Tulsi Gabbard

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Meaning what?

My last word on this. Collusion.
Now, I've a lot of cooking to do, some people are even hungrier than you.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

My last word on this. Collusion.

So nothing. Just say it often and repeatedly and maybe if you wish hard enough then it will be true that there is some ... sinister plot by the ... media? To collude with Congress, to broadcast live testimony, from hearings, that interest the American public.

I expect if we ever get to the bottom of it, it will shake the Nation to its very core!

:rolleyes:

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

So nothing. Just say it often and repeatedly and maybe if you wish hard enough then it will be true that there is some ... sinister plot by the ... media? To collude with Congress, to broadcast live testimony, from hearings, that interest the American public.

I expect if we ever get to the bottom of it, it will shake the Nation to its very core!

:rolleyes:

Curiously we are having burgers with nothing on them.
You should get a job as a projectionist.

Spencerfreeman

Here's a good piece on Tulsi. Explains how Clinton's attack is damaging for the Democratic party and voters.

Also explains where ISIS are in Syria now.

James Brown

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Here's a good piece on Tulsi. Explains how Clinton's attack is damaging for the Democratic party and voters.

Also explains where ISIS are in Syria now.

Views like the old trick of the Right holding the Left to a higher standard and then criticising them for not holding to that standard. Turns my gut comparing Clinton to anything 'Left' but we're talking the U.S. here.

They're basically decrying a supposed warmonger for knocking a woman who wears her armed service like it means we should automatically respect her for it.

FYI: I wouldn't be watching these things. It's basically a lad or two with a youtube account giving an opinion. That's fine, but not news.

ohnonotgmail

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Views like the old trick of the Right holding the Left to a higher standard and then criticising them for not holding to that standard. Turns my gut comparing Clinton to anything 'Left' but we're talking the U.S. here.

They're basically decrying a supposed warmonger for knocking a woman who wears her armed service like it means we should automatically respect her for it.

FYI: I wouldn't be watching these things. It's basically a lad or two with a youtube account giving an opinion. That's fine, but not news.

and normally at great length

Spencerfreeman

Award winning journalist actually.
I'm sorry it was too long for you to process.

Spencerfreeman

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and normally at great length

This might suit you then.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058024682

Rjd2

mcmoustache wrote: »

It hasn't been addressed though. A Dem primary is the process where voters ultimately select the Dem presidential nominee.

Dem's don't tend to vote for David Duke's favourite.

Ilhan Omar was elected to the congress a few months and will probably hold that spot as long as she wants. Duke gave her a big endorsement a few months ago, do you think that will affect her chances of electability next time round? Newsflash it won't.

Its very odd that Clinton has not followed this up with US military, it should be a scandal that a congress women running for president is allowed to enlist with the US army numerous times already.


Probably any day now.

ohnonotgmail

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

This might suit you then.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058024682

you clearly missed the point i made.

Spencerfreeman

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you clearly missed the point i made.

No, I clearly didn't. You complained that it was too long.

ohnonotgmail

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

No, I clearly didn't. You complained that it was too long.

nope, you definitely missed it if you think that was the point.

Spencerfreeman

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nope, you definitely missed it if you think that was the point.

As the gob****e Bercow is given to say "Explain yourself man!"

ohnonotgmail

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

As the gob****e Bercow is given to say "Explain yourself man!"

go annoy somebody else

Spencerfreeman

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

go annoy somebody else

Stamps off in fit of pique

mcmoustache

Rjd2 wrote: »

Ilhan Omar was elected to the congress a few months and will probably hold that spot as long as she wants. Duke gave her a big endorsement a few months ago, do you think that will affect her chances of electability next time round? Newsflash it won't.

Its very odd that Clinton has not followed this up with US military, it should be a scandal that a congress women running for president is allowed to enlist with the US army numerous times already.


Probably any day now.

On Duke and Omar, it's an interesting one. I'll need to look more into his motivations for that.



Still, my point stands. Gabbard's fans are mostly from the Trumpy end of the media and internet. You can even see it in this thread. If there was anything to her as a Dem candidate, she would be polling a lot better than she is now.

Rjd2

mcmoustache wrote: »

On Duke and Omar, it's an interesting one. I'll need to look more into his motivations for that.



Still, my point stands. Gabbard's fans are mostly from the Trumpy end of the media and internet. You can even see it in this thread. If there was anything to her as a Dem candidate, she would be polling a lot better than she is now.

You should not hold the Duke endorsement against Omar whatsoever.

Duke hates Israel as is full of jews , and Omar has issues with the Israel government because its a murderous regime who sadly both sides of the aisle turn a blind eye to because money.

She like Tulsi has no interest in fascists whatsoever.

I think its hard to really nail her support down to one group. Libertarians such as Amash and the useless Paul like her because she calls out both sides who have brought that wonderful American exceptionalism to so many nations.

Tucker for similar reasons, although she needs to cut back somewhat on going on that show,,,red rag bull etc.

She seems to draw support from those who like Yang, Williamson and Bernie. Yang is a capitalist but like the other 2 would consider himself lefty.

She is pretty lefty if you look at her economic beliefs which I suppose is where the libertarians try to ignore.

In saying that I don't know why is running. She doesn't have the profile and has way to many high profile enemies to have any sort of hope. I dunno maybe she thought Bernie may pick her as a VP.

notobtuse

I see the Clinton gang is now claiming she was referring to Republicans and not Russians, in regards to Tulsi. And the mainstream media accepts this nonsense as gospel... even offering up corrections to prior reporting. The media has lost all credibility.

Spencerfreeman

notobtuse wrote: »

I see the Clinton gang is now claiming she was referring to Republicans and not Russians, in regards to Tulsi. And the mainstream media accepts this nonsense as gospel... even offering up corrections to prior reporting. The media has lost all credibility.

She may get away with that, she didn't actually name Tulsi.

Overheal

I'm still pinning my hopes on Al Gore getting super cereal about election again.

Ardillaun

This third party candidate stuff is another flaw in the US system. A run-off between the two top candidates, as in France, would be a better way to go. Gabbard is a poor speaker and she doesn’t have much to offer beyond her critique of foreign wars. And being (relatively) hot.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

I'm still pinning my hopes on Al Gore getting super cereal about election again.

It may be John Kerry.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

I see the Clinton gang is now claiming she was referring to Republicans and not Russians, in regards to Tulsi. And the mainstream media accepts this nonsense as gospel... even offering up corrections to prior reporting. The media has lost all credibility.

Mainstream media doesn't care, especially outside of the U.S. Nobody heard of Gabbard and Clinton is a has been only important to Trump and his cronies.

The WH and Republican party have no credibility.

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Mainstream media doesn't care, especially outside of the U.S. Nobody heard of Gabbard and Clinton is a has been only important to Trump and his cronies.

The WH and Republican party have no credibility.

The media fears the Clintons and their cabal. They know they will experience dire consequences if they cross the Clintons. Tulsi said when she backed Bernie Sanders in 2016 that she was warned Hillary and here people would exact revenge upon her... and she now has!

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

The media fears the Clintons and their cabal. They know they will experience dire consequences if they cross the Clintons. Tulsi said when she backed Bernie Sanders in 2016 that she was warned Hillary and here people would exact revenge upon her... and she now has!

Like what?

Clinton herself bad mouthed Gabbard. Hardly a behind the scenes conspiracy theory come true.
I'm surprised the Clintons let Bernie run at all...or Gabbard, considering they are so nefarious like

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

The media fears the Clintons and their cabal. They know they will experience dire consequences if they cross the Clintons. Tulsi said when she backed Bernie Sanders in 2016 that she was warned Hillary and here people would exact revenge upon her... and she now has!

Right she’s going to end up bloodied on the floor of a hospital after the most botched professional hit ever. :rolleyes:

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Like what?

Clinton herself bad mouthed Gabbard. Hardly a behind the scenes conspiracy theory come true.
I'm surprised the Clintons let Bernie run at all...or Gabbard, considering they are so nefarious like

Yes, Clinton exacted revenge by putting the tag on Gabbard as a Russian asset. There is a joke told here by some: The Clintons must be Irish... they forget everything except for the grudges.

The Clintons let Bernie run because they were pulling the purse strings on the DNC and made sure she had control of their spending. Bernie was nothing more than a token challenger to her.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41850797

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Yes, Clinton exacted revenge by putting the tag on Gabbard as a Russian asset. There is a joke told here by some: The Clintons must be Irish... they forget everything except for the grudges.

The Clintons let Bernie run because they were pulling the purse strings on the DNC and made sure she had control of their spending. Bernie was nothing more than a token challenger to her.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41850797

I meant now and Gabbard didn't run in 2016.
Also what 'dire consequences' will happen to any media bad mouths Hillary? What did the Clintons do the 'the media' when Bill's shenanigans was daily news?
So bad mouthing her is the revenge? Pretty tame IMO.

Love a good racial stereotype me

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I meant now and Gabbard didn't run in 2016.
Also what 'dire consequences' will happen to any media bad mouths Hillary? What did the Clintons do the 'the media' when Bill's shenanigans was daily news?
So bad mouthing her is the revenge? Pretty tame IMO.

Love a good racial stereotype me

No, Gabbard didn't run in 2016. She backed Sanders in 2016. I thought I was pretty clear on that. Is any democrat or mainstream media calling Hillary out, or are they defending her? Hint: defend is in the correct answer.

The media fears Hillary because when they cross her she will label them as sexists, and the rest of her media darlings will shun the heathens. There is nothing worse in the media biz than being labeled a racist, sexist, or homophobic... Job killers they are.

You weren't around when Bill Clinton was impeached, were you? The media and democrats played it up as a lynching by Republicans because Bill got a BJ from an unhinged intern. And Hillary savaged her. The media played down the fact that Bill got impeached because he lied to a Grand Jury... which falls into high crimes and misdemeanors.

Hande hoche!

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

It may be John Kerry.

It's Howard Dean's time.