Tulsi Gabbard

Overheal

Hande hoche! wrote: »

It's Howard Dean's time.

Simpler times

mcmoustache

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!

I remember her emails being a huge deal, occupying pages and pages of NYT coverage. Funnily enough, the same paper is far quieter about everyone in the current admin doing the same thing.


To suggest that the papers are afraid of Clinton is, shall we say, an opinion that could only be arrived at by being ignorant of reality, both the present and the past.

mcmoustache

Anyone know why she keeps going on FOX?

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1187586141706506240

Spencerfreeman

mcmoustache wrote: »

Anyone know why she keeps going on FOX?

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1187586141706506240

Because the agenda merchants behind the main channels won't allow her much coverage. They only want what the same type of people as those that run the DNC/GOP want.
Fox only have her on because as they see it, she's a disrupter and is damaging to the some of the candidates.
She's already destroyed Kamala Harris, not to mention exposing Clinton, both good things in my book.

Tulsi has shown she isn't afraid to talk to anyone, anywhere.

Expect a big push for Pete Buttigieg, a Rhodes scholarship fellow, just like Bill Clinton and Rachael Maddow, all three are associated with three letter agencies.

There may yet be a surprise candidate. They will also be an establishment insider.
I think it may be John Kerry. He was in Robert Swan Muellers class at college and is cut from the same cloth.
I don't think it will be Al Gore as the exposure to sunlight could put their carbon tax initiative at risk.

This video is a good example of why you should support Tulsi;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G2tPs3aZyU

And this one is why I like her message;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STZUO_z7QFU

Overheal

Polling in the low single digits and burning bridges within the DNC, Tulsi has announced she will not seek re-election to her seat in 2020.

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/breaking-tulsi-gabbard-announces-she-will-not-run-for-re-election-to-congress-in-2020/

RIP - say hello to your third party candidate.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Polling in the low single digits and burning bridges within the DNC, Tulsi has announced she will not seek re-election to her seat in 2020.

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/breaking-tulsi-gabbard-announces-she-will-not-run-for-re-election-to-congress-in-2020/

RIP - say hello to your third party candidate.

VIP - Re election to her Hawaii seat. Not the 2020 run. Say hello to a rising candidate.
I do think you're correct though, a third party candidate is nearly certain.
Duh. See what you mean now.
Did Hilary already know?
Does that mean no more DNC and therefore no TV time on the stage?
So many questions......

Spencerfreeman

Who's going to be the new DNC candidate? Or do you think the boy Buttigieg has a chance?
(i initially typed 'butty the boy' but though it might be misconstrued as an unmeant aspersion)

Spencerfreeman

If they hoof her out, do you think a Trump job could be on the cards?

notobtuse

Seems some of the mainstream media is beginning to carry Hillary's water and is issuing dire warnings that a Gabbard third-party run will throw away any chance the Democrats have of ousting Donald Trump from office.

Oh, my!

Apparently Gabbards scathing response to Hillary Clinton's accusation that she's a Russian asset, her attacks on the biased media, the rigged DNC primary process, and her failure to condemn the actions of international dictators can only mean a third-party run... and she will single-handily doom us to another four years of Trump, I guess.

The new bogeymanperson?

Overheal

Also likely to be cut from the next DNC debate alongside Castro and Beto.

"The DNC announced that the sixth debate of the campaign — to be held on Dec. 19 in Los Angeles and hosted by PBS and Politico — will require candidates to earn at least 4 percent of the vote in at least four qualifying polls (or 6 percent in two early polling states), and 200,000 unique donors in order to make the stage.

Already, the field of 12 at the October debate seems likely to be cut to nine or possibly 10 for the November forum. According to FiveThirtyEight, only nine candidates have hit the polling threshold of 3 percent in four qualifying polls — with previous qualifiers such as former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), and former HUD secretary Julian Castro currently on the outside looking in."

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/thinning-the-herd-new-dnc-debate-criteria-will-likely-trim-field-dramatically/

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Also likely to be cut from the next DNC debate alongside Castro and Beto.

"The DNC announced that the sixth debate of the campaign — to be held on Dec. 19 in Los Angeles and hosted by PBS and Politico — will require candidates to earn at least 4 percent of the vote in at least four qualifying polls (or 6 percent in two early polling states), and 200,000 unique donors in order to make the stage.

Already, the field of 12 at the October debate seems likely to be cut to nine or possibly 10 for the November forum. According to FiveThirtyEight, only nine candidates have hit the polling threshold of 3 percent in four qualifying polls — with previous qualifiers such as former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), and former HUD secretary Julian Castro currently on the outside looking in."

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/thinning-the-herd-new-dnc-debate-criteria-will-likely-trim-field-dramatically/

Could be bad news then as they select the polls that qualify. Which obviously 'they' control.
That would force her to go indie.
I have no doubt that she's already been discriminated against and her real polling figures are higher.
Trying to blame Tulsi for their lame ducks not beating Trump is risible.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Seems some of the mainstream media is beginning to carry Hillary's water and is issuing dire warnings that a Gabbard third-party run will throw away any chance the Democrats have of ousting Donald Trump from office.

Oh, my!

Apparently Gabbards scathing response to Hillary Clinton's accusation that she's a Russian asset, her attacks on the biased media, the rigged DNC primary process, and her failure to condemn the actions of international dictators can only mean a third-party run... and she will single-handily doom us to another four years of Trump, I guess.

The new bogeymanperson?

I watch a lot of U.S. news and nobody is discussing Gabbard. If you think this is conspiracy theory, cool, but she'll need a much higher profile outside of Hillary not liking her to be any kind of a serious contender. Currently I'd be thinking something was awry if she was.

This is a non-story IMO. A has-been feuding with a nobody.

Spencerfreeman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I watch a lot of U.S. news and nobody is discussing Gabbard. If you think this is conspiracy theory, cool, but she'll need a much higher profile outside of Hillary not liking her to be any kind of a serious contender. Currently I'd be thinking something was awry if she was.

This is a non-story IMO. A has-been feuding with a nobody.

If you read my earlier reply you will know my answer. Stop watching anything that's so obviously single shared agenda driven. Especially don't dismiss outlets that you are told are fake. Check for yourself first.
Do you know how many really informative books are left unread because "someone says".
It's now beyond a joke.

James Brown

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

If you read my earlier reply you will know my answer. Stop watching anything that's so obviously single shared agenda driven. Especially don't dismiss outlets that you are told are fake. Check for yourself first.
Do you know how many really informative books are left unread because "someone says".
It's now beyond a joke.

I'm constantly told CNN and various News papers are fake. I ignore that.
I wouldn't watch FOX as it is IMO 'so obviously single shared agenda driven'.

A book is someones opinion, as is a person with a blog or YouTube account. However much I might like what they say, that doesn't necessarily make it truthful.
I'll stick to world renowned trusted news/media outlets.

Anyone who thinks only Trump certified outlets are real needs to check themselves. Regardless of your politics, Trump is a low grade public representative. He called fellow party members 'human scum' the other day ffs. It's gone beyond the stage where finding anything Trump or the WH says is credible.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Seems some of the mainstream media is beginning to carry Hillary's water and is issuing dire warnings that a Gabbard third-party run will throw away any chance the Democrats have of ousting Donald Trump from office.

Oh, my!

Apparently Gabbards scathing response to Hillary Clinton's accusation that she's a Russian asset, her attacks on the biased media, the rigged DNC primary process, and her failure to condemn the actions of international dictators can only mean a third-party run... and she will single-handily doom us to another four years of Trump, I guess.

The new bogeymanperson?

2019 and people are still triggered when Hillary opens her mouth.

Tulsi was already a 2nd or 3rd tier Dem nominee before Clinton spoke up. The Assad apologism will ruin any chance she would have in a general election and she's too far to the right for most of the Democrat's own base. I don't see anything to love here for the majority of moderates and independents either.

Spencerfreeman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'm constantly told CNN and various News papers are fake. I ignore that.
I wouldn't watch FOX as it is IMO 'so obviously single shared agenda driven'.

A book is someones opinion, as is a person with a blog or YouTube account. However much I might like what they say, that doesn't necessarily make it truthful.
I'll stick to world renowned trusted news/media outlets.

Anyone who thinks only Trump certified outlets are real needs to check themselves. Regardless of your politics, Trump is a low grade public representative. He called fellow party members 'human scum' the other day ffs. It's gone beyond the stage where finding anything Trump or the WH says is credible.

There are very few fair mainstream broadcasters left on the airwaves, you need to go online and sometimes put up with unpopular opinions. To be honest I watch them all a bit including Fox for the only counter balance available in the mainstream. The rest have all the same 4AM talking points, if you know what they are. Which when you think about it is shocking, just one available for counter balance in the general American line up.
I noticed someone saying MSNBC was not anti-Trump. Shocking lack of knowledge.
Not to single him out again, there are others, but Jimmy Dore tells it like it is.
Tim pool is also not a Trumper, a bit wishy washy but fair commentary most of the time.
They are out there but online.
Did you know that Oxford has just banned clapping? Thanks Tim Pool.

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I watch a lot of U.S. news and nobody is discussing Gabbard. If you think this is conspiracy theory, cool, but she'll need a much higher profile outside of Hillary not liking her to be any kind of a serious contender. Currently I'd be thinking something was awry if she was.

This is a non-story IMO. A has-been feuding with a nobody.

Of course you probably won’t find anything about it from the mainstream media on this big story. Reporting on it would make Hillary Clinton, and also the DNC Representatives and Senators look bad because they fear Hillary and won’t go on record condemning her comments about Gabbard. And the mainstream media just cant show any dissent between their DNC overlords, excerpt for perhaps a one day blurb because they were forced to report, giving them cover against bias. Everyone watches the news at 2am in the morning, right?

James Brown

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

There are very few fair mainstream broadcasters left on the airwaves, you need to go online and sometimes put up with unpopular opinions. To be honest I watch them all a bit including Fox for the only counter balance available in the mainstream. The rest have all the same 4AM talking points, if you know what they are. Which when you think about it is shocking, just one available for counter balance in the general American line up.
I noticed someone saying MSNBC was not anti-Trump. Shocking lack of knowledge.
Not to single him out again, there are others, but Jimmy Dore tells it like it is.
Tim pool is also not a Trumper, a bit wishy washy but fair commentary most of the time.
They are out there but online.
Did you know that Oxford has just banned clapping? Thanks Tim Pool.

Thing is I'm not a Democrat and wouldn't vote for Clinton, Biden etc. if I did live there. So I've no vested interest or party I'm tied to.
My opinions are based on numerous sources, but mostly from Trump's own mouth.
Fox isn't a counter balance. A counter balance would be a news outlet with a bias for Trump and the GOP as there certainly are outlets with a bias for the Democrats.
Fox is a propaganda machine not a traditional news outlet that has a bias.
The bar has been lowered and twisted. What Trump and the GOP have done to modern America is frightening IMO.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Of course you probably won’t find anything about it from the mainstream media on this big story. Reporting on it would make Hillary Clinton, and also the DNC Representatives and Senators look bad because they fear Hillary and won’t go on record condemning her comments about Gabbard. And the mainstream media just cant show any dissent between their DNC overlords, excerpt for perhaps a one day blurb because they were forced to report, giving them cover against bias. Everyone watches the news at 2am in the morning, right?

Which publication/Mainstream outlet are you accusing of not running the story?

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Thing is I'm not a Democrat and wouldn't vote for Clinton, Biden etc. if I did live there. So I've no vested interest or party I'm tied to.
My opinions are based on numerous sources, but mostly from Trump's own mouth.
Fox isn't a counter balance. A counter balance would be a news outlet with a bias for Trump and the GOP as there certainly are outlets with a bias for the Democrats.
Fox is a propaganda machine not a traditional news outlet that has a bias.
What Trump and the GOP have done to modern America is frightening IMO.

Rather than watching the boob-tube try the website Realclearpolitics.com. They link articles from reliable sources of important events and opinions from both sides of the US political aisle. You will get a much more balanced picture of what is happening in US politics. Gabbard was an important story the last several days.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Of course you probably won’t find anything about it from the mainstream media on this big story. Reporting on it would make Hillary Clinton, and also the DNC Representatives and Senators look bad because they fear Hillary and won’t go on record condemning her comments about Gabbard. And the mainstream media just cant show any dissent between their DNC overlords, excerpt for perhaps a one day blurb because they were forced to report, giving them cover against bias. Everyone watches the news at 2am in the morning, right?

You've said this before but have yet to explain what she might do what they should/are be fearful of.

They covered Castro having a dig at Biden's memory. They covered Clinton's comments on Gabbard. Said it was likely about Gabbard even though Hillary didn't clarify. Should they be fearful now?

Trump and chums run the country and represent the most powerful and wealthy people around the globe, but the media are fearful of Hilary? Why?

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Rather than watching the boob-tube try the website Realclearpolitics.com. They link articles from reliable sources of important events and opinions from both sides of the US political aisle. You will get a much more balanced picture of what is happening in US politics. Gabbard was an important story the last several days.

The mistake you are making is assuming I don't see/hear spin. Like most adults I try weed out the spin and get to the facts and make up my own opinion.

Did Trump say we shouldn't watch TV now? :rolleyes:

Was a lad on last night defending Trump saying he uses salty language and that's why we love him, (re: the human scum remark). Was CNN. I should ignore that fake news?

Spencerfreeman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Thing is I'm not a Democrat and wouldn't vote for Clinton, Biden etc. if I did live there. So I've no vested interest or party I'm tied to.
My opinions are based on numerous sources, but mostly from Trump's own mouth.
Fox isn't a counter balance. A counter balance would be a news outlet with a bias for Trump and the GOP as there certainly are outlets with a bias for the Democrats.
Fox is a propaganda machine not a traditional news outlet that has a bias.
The bar has been lowered and twisted. What Trump and the GOP have done to modern America is frightening IMO.

Well then that won't help to broaden your knowledge of wider American politics.
Nearly half the country favours Trump, not that you'd think that from the news and certainly from not any Irish news.
I'd be surprised if Irish people could name anyone other than Trump never mind Tulsi.
I listen to LBC radio a bit and balance it on Brexit issues with some Talkradio. Even then I've heard complete distortions on issues I'm familiar with from Reuters. I really do keep an eye on US politics and Reuters radio reports from the States are very biased.
I've learned not to trust anyone solely by reputation.

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You've said this before but have yet to explain what she might do what they should/are be fearful of.

They covered Castro having a dig at Biden's memory. They covered Clinton's comments on Gabbard. Said it was likely about Gabbard even though Hillary didn't clarify. Should they be fearful now?

Trump and chums run the country and represent the most powerful and wealthy people around the globe, but the media are fearful of Hilary? Why?

I watched numerous reports where journalists (real journalists, that is) asked the DNC presidential candidates to give a statement regarding Clinton’s accusation that Gabbard and Stein are Russian assets. Sanders was the only one with the guts to condemn her statement. All the others either ignored the question, side-stepped it, or changed the subject. Cowards!

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The mistake you are making is assuming I don't see/hear spin. Like most adults I try weed out the spin and get to the facts and make up my own opinion.

Did Trump say we shouldn't watch TV now? :rolleyes:

Was a lad on last night defending Trump saying he uses salty language and that's why we love him, (re: the human scum remark). Was CNN. I should ignore that fake news?

You must have a short memory. I always say to get your information from sources on the left, center and right for balance. That way you can make an informed opinion.

Spencerfreeman

notobtuse wrote: »

I watched numerous reports where journalists (real journalists, that is) asked the DNC presidential candidates to give a statement regarding Clinton’s accusation that Gabbard and Stein are Russian assets. Sanders was the only one with the guts to condemn her statement. All the others either ignored the question, side-stepped it, or changed the subject. Cowards!

If you watched the last debate they just literally cut Tulsi off mid response.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

If you watched the last debate they just literally cut Tulsi off mid response.

Moderators be moderating

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Moderators be moderating

If you actually watched it, here's a LOL for you.
If you didn't check out Mr. CIA stopping her in her tracks so badly even Tulsi smiled.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

If you actually watched it, here's a LOL for you.
If you didn't check out Mr. CIA stopping her in her tracks so badly even Tulsi smiled.

Who is Mr CIA?

Are we talking about the same event?

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/1184419637582159874?s=21

Saying she got “cut off” is ignoring that she ran well over her time, spent most of it waffling, and then tried to pivot into asking her own debate questions to other candidates after the moderator had already begun to indicate she needed to wrap it up. Then she ignored the moderator and continued to soapbox.

I’ve seen dozens of political debates and I don’t see anything here that suggests she was abused.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Who is Mr CIA?

Are we talking about the same event?

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/1184419637582159874?s=21

Saying she got “cut off” is ignoring that she ran well over her time, spent most of it waffling, and then tried to pivot into asking her own debate questions to other candidates after the moderator had already begun to indicate she needed to wrap it up. Then she ignored the moderator and continued to soapbox.

I’ve seen dozens of political debates and I don’t see anything here that suggests she was abused.

Yes and no, I had the picture of the Anderson one in my head but what's her names stoppage in my gob. Jesus it was boring.
I retract my LOL and give you a clap instead. (haven't got an emoji)