Obama actually *did* meet with Iran and brokered the historic JCPOA in what was a brave and progressive new methodology of opening up diplomatic channels - even with adversaries and enemies. *Especially* with adversaries and enemies.

So it's actually very similar to what Tulsi has done with Assad in Syria. She met with him in an effort to avoid Iraq 3.0 (Libya was 2.0 and Obama cited that as his biggest regret/mistake while President).

So there is no false equivalency here. Perhaps you just don't want to see this for what it is and are reaching for straws as to why meeting with Assad is this unforgivable sin (still waiting for you to articulate that).

>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.

This is pretty much a pointless exercise because nothing said about her is going to cause you to reflect any differently. But I'll reiterate the cliff notes version: It actually doesn't have much to do with her service. You throwing Pete in there shows that you probably haven't investigated foreign policy much (like most voters so I'm not saying that as a slight). Pete really has no cogent foreign policy and very few of the other candidates actually have gone into detail about how our foreign policy has squandered trillions from our treasury and wasted millions of lives - and how the regions we intervene in are demonstrably worse off after our involvement.

This is an issue that plagues both parties as there has been bi-partisan consensus approving these wars and bloated defense budgets. Tulsi's service is helpful - but what separates her from the pack is the nuanced understanding of how we are actually aiding terrorist groups like ISIS and Al-qaeda in Syria (right now) which is counter-productive to our purported mission there. Our foreign policy has been veiled and serves as a proxy support to both Saudi Arabia and Israel's influence in the region - not ours - and certainly not in the interest in peace. Tulsi is the only one with the nuance and guts to call it out for what it is. She actually called out Trump by saying "Stop being Saudi Arabia's bitch." I'd argue that most of the other candidates don't even know (or simply don't care) about how our foreign policy towards Iran is shaped by our biased and unsavory alliance with Saudi Arabia & Israel.

But sure - there are legitimate reasons why people don't favor one candidate over another - and clearly Tulsi has not garnered the kind of support that she had hoped for (though she has fared much better than most thought she would).

Clearly - you find her and Bernie to be unpalatable (which is fine) - and it's not about calling out people for their criticism. What I'm calling out is the slanted reporting and the recycling of smear pieces that have been proven to be propaganda (like the "New Knowledge" NBC smear piece that many are still citing this very day).

If you say: "I just can't deal with Tulsi's view as a high-schooler on gays when she was following her father's lunacy" -- cool, I get that.

But saying "Hard pass. She met with Assad."

Nah bruh, you're gonna have to actually articulate that with some sense if you don't want to be called out.






-->