I agree with that obviously, but I was under the impression that we were talking about specific sets of chemical attacks that have been blamed on the Assad government that Gabbard claimed the international consensus was wrong about?

Yes, please tell that to the OPCW and the whistle blowers too. You're literally saying that I said things I did not. Truth is, there have been false flags in Syria by the white helmets claiming Assad was gassing and evidence suggest otherwise but hey, when someone comes out and says something contrary to what you want its a conspiracy theory right? I pointed out that the last one was a false flag which whistle blowers inside the OPCW back up, and that's not the only one where the evidence and even people on the ground say otherwise. I remember watching a video from out of Syria where they claimed there was a gas attack, no one knew what was going on and they rushed them to the hospital and hosed them down in front of cameras so it can look that way, but if there really was a gas attack why would they immediately go back to where they were huh?

I will say it again, Asaad has won the war and is pushing the "rebels" out, he has 0 reasons to drop chemicals that would bring in the US but the "rebels" claim he did and that caused the US to fire missiles at Syria. And let me repeat myself, I never said all gas attacks. I know for a fact that since the trump presidency, I've been paying attention and everytime I've heard gas attack come out of Syria since then its been false flags, or the evidence suggested that it wasn't Asaad but the "rebels". Also we seem to forget something, Asaad gave up his chemical weapons.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-chemicalweapons/syria-hands-over-remaining-chemical-weapons-for-destruction-idUSKBN0EY18T20140623

Edit: and Since you're on whataboutism, I gave you your point on the Immigration as that being valid and yet here you are again with this "why don't you refute this". Since you're on this why aren't you refuting Warren? I pointed out numerous examples in my last post of her being as guilty of doing the same stuff you keep pushing on Tulsi but you never refute it. In fact you always change topic non stop. I point out policy and you whip up a polling chart. That totally invalidates everything I said right? Come on now. We've discussed in this thread before so I know you can do better than this. Combat the points given, don't change topics, don't randomly bring up polling because you can't defend Warren on an issue, own up to it.

Sorry to keep bringing up the fate of the SDF. Erdogan is visiting the White House tomorrow and it's on my mind, especially considering that, unlike Europe, we have done nothing in response to Turkey's invasion of Northern Syria. We haven't even imposed any sanctions.

Oh, that I don't know. I was under the impression Gabbard spoke about the general situation, which she witnessed firsthand.

Regarding the chemical attacks, I think only a small part was actually reliably investigated by international teams and even these did not in all cases decided on guilt.

Quite frankly I am obviously no expert and the situation in Syria is quite messy with hundreds of groups fighting and propaganda from all sides in various directions with international involvement from half the world. To claim in this situation having a full grasp of the truth is quite hard to believe. I think the focus should be to put all sides to rest and broker a peace, even if in the outcome some people keep positions of power or go unpunished that were doing abhorrent things.

I think sanctions against Turkey would be adequate. Other than that, the Kurds/SDF and the Assad regime currently brokered an alliance to stop the turkish invasion, which is why the Kurds have allowed Syrian army to enter kurdish controlled areas to secure the borders to Turkey and Turkish controlled areas (in the map visible by the red string for Assads troops in the overtly yellow kurdish controlled areas).

Honestly, the last 2 "gas attacks" I heard about out of Syria had conflicting reports out of the OPCW and we keep hearing about false flag pushes and we have whistle blowers who say the same thing, but because it doesn't fit the narrative we ignore them. We also have evidence that suggest that the one before that was carried out by the "rebels" and not Assad (note I said 1 so don't use all Jaicee, I never said that). But apparently that's Assad propaganda and everything out lying *** country has said is true, just like WMD right? I've followed people who are on the ground like abby martin and the logic that he's gassing his own people when he knows that will bring in the US when he's winning the war which would hurt him makes absolutely 0 sense. He's such a monster that terrorising his citizens at the cost of pissing off the US and possibly getting bombed to oblivion makes sense right? I'm just pointing those simple things out but please, continue with the conspiracy theorist and bringing up real conspiracy theories to keep trying to downplay what's being said. This isn't Alex Jones, these are people on the inside of the OPCW saying this and investigative journalist on the ground saying it. You know, the people who actually went in and spoke to the people on the ground and investigated?

You probably could've linked the article that used this image, as you clearly (as the URL indicates) have it from 538: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-we-know-about-tulsi-gabbards-base/

I have an addendum to the conclusion Geoffrey Skelley has: "On the other hand, garnering approval from conservative media isn’t likely to improve her poor favorability among Democrats or attract the support she needs to win the primary, no matter how loyal her base is."

I don't think winning the primary is her major concern (and I expect her to fold shortly before Iowa to endorse Bernie Sanders). But the debates give many candidates a national voice, which they can use to push their topic. And Gabbard has such a topic, so I think that is her major concern, to educate more people about the ongoing endless wars.

Oh, and yes, I don't think it is bad Gabbard speaks to conservative media. Bernie Sanders was criticized beforehand as he agreed to a town hall on Fox News, but the actual town hall was inspiring and showed even among the viewers of Fox News are many people wishing for a better solution, which Sanders might present. Antagonizing Trumps base will not bring them to vote differently, on the contrary, if you affront Trumps voter base it is more likely they will vote for him again next year. If you on the other hand present a better solution, that might drain support for Trump.

Also an interesting note: Clinton and some others float the idea Gabbard will run as a third-party-candidate and as a spoiler to the democratic candidate. But if her support among previous Trump-voters is so big, she might be more a spoiler to Trump would she run as Independent (which she denied).

As a side note, Kim Iversen has detailed her support for Tulsi Gabbard:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4yxzkiLefg

Here's your video :)

#Iowa @MonmouthPoll (11/7-11):
Buttigieg 22%
Biden 19%
Warren 18%
Sanders 13%
Klobuchar 5%
Harris 3%
Steyer 3%
Yang 3%
Booker 2%
Gabbard 2%https://t.co/NzKHMzTuYp

— Political Polls (@Politics_Polls) November 12, 2019