Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Tulsi Gabbard

Options
12467…13

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Rjd2 wrote: »
    Gabbard clearly is not flawless and her previous support of Hindu nationalism is troubling. She also has approximately 0.00001% chance of winning and probably should have waited at least 4 years before running.

    However its important that their is someone asking tough questions about foreign policy and she clearly is the strongest on stage about such issues.

    Most of the other so called progressives were hopeless when Trump was plotting regime change , Gabbard was on fire regarding that.

    The smear machine has been brutal but to be expected. Its very much the Democrat media establishment still sulking after their beloved Clinton lost to an oaf despite having every advantage you could have.

    The Russian stooge stuff is bollocks, but their is a very vocal online Democrat machine who have been calling her that for years and its got through. This machine is very similar to right wing Trumpers.

    They deal in basic insults and they bank on their base living in echo chambers and so far both bases are correct.

    Clicking the reaction on Twitter to her last night, its the usual democrat establishment bores and right wing centrist dip****s screaming Putin~!!!!.

    Ah well.
    I don't know much about Hindu nationalism, but I agree with you about the rest apart from Trumps efforts at regime change, I don't see any. He seems to be laissez-faire.


  • Options
    #93
    SexBobomb
    Registered Users Posts: 442 ✭✭SexBobomb


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    As this is a Tulsi thread, why don't you try watching last nights debate and making your own mind up?

    No no, I'd like you to educate me on the propaganda I've "swallowed whole". Since you know what I think.
    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    I am, except when I have to wade through the wall to wall propaganda that you swallow whole.


  • Options
    #94
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    SexBobomb wrote: »
    No no, I'd like you to educate me on the propaganda I've "swallowed whole". Since you know what I think.
    Like away.


  • Options
    #95
    SexBobomb
    Registered Users Posts: 442 ✭✭SexBobomb


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    Like away.

    So you're just talking rubbish, thought as much.


  • Options
    #96
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    SexBobomb wrote: »
    So you're just talking rubbish, thought as much.
    Oh please.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    Seth Rich was murdered.
    Assad didn't gas anyone. Truth.


    Yeah, yeah. And Russia didn't shoot down MH17 and the Skripal poisoning was a false flag.


    Like I mentioned earlier, it's no coincidence that people who like gabbard also happen to believe russian misinformation.


  • Options
    #98
    Elmer Blooker
    Registered Users Posts: 6,055 ✭✭✭Elmer Blooker


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    You need to read Edward Bernays book, Propaganda.
    Published 1928. That was even before anyone heard of Goebbels!
    Could you come up with an example of something a ... little more recent?


  • Options
    #99
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Elmer Blooker wrote: »
    Published 1928. That was even before anyone heard of Goebbels!
    Could you come up with an example of something a ... little more recent?
    It's the seminal work all have been operating from ever since. You don't need anything more recent.


  • Options
    #100
    Elmer Blooker
    Registered Users Posts: 6,055 ✭✭✭Elmer Blooker


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    It's the seminal work all have been operating from ever since. You don't need anything more recent.
    No, there is nothing recent about propaganda.
    For example just four days before the 1924 UK General Election the Daily Mail 'uncovered' the 'Zinoviev Letter', a forgery which alleged the Soviets were 'interfering' in the election to get the Labour Party elected. As always the public fell for it and the Conservatives were duly elected.
    Sound familiar? .... of course it does.


  • Options
    #101
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Elmer Blooker wrote: »
    No, there is nothing recent about propaganda.
    For example just four days before the 1924 UK General Election the Daily Mail 'uncovered' the 'Zinoviev Letter', a forgery which alleged the Soviets were 'interfering' in the election to get the Labour Party elected. As always the public fell for it and the Conservatives were duly elected.
    Sound familiar? .... of course it does.

    His real name was Apfelbaum and they did assist the British Labour party.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,342 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    The anti war stuff won't help anyone. Sanders was anti-interventionist for decades, Warrens not as anti military as Sanders but would be considered far removed from any Republican president of the last 100 years militarily.

    Democratic presidents and candidates for years have been accused of being weak militarily by the media, Republicans and Conservative talking heads. I mean Trump, Reagan and Bush Jr has to massively increase defence funding because in their words the previous Dem president completely gutted the military.

    And what does anti war even mean for the US. Let's say your allies are attacked by Russia or China. The US just sits back and does nothing? A crazed lunatic takes control in UAE or Jordan by force and starts beheading women and children by the thousands in the middle of downtown Dubai or Amman on live TV. Does the president say 'it will work itself out'.


  • Options
    #103
    SJW Lover
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 322 ✭✭SJW Lover


    rossie1977 wrote: »

    And what does anti war even mean for the US.


    Not killing poor people in the middle east for oil and corporate interests.


  • Options
    #104
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    The anti war stuff won't help anyone. Sanders was anti-interventionist for decades, Warrens not as anti military as Sanders but would be considered far removed from any Republican president of the last 100 years militarily.

    Democratic presidents and candidates for years have been accused of being weak militarily by the media, Republicans and Conservative talking heads. I mean Trump, Reagan and Bush Jr has to massively increase defence funding because in their words the previous Dem president completely gutted the military.

    And what does anti war even mean for the US. Let's say your allies are attacked by Russia or China. The US just sits back and does nothing? A crazed lunatic takes control in UAE or Jordan by force and starts beheading women and children by the thousands in the middle of downtown Dubai or Amman on live TV. Does the president say 'it will work itself out'.
    The anti war stuff helps everyone.
    Regan and the Bushe's were bought and paid for.
    Regional conflicts should be left to the region affected.
    Tulsi Gabbard has the right idea.


  • Options
    #105
    Rjd2
    Registered Users Posts: 12,019 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    SJW Lover wrote: »
    Not killing poor people in the middle east for oil and corporate interests.

    And most certainly not this which worked out superbly for everyone.:P



  • Options
    #106
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,342 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    The anti war stuff helps everyone.
    Regan and the Bushe's were bought and paid for.
    Regional conflicts should be left to the region affected.
    Tulsi Gabbard has the right idea.

    Gabbard is no more hawkish than 90% of the Democratic party and less so than Sanders or Warren which is my point.

    In 2014 Gabbard was calling out Iran as biggest supporter of state terrorism and to increase defence funding https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-tulsi-gabbard-renews-calls-critical-funding-missile-defense-fy2015-budget

    Bosnia was a regional conflict. You think it was a mistake NATO went in there?


  • Options
    #107
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    She'll be an excellent Secretary of State for Bernie.


  • Options
    #108
    SJW Lover
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 322 ✭✭SJW Lover


    I thought she was excellent the other night. On a stage where any time she tried to make a point she was cut off or moved along quickly.



    Tulsi continues to show class and anytime i see the blue tick bubble brigade all coalescing to criticise someone it is clear that someone is doing something right. I absolutely abhor the blue tick entertainment brigade - there is never a war they dont like despite being so "progressive"


  • Options
    #109
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    SJW Lover wrote: »
    I thought she was excellent the other night. On a stage where any time she tried to make a point she was cut off or moved along quickly.



    Tulsi continues to show class and anytime i see the blue tick bubble brigade all coalescing to criticise someone it is clear that someone is doing something right. I absolutely abhor the blue tick entertainment brigade - there is never a war they dont like despite being so "progressive"

    What is that? Honestly don't know this one.


  • Options
    #110
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    What is that? Honestly don't know this one.

    People with verified accounts on twitter.

    Like this account:

    https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard


  • Options
    #111
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    People with verified accounts on twitter.

    Like this account:

    https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard

    Thanks. Personally for me, twitter is a sounding board for individuals from all walks not a news source.

    There was a lad years ago claimed he saw a statue of Mary move. Hundreds believed him. People haven't changed, they just have more outlets.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    Gabbard is no more hawkish than 90% of the Democratic party and less so than Sanders or Warren which is my point.

    In 2014 Gabbard was calling out Iran as biggest supporter of state terrorism and to increase defence funding https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-tulsi-gabbard-renews-calls-critical-funding-missile-defense-fy2015-budget

    Bosnia was a regional conflict. You think it was a mistake NATO went in there?

    Gabbard is less hawkish than most of them for sure.
    I haven't heard her calling for a war with Iran lately but her connection with the CFR is I'll admit a bit worrying.
    On Bosnia, perhaps it could have been settled less radically with an earlier political intervention. The Serbs were not the only bad guys.


  • Options
    #113
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Deleted User wrote: »
    She'll be an excellent Secretary of State for Bernie.
    If it ends up being Bernie I think arguing against Trump will give him another heart attack.


  • Options
    #114
    SJW Lover
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 322 ✭✭SJW Lover


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    People with verified accounts on twitter.

    Like this account:

    https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard


    Incorrect. I said "the blue tick entertainment brigade". Tulsi Gabbard is not in that clique. Of course, you have shown an inability to read numerous times in my presence since i joined this site so not surprised. And you also mentioned "She's the main candidate being pushed by Russian State media and bots" which is the calling card of a moron. so again, no surprise at you being disingenuous.


  • Options
    #115
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    SJW Lover wrote: »
    And you also mentioned "She's the main candidate being pushed by Russian State media and bots" which is the calling card of a moron. so again, no surprise at you being disingenuous.

    I could understand you saying that if there was anything wrong with what I said but there isn't. You can see Russia Today for yourself and tracking bots/shills, whether Russian, Saudi, Iranian or Turkish is a fairly mature craft these days.


  • Options
    #116
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    I could understand you saying that if there was anything wrong with what I said but there isn't. You can see Russia Today for yourself and tracking bots/shills, whether Russian, Saudi, Iranian or Turkish is a fairly mature craft these days.
    The fact that she's not being "pushed" by CNN, the cartoon news network, and MSNBC should tell you all you need to know.


  • Options
    #117
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    The fact that she's not being "pushed" by CNN, the cartoon news network, and MSNBC should tell you all you need to know.

    Her polling is shíte among Dem voters. She barely registers any interest among them. CNN exists to make money and outside of alt-right circles, nobody's interested in seeing her her. She's clearly more at home on Tucker Carlson so it's not clear why she should be popular with the Dems.

    Sure even in this thread, her support is mainly from the "fcuck the libs" constituency.


  • Options
    #118
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    Her polling is shíte among Dem voters. She barely registers any interest among them. CNN exists to make money and outside of alt-right circles, nobody's interested in seeing her her. She's clearly more at home on Tucker Carlson so it's not clear why she should be popular with the Dems.

    Sure even in this thread, her support is mainly from the "fcuck the libs" constituency.
    Which Polls? The garbage sources that predicted a massive Clinton victory?


  • Options
    #119
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    The polls were correct within their margin of error. For example, 538 was predicting 48.5 for Hillary and 44.9 for Trump. In the end, the result was 48.2 for Hillary and 46.1 for Trump.

    This "fact" about the polls being crap in 2016 has been debunked time and time again and yet people still feel like making that claim. Are they incapable of learning and/or critical thinking?


  • Options
    #120
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    The polls were correct within their margin of error. For example, 538 was predicting 48.5 for Hillary and 44.9 for Trump. In the end, the result was 48.2 for Hillary and 46.1 for Trump.

    This "fact" about the polls being crap in 2016 has been debunked time and time again and yet people still feel like making that claim. Are they incapable of learning and/or critical thinking?

    You're living in cuckoo land.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    You're living in cuckoo land.

    That information that I provided can be verified. That's the great thing about the internet - you can compare the predictions with the results.

    If I am indeed, as you say, living in cuckoo land, maybe you can show me your evidence that the polling was garbage.


Advertisement