Her views don't strictly toe any particular ideology, but overall she's closest to a Bernie Socialist. I think Zippz is dreaming (or something else) when he asserts that she will come over to the side of 2A rights. She's definitely a civilian disarmament advocate, as would Sanders state publicly if he didn't have to lie about it in order to keep getting elected by the people of Vermont who wouldn't look too favorably on a gun grabber. I filled out the form for an invitation for Gabbard's Hilo "town hall" within two minutes of receiving the email and have my question ready about how she can claim to be fulfilling her oath of office to "support and defend" the Constitution with "true faith and allegiance" while do nothing to facilitate the bearing of arms outside the home and at the same time opposing measures to legalize our rights. Haven't heard a word back from her yet. Maybe my invitation is "in the mail"?

She's always been anti gun
I've seen references to her using the "I was in the military, and civilians should not be able to use weapons of war" line


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She's always been anti gun
I've seen references to her using the "I was in the military, and civilians should not be able to use weapons of war" line

She's always been anti gun
I've seen references to her using the "I was in the military, and civilians should not be able to use weapons of war" line


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I beg to disagree with you on this. I remember when she first ran the NRA rated her an A-. Maybe I'm wrong?

From what I can find, when she ran for the House for the first time in 2012 the NRA rated her at 7%. (This organization has interpolated the rating to a numerical one as the NRA only gives letter grades.)

http://votesmart.org/interest-group/1034/rating/8741?p=4&of=#.WO6Eyme1uUk

New York Times 2012 NRA ratings:

Tulsi Gabbard F

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/19/us/politics/nra.html

Well, maybe I am going crazy as I specifically remember seeing an NRA A- rating the first time she ran. Am I the only one here? If so I will take it I am going off my rocker.... 

right, a junior representative from a tiny state is going to go on some sort of super secret mission to syria...

Her views don't strictly toe any particular ideology, but overall she's closest to a Bernie Socialist. I think Zippz is dreaming (or something else) when he asserts that she will come over to the side of 2A rights. She's definitely a civilian disarmament advocate, as would Sanders state publicly if he didn't have to lie about it in order to keep getting elected by the people of Vermont who wouldn't look too favorably on a gun grabber. I filled out the form for an invitation for Gabbard's Hilo "town hall" within two minutes of receiving the email and have my question ready about how she can claim to be fulfilling her oath of office to "support and defend" the Constitution with "true faith and allegiance" while do nothing to facilitate the bearing of arms outside the home and at the same time opposing measures to legalize our rights. Haven't heard a word back from her yet. Maybe my invitation is "in the mail"?

Was thinking about going but decided it was not in my best interest since I can't stand the bitch and would probably get arrested....

Sometimes you don't have a choice and have to work with what you got and take any potential opportunities.  There's no doubt that Gabbard is anti-gun and many here are against her liberal policy, however I see the opportunity to sway her on this one thing if we get enough of you to help support.  Its a long shot certainly, but maybe this could just be the beginning of a change.  You can be angry, yell, raise your fists up, say we need to replace her in office, and maybe sometime in the future you'll get what you want.  But the current reality is it's just noise.

I went off topic, I'll put it in the member's forum.  I'd say 33% for her, under 5% for the others.

As far as Syria, I think there are 3 ways to go about this.
1.  Do nothing.
2.  Continue what we were doing that Tulsi seems to want, diplomacy with no direct military action and with some rebel support that isn't going anywhere.
3.  Diplomacy with some military action which Trump is doing.

Diplomacy doesn't work unless there's an incentive to cooperate.  Empty threats to Assad is worse than doing nothing.  We need to make threats that we'll followup on or else it's better to not do anything at all.

I think you forgot the fourth option offered by the neocons that is to military invade Syria; thereby, attacking Syria's Russian allies; hence, starting WWIII.

Kuleana

I've not seen anyone suggesting we "invade" Syria.  Where did you see that?

Lindsey Graham called for 5,000 to 7,000 U.S. ground troops for action in Syria. Sunday, April 9, 2017 on Meet the Press.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/sen-lindsey-graham-i-want-more-american-troops-5000-or-6000-ground-syria [includes video excerpt]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says ISIS is a “direct threat to the homeland” and he says the United States should send many more troops to eradicate that threat.

“So you need more American troops to accelerate the demise of ISIL,” Graham told NBC’s “Meet the Press” with Chuck Todd.

“We're relying too much on the Kurds. More armed forces, 5,000 or 6,000, would attract more regional fighters to destroy ISIL.