@Jen

it gets people to watch their show. The View appears to be all about controversy and loud arguments. I don’t watch it myself, but I have this impression because I’m always seeing headlines in the “entertainment” section of the news about that show and it’s always who blew up at who, or who walked off the stage in a huff, or who said something outrageous that caused a ruckus. People apparently love a cat fight. So inviting a person with controversial views is not surprising to me. In this case they had parroted Hillary and called Tulsi a “useful idiot” so it was personal and likely to be a slam fest. Good for ratings.

Here’s the thing: I don’t believe that every moment on television is all about political messaging. TV shows exist to make money. That means getting high ratings and a large audience tuning in. I think that’s what they care about, and making Tulsi Gabbard (or anyone else) look good or bad is secondary at most, if it’s even a consideration at all.

I did watch the clip, out of curiosity, and personally I didn’t find it came across as very beneficial to Gabbard. I thought it’s a shame that her campaign has gotten bogged down in defensiveness about Hillary’s wild accusations. On The View she didn’t get to talk about her platform, it was all defending her honor against Hillary’s stupid attack and those View women who parroted it. I thought she’d handled that well enough already and should move back to her core message. That’s just my personal impression of course.

#2.2.1 #2.2.1 I'm not criticizing her for going on Fox. I think she should go on whatever show will have her on. But that's the thing, not many shows will have her on - just like they try to ignore Bernie, they also try to ignore her. I could be wrong, but I believe that Tucker has more say over who is on his show than the women on the view do. I can actually see why Tucker would have her on. But why did the people on the view want her on? What was their agenda? To make her look bad? If they couldn't make her look bad (in my opinion) the first 2 times she was on, did they think the third time would be a charm? Seems to me that she makes them look bad.

It just confuses me. I guess that's what happens when you know the MSM lies all the time. Always trying to figure out their reasons for doing what they do.

Edit: Fixed the subject line

@wokkamile

And increasing that funding to boot all amounts to warmongering in my book.

In my view, that's what's extreme.

It will be interesting to watch how Tulsi deals with Warren at the next debate. At the last debate, she posed questions to Warren at the end of her allotted time which allowed the moderators to cut her off. When she went after Harris, she made the criticism that needed to be made and asked no questions. I hope she opts for the latter strategy vis-a-vis Warren this time around. It would be nice for her to go after Biden, too, like Bernie has done or even more extensively for his Iraq vote and his backing of Obama's droning policies.

#4.2.1 rhetoric calling Liz a "warmonger" a bit extreme. I prefer to save it for people like Hillary, John McCain, Lindsay Graham and others who were in favor of going to war in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and other places probably; LBJ, Nixon and their senate enablers in the warmongering in SE Asia.

When Liz starts talking about going to war somewhere, then I will reconsider. Until then, while her military budget votes are very fair game to ask her about in the debates for instance, and I'd like to know her rationale, they just don't amount to warmongering. A Pentagon enabler yes, but not quite a warmonger.

Re Tulsi, my sense is that she wants to withdraw from foreign hot spot military adventures -- Iraq and Syria -- while tending to strictly limit use of military forces for things like combatting actual active terrorism where it can be fought realistically. Note, I believe she is definitely not interested in using a war on terrorism policy as a cover, as GWB did, for US colonialism.

While I would prefer she go still further and call for US troops to be removed from all foreign outposts, such an ideal position would be getting way too far out ahead of the public. Perhaps it's something for the 2028 cycle, if this country is still around then to have another presidential.

@Pluto's Republic

Ending America's Endless Wars

A snippet:

. . . just to end our military interventions in these places is not enough. We need to rethink the militaristic approach that has undermined the United States’ moral authority, caused allies to question our ability to lead, drained our tax coffers, and corroded our own democracy. We must never again engage in torture or indefinite detention, and we must limit the use of drone strikes that too often result in high numbers of civilian casualties, boosting the very terrorist organizations that we aim to defeat. And we must seriously reinvest in diplomacy and development aid, both of which have been allowed to atrophy under the current administration. Addressing issues like civil and religious tension, corruption, and lack of opportunity before these conditions give rise to conflict can eliminate the need to address them militarily in the future.

#4.2.1

The Council on Foreign Relations has reviewed them both.

They featured Tulsi Gabbard's Foreign Policy positions in their Blog:

Election 2020: Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic Presidential Candidate

Elizabeth Warren wrote a Foreign Policy paper describing her views for the Council on Foreign Relations' magazine, Foreign Affairs:

A Foreign Policy for All — Strengthening Democracy at Home and Abroad.