The French also excel at rudeness and Math.

Diplomacy with fucking Assad certainly never reduced war or death.

Gabbard said they discussed her meeting with Assad and stressed the importance of meeting “with adversaries or potential adversaries, not just our friends, if we are serious about the pursuit of peace.”

Asked if she viewed Assad as an “adversary” of the US, Gabbard demurred and said it was important to look at who posed a threat to the US and how the interests of other nations compare to those of the US.

Pressed on the point, she said, “You can describe it however you want to describe it.”

When asked later in the interview if she thought Assad was a good person, Gabbard said, “No, I don’t,” and asked if Russian President Vladimir Putin was an adversary to the US, she responded, “Yes.”

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/tulsi-gabbard-syria-assad/index.html

I bet 80+ years ago you would have been the type to advocate the USA allying with actual Adolf Hitler.

Gabbards stance against Assad is exactly equal to America’s in 1945.

I’ve got an idea to win the case quickly and cleanly: not have anything to do with Russia and having the court send Clinton the bill (pun not intended).

That is a shitty, and ironically slow and expensive, idea.

Diplomacy reduces the war and death.

Supporting Sanders over Clinton could be exactly why she started the “Russian Asset” lazy mudslinging.

The only reason to drop the case already filed would be because

Winning a case, quickly, cleanly and cheaply is impossible.

It certainty doesn’t prove guilt.

She has been non-interventionist and spoke positively of Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad for decades.

Diplomatic can often be confused with positivity

Gabbard supported Bernie Sanders for president even after Sanders asked people to vote for Hillary Clinton.

No, before

When Russia Invaded Ukraine she parroted Kremlin Newspapers on the false claims that the USA operated 36 Biolabs in Ukraine.

Well, The US did fund biolabs in the Ukraine.

She sued Hillary Clinton for calling her a Russian Asset for some good press but then dropped the suit shortly after announcing it to the news. Meaning she thought Hillary could have actually won such a case if it went to court.

Meaning value was gained in publicity and saved in legal fees.

Citation for “Actual Russian Agent”?

(Hillary Clinton said so doesn’t count. )

The FBI were supposed to check Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Talking about US funded biolabs, that are already public knowledge, is hardly evidence of being a Russian spy.

Saying solutions in Syria need to involve Assad is common sense, not heretical.

It’s brexit mentality. People voted for change from the status quo.

Most don’t imagine that change will could make their lives worse.

The courts are under that impression. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/31/elon-musk-court-hearing-voter-lottery

That is crazy. I can’t think of any part of Donald Trump that I would want on my pizza.

the sinister DNC mind-controlling millions of voters.

I would count media manipulation and advance debate questions as sinister mind control.

It’s up to the voters to research their alternatives and vote in the primary.

If the DNC give no alternatives to vote for then it’s not on the voters.

They would rather fail than listen sacrifice corporate donations

There was certainly a right wing shift. The DNC did their very best (e.g. Cheney) to capture republican voters rather than represent the workers.

This will boost the American job market and increase manufacturing ability.

Children as a source of income: kids are labor for household chores in urban cities. They are used for agriculture and factories.

Retirement: Multiple kids means multiple incomes from which your “pension” will be funded.

Remember, the DNC admitted in court that they are an unaccountable private corporation

Not just education. The country needs to be developed enough so that more children does not mean richer parents.

And the fault is the landlords in charge of the house. Not the people living in it.

The people wanted a fire extinguisher

One landlord was offering a wet blanket.

The other was offering petrol.

If the house wasn’t on fire we wouldn’t need to save the people. Your strategy will never save the people in the house. Neither landlord cares about the people, only the companies providing services.