Tulsi Gabbard

mcmoustache

Rjd2 wrote: »

Good for her. She has been slandered brutally for the last few years by the democrat establishment. Called a Russian asset which is essentially accusing someone of treason who actually fronted up and went and fought in a war while horrors like Clinton backed those disgusting wars.

Also the idea that has been floated by **** stirrers like Neera Tanden that she would run as a third candidate to ensure Trump would win is disgusting.

She still won't crack 3% and her support of Hindu nationalism is troubling nonetheless but enough is enough I think.

Hillary should really sit this one out. I don't think her comments were helpful. There's a hint of bitterness there.


There's also no evidence out there that she's actually working for Russia. Sure, her positions often align with those of the Russians but that doesn't mean that she's a willing asset.


The fact that the Russians are boosting her is more to do with the fact that her positions are the closest aligned with Russia's. It's no different than how the US were trying to boost the profile of that nobody from Venezuela who's name most of us have forgotten as an alternative to Maduro.


All that being said, it will be interesting if she does run third party. I think it's unlikely because, as I said before, she's not really popular with the Dem voting demographic - she's more likely to take votes from the right if she does that.

Spencerfreeman

Way to go Tulsi! I believe she's already above 3%, and climbing fast. Can't wait to identify the other paid off traitor Dems by their responses.

youknowitstrue

She is anti war
The American deep state are war mongers
No Doubt the deep state would like a war with Russia or China.
No wonder Russian/Chinese media like her
Would you not be supporting a US presidential candidate that did not want war with Ireland while the rest where chafing at the bit for it?
Only natural Russia/China would want her to succeed, they don't want war.

Rjd2

mcmoustache wrote: »

Hillary should really sit this one out. I don't think her comments were helpful. There's a hint of bitterness there.


There's also no evidence out there that she's actually working for Russia. Sure, her positions often align with those of the Russians but that doesn't mean that she's a willing asset.


The fact that the Russians are boosting her is more to do with the fact that her positions are the closest aligned with Russia's. It's no different than how the US were trying to boost the profile of that nobody from Venezuela who's name most of us have forgotten as an alternative to Maduro.


All that being said, it will be interesting if she does run third party. I think it's unlikely because, as I said before, she's not really popular with the Dem voting demographic - she's more likely to take votes from the right if she does that.

She's isn't left wing enough for the greens and the libertarians will choose Amash or some boring less awful Republican so their is no party for her.

Then of course the hassle of a run she'd be hammered and tbh she would deserve it somewhat.


Russians clearly like her, but its irrelevant really as she will be out in a few months.

Its obviously not as vile as Trump telling AOC and her friends to go "home" but its not cool that a 73 year old white women is accusing a women half her age and of color who fought in the military of been a traitor to America.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Overheal wrote: »

Clinton seems to think Russia will back Tulsi Gabbard. I could see it, Tulsi isn’t a big team player

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/18/hillary-clinton-suggests-putin-has-kompromat-trump-russians-will-back-tulsi-gabbard-third-party-bid/

Isn’t there a conspiracy theory forum somewhere for that kind of thing? Although they don’t really like conspiracies there.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

What a remarkably controlled and conspiratorial society the US is. Imagine this kind of paranoia in any other democracy by an ex presidential hopeful?

She also said this.

Clinton also said she thought Jill Stein, the Green Party’s 2016 presidential nominee, was a Russian asset: “Yeah, she’s a Russian asset – I mean, totally. They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate. So I don’t know who it’s going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most needed.

Spencerfreeman

It now seems to me that the DNC might behind this idea of third party candidate.
I know it sounds crazy but if Gabbard or Yang look like getting the nomination they will spoil with this idea.
I believe they will try every tactic to secure their war.

mad muffin

Sounds very familiar. Can’t put my finger in who they did this to before… it’s on the tip if my tongue.

Gynoid

''You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain.'' ~ Tulsi Gabbard on Hillary Clinton.


Good woman, Tulsi.

Spencerfreeman

Surely it's obvious to every thinking person that something is rotten in the state of Denmark?

Spencerfreeman

The only question now is who is taking the coin and who is being sexually blackmailed?
The rot is on both sides.

Spencerfreeman

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Surely it's obvious to every thinking person that something is rotten in the state of Denmark?

Conspiracy theories are presented as fact and the Dems are the worst offenders.

Spencerfreeman

Deleted User wrote: »

Conspiracy theories are presented as fact and the Dems are the worst offenders.

I would love to get into the conspiracy theory element but I would be shut down by some co-conspirators here.
The truth needs room to breath.
I don't agree that the Dem's are the worst offenders, the Reps have been at it since Regan.
He refused to allow access to a major witness in the JFK murder.

Spencerfreeman

youknowitstrue wrote: »

She is anti war
The American deep state are war mongers
No Doubt the deep state would like a war with Russia or China.
No wonder Russian/Chinese media like her
Would you not be supporting a US presidential candidate that did not want war with Ireland while the rest where chafing at the bit for it?
Only natural Russia/China would want her to succeed, they don't want war.

No, that is a misdirect, they want war with Iran.

Cheerful Spring2

Gynoid wrote: »

''You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain.'' ~ Tulsi Gabbard on Hillary Clinton.


Good woman, Tulsi.

Tulsi just revealed the truth in a crushing tweet. Hilary is everything she said. The military machine, of course, hates Tulsi because it affects their near one trillion military budget every year.

Spencerfreeman

.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

The only question now is who is taking the coin and who is being sexually blackmailed?
The rot is on both sides.

Did someone say sexual blackmail?

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/congress-finally-reaches-deal-to-eliminate-the-hush-fund-but-past-settlements-will-remain-a-mystery/

Both parties stood to burn from that

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Tulsi just revealed the truth in a crushing tweet. Hilary is everything she said. The military machine, of course, hates Tulsi because it affects their near one trillion military budget every year.

Eh. Like every other “anti war” candidate wait till someone like that gets in office, then it’s all bomb these people, kowtow to Saudi Arabia, boots on the ground, mission accomplished, etc.

Gynoid

Overheal wrote: »

Eh. Like every other “anti war” candidate wait till someone like that gets in office, then it’s all bomb these people, kowtow to Saudi Arabia, boots on the ground, mission accomplished, etc.

I honestly don't think that if elected, which is unfortunately unlikely as she is not part of the machine, Gabbard would follow Obama's example

SJW Lover

Absolutely fricking epic from Tulsi. Also being reported that Hillary has pulled out of an event that Tulsi is also appearing at. Ha ha ha

Hector Savage

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Anyone else lose interest at this point?

Not surprised you did anyway.

Gabbard is the only sensible democrat left , and they are attacking her, that mad old bat Hillary Clinton claiming she is a being used by russian bots ... yeah sure Hillary.

Just shows how far the left have fallen and what nonsense they have aligned themselves with.

Be a landslide victory for Trump next year, can't wait to see all the lunatics screaming at the sky in rage.

IRony is , Gabbard is someone that could actually beat Trump if the party and MSM got behind her.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Did someone say sexual blackmail?

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/congress-finally-reaches-deal-to-eliminate-the-hush-fund-but-past-settlements-will-remain-a-mystery/

Both parties stood to burn from that

Absolutely, we know know there are as many as 129 Reps that are questionable.
It's harder to figure the number in the Dems as the Trump effect clouds the picture somewhat.
There will be other votes that hopefully expose them.

Spencerfreeman

This is a good piece on the Tulsi Gabbard and Hilary Clinton tweet storm.
It is especially pertinent for all the posters calling people Russian bots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya_ZBqFgqZw

ZeroThreat

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

This is a good piece on the Tulsi Gabbard and Hilary Clinton tweet storm.
It is especially pertinent for all the posters calling people Russian bots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya_ZBqFgqZw

hmmm Gabbard may not be a russian stooge, but The Duran isn't what I'd call a credible or unbiased source either

Spencerfreeman

ZeroThreat wrote: »

hmmm Gabbard may not be a russian stooge, but The Duran isn't what I'd call a credible or unbiased source either

"May not be a russian stooge"
That's not what I'd call credible or unbiased either.

rossie1977

What is Gabbard doing?

Clinton didn't even mention anyone by name. Why defend yourself when you haven't been accused directly.

If her race wasn't done before it is now by outing herself to the world..

Hector Savage wrote: »

Not surprised you did anyway.

Gabbard is the only sensible democrat left , and they are attacking her, that mad old bat Hillary Clinton claiming she is a being used by russian bots ... yeah sure Hillary.

Define sensible.

Just shows how far the left have fallen and what nonsense they have aligned themselves with.

What left? Democrats as a party aren't left wing. Hillary Clinton isn't left wing. Joe Biden isn't left wing. Nancy Pelosi isn't left wing. The only one running for President that is left wing is Bernie Sanders and he isn't in the Democratic party.

Be a landslide victory for Trump next year, can't wait to see all the lunatics screaming at the sky in rage.

Based on Trump's negative approval numbers in many states there won't be any landslide unless something changes dramatically between now and next November. As it stands every state coloured blue Trump is underwater by 10 or more approval points. The grey states he is underwater between - 1 and - 9 approval points

IRony is , Gabbard is someone that could actually beat Trump if the party and MSM got behind her.

Based on what? What are her policies?

From what see her main policy is anti war but as said majority of Dems are anti war and for cutting defence budget.

I highly doubt any Republican will vote a Democrat against Trump and the fact she is on 1% tells you Democrat voters aren't interested in her.

Why would Dem party get behind anyone at this stage? She has never moved past 1%. I mean Sanders isn't even in party and is lying third and Yang and Buttigieg's are nobodies yet doing better than a state senator who is on the big Fox News shows pretty regularly.

Fact is Hillary Clinton is polling better and better odds of winning Dem nomination than Gabbard and Clinton isn't even in the race.

Spencerfreeman

Clinton would have 0% chance against Trump. The 1% figure you quoted for Gabbard comes from 1 DNC selected poll which they used to keep her off the podium in the debates. All other polls are more than double that.

rossie1977

Morning consult she is on 1%, The Hill she is on 1%, Fox News she is on 1% https://www.scribd.com/document/429686638/Fox-News-Poll-October-6-8-2019

Quinnipiac she is 0%

mcmoustache

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Clinton would have 0% chance against Trump. The 1% figure you quoted for Gabbard comes from 1 DNC selected poll which they used to keep her off the podium in the debates. All other polls are more than double that.

rossie1977 wrote: »

Morning consult she is on 1%, The Hill she is on 1%, Fox News she is on 1% https://www.scribd.com/document/429686638/Fox-News-Poll-October-6-8-2019

Quinnipiac she is 0%

Mmm. Do I believe the guy talking out of his ass or the guy who backs up his assertions with sources?

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Eh. Like every other “anti war” candidate wait till someone like that gets in office, then it’s all bomb these people, kowtow to Saudi Arabia, boots on the ground, mission accomplished, etc.

That's true, if you look at everyone who got the job. I just laughed the tweet public and her as a politician telling the truth. She is a warmonger. She wanted to go to war with Russia over Syria. She was dangerous and could start a real hot war in the region. Trump keeps his election promises and people go nuts:rolleyes:

America borrowed money every year for these endless wars and what have they achieved in the region? Since 2003 Iraq War half the region has been fighting nonstop. Just go home and let them sort it out themselves. Syria would be better of with Assad; anyway, there were only jihadists trying to take over. You saw them all pour over the border on top of Turkish tanks to go Kill Kurds and Christens.

Trump a terrible person for helping Saudi Arabia. Pence is a nightmare and thats why i think be careful what you wish for Trump left office early.