argument here. I
>don't agree with every single vote or position Tulsi has held
>(same goes for all other candidates).
>
>The fact remains: She's the strongest candidate of any when it
>comes to understanding the disastrous foreign policy that has
>plagued both parties for the better part of the past
>half-century. The reason I defend her here is because the
>attacks on her character are really weak and poorly
>sourced/backed up with credible evidence. People are *still*
>citing a "New Knowledge" smear on her when it comes to Syria
>and Assad that has readily been debunked by Pulitzer
>journalists. That type of lazy analysis is never acceptable.
>

But even when do people have credible criticism of her, you fight it similarly. Or just completely ignore it.

And even if the arguments are "really weak and poorly sourced" in your eyes, why the need to make false equivalencies, etc.

I am curious why you hold her in such high regard as being the strongest candidate who understands foreign policy. Is it her service? Didn't Pete serve? I'm honestly not being snarky here, you have said it a few times- I'm curious why her service counts more than others. Maybe I am missing something.

I'm not even saying I necessarily disagree with you/her on this specific issue in general. I am just curious why her take is the strongest to you- other than you agree with it.

Like if someone had a similar service record/experience said "yeah, the US needs to intervene sometimes"...does that argument hold as much weight to you?


Because, that also seems like a poor argument. Or at least not completely genuine. Trying to build her up as "the only one who understands" isn't really true.

Really, its just that you strongly agree with her take. Which is great- we all do that on every issue. That doesn't necessarily mean the candidates we agree with have hands down the strongest understanding.

In other words, "I strongly agree with her take" turns into "she has the strongest understanding" as a way to build her up.

I guess my point is, like I've said to you and I said to Hill stans- we get it. You like her. But a lot of people don't. And no, that isn't *all* from misinformation. Not everyone who dislikes her is mis-informed. There are legitimate reasons people don't like her. Its not all some conspiracy or smears. And you seem to give her a lot more slack than you do other candidates.

But, I know I'm repeating myself with you- my bad. I'd just ask to chill on assuming/accusing everyone of being uninformed.