Tulsi Gabbard

Overheal · 24-10-2019 9:26pm

Hande hoche! wrote: »

It's Howard Dean's time.

Simpler times

mcmoustache · 24-10-2019 10:28pm

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 · 25-10-2019 9:20am

Anyone know why she keeps going on FOX?

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

Spencerfreeman · 25-10-2019 11:23am

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 · 25-10-2019 12:45pm

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 · 25-10-2019 1:20pm

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 · 25-10-2019 1:28pm

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 · 25-10-2019 1:40pm

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

notobtuse · 25-10-2019 4:56pm

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 · 25-10-2019 4:57pm

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 · 25-10-2019 5:15pm

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 · 25-10-2019 6:10pm

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 · 25-10-2019 6:21pm

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 · 25-10-2019 6:30pm

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 · 25-10-2019 6:37pm

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 · 25-10-2019 6:58pm

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 · 25-10-2019 7:30pm

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 · 25-10-2019 7:32pm

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 · 25-10-2019 7:33pm

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 · 25-10-2019 7:35pm

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 · 25-10-2019 7:36pm

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 · 25-10-2019 7:40pm

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 · 25-10-2019 7:46pm

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 · 25-10-2019 7:47pm

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 · 25-10-2019 7:49pm

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 · 25-10-2019 7:51pm

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 · 25-10-2019 7:53pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

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

Moderators be moderating

Spencerfreeman · 25-10-2019 7:58pm

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 · 25-10-2019 8:13pm

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 · 25-10-2019 8:16pm

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)

Overheal · 25-10-2019 8:24pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

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.

This is what came up when I searched for the accusation Tulsi was cut off at the debate.

I also just timed that for fun: she was more than 5 seconds over her time (of 75 seconds) when the moderator first nudged her. She’d already run out when she tried to start a new tangent/attack on opponents. She didn’t seem prepared, she got stuck between wanting to waffle about her military past, and the question, and the desire to get an attack/applaudable moment in. You can see about halfway into the response she’s struggled to compose what she wants to say - that’s fine, it’s a live national debate, but you weren’t done wrong.

Spencerfreeman · 25-10-2019 8:26pm

Overheal wrote: »

This is what came up when I searched for the accusation Tulsi was cut off at the debate.

I also just timed that for fun: she was more than 5 seconds over her time (of 75 seconds) when the moderator first nudged her. She’d already run out when she tried to start a new tangent/attack on opponents. She didn’t seem prepared, she got stuck between wanting to waffle about her military past, and the question, and the desire to get an attack/applaudable moment in. You can see about halfway into the response she’s struggled to compose what she wants to say - that’s fine, it’s a live national debate, but you weren’t done wrong.

See above.

Overheal · 25-10-2019 8:30pm

If you have the other clip you're thinking of sure I'd look.

Don't think Anderson Cooper is CIA though, let's be fair.

Spencerfreeman · 25-10-2019 8:33pm

Overheal wrote: »

If you have the other clip you're thinking of sure I'd look.

Don't think Anderson Cooper is CIA though, let's be fair.

I'm led to believe closely connected. The Vanderbilt history is also worth a look.

Ardillaun · 26-10-2019 8:33pm

Gabbard is a strange candidate, though. I can’t see a big constituency in the Democratic Party for her Foxesque America First message, and she’s a dull speaker too.

Spencerfreeman · 30-10-2019 11:40am

Tulsi is now supporting the 9/11 families campaign. She agrees with them and is calling for the release of documents related to Saudi Arabia involvement in the attack.

Spencerfreeman · 30-10-2019 8:33pm

Tulsi now up to 5% in latest CNN poll.
Still climbing.

Overheal · 30-10-2019 8:39pm

She’s going for the Trump bump. Dunno if it will save her nomination though. Guess we shouldn’t write her off but she has big hurdles in front of her that few candidates get across (and other politicians yet to cross!)

Spencerfreeman · 30-10-2019 8:41pm

Overheal wrote: »

She’s going for the Trump bump. Dunno if it will save her nomination though. Guess we shouldn’t write her off but she has big hurdles in front of her that few candidates get to cross

She's already clubbed a few out of the way like baby seals.

It will be interesting.

Hande hoche! · 30-10-2019 9:11pm

Would be impressed if she outlasts Harris.

Spencerfreeman · 30-10-2019 9:14pm

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Would be impressed if she outlasts Harris.

She was one of the aforementioned baby seals.
To steal a quote, "It would be easier for a Kamala to pass through the eye of a needle".

Hande hoche! · 30-10-2019 10:05pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

She was one of the aforementioned baby seals.
To steal a quote, "It would be easier for a Kamala to pass through the eye of a needle".

Might be this cycle's equivalent of Chris Christie doing a number on Rubio.

Spencerfreeman · 30-10-2019 10:10pm

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Might be this cycle's equivalent of Chris Christie doing a number on Rubio.

Poor Marco.

Hard to know what will happen, will they throw her out?

When you consider that Trump will have a free hand for the 2nd. term and won't be beholden to the GOP?

notobtuse · 31-10-2019 3:20pm

A new poll out shows Tulsi Gabbard is now leading Kamala Harris nationwide. I guess those Russians just can’t keep their grubby little fingers out of our elections, eh?

Spencerfreeman · 31-10-2019 3:35pm

notobtuse wrote: »

A new poll out shows Tulsi Gabbard is now leading Kamala Harris nationwide. I guess those Russians just can’t keep their grubby little fingers out of our elections, eh?

Seems to be the new badge of pride.

James Brown · 31-10-2019 4:38pm

Honestly, this thread is the only time I hear about her. Damn Clinton afraid media.
The fact you lads like her would be enough to put me off.

So is it the Clinton media failing has her on the rise? :rolleyes:

Spencerfreeman · 31-10-2019 4:42pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Honestly, this thread is the only time I hear about her. Damn Clinton afraid media.
The fact you lads like her would be enough to put me off.

So is it the Clinton media failing has her on the rise? :rolleyes:

Matt, people are starting to see through the fog. Her absolute annihilation of Kamala Harris was the start for me. Hilary herself is another huge factor despite the media.
If you go to any of the honest sources that I have mentioned to you before you will begin to see a different picture.

James Brown · 31-10-2019 5:05pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Matt, people are starting to see through the fog. Her absolute annihilation of Kamala Harris was the start for me. Hilary herself is another huge factor despite the media.
If you go to any of the honest sources that I have mentioned to you before you will begin to see a different picture.

I'm simply saying her and others in that race are not even a blip on the radar for some. Are we to believe that's conspiracy too?
I think you lads put more weight in what Clinton says and does than the public anyway.

I think barr, (see what I did there?) impeachment, Trump will get in again.

Spencerfreeman · 31-10-2019 5:09pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'm simply saying her and others in that race are not even a blip on the radar for some. Are we to believe that's conspiracy too?
I think you lads put more weight in what Clinton says and does than the public anyway.

Yes you can, and you can put the house on that.
The opposite, I now put no weight in what either of the criminal Clinton's say on anything.
Absolutely filthy disgusting animals.

Apologies for going so easy on them.

Overheal · 31-10-2019 5:32pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Yes you can, and you can put the house on that.
The opposite, I now put no weight in what either of the criminal Clinton's say on anything.
Absolutely filthy disgusting animals.

Apologies for going so easy on them.

Crimes you say?

Tulsi Gabbard

Comments