Tulsi Gabbard

rossie1977 · 16-10-2019 12:46pm

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'.

SJW Lover · 16-10-2019 12:53pm

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.

Spencerfreeman · 16-10-2019 1:04pm

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.

Rjd2 · 16-10-2019 8:16pm

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

rossie1977 · 17-10-2019 12:57am

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?

17-10-2019 2:20am

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

SJW Lover · 17-10-2019 11:54am

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"

James Brown · 17-10-2019 4:11pm

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.

mcmoustache · 17-10-2019 5:00pm

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

James Brown · 17-10-2019 5:34pm

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.

Spencerfreeman · 18-10-2019 1:53pm

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.

Spencerfreeman · 18-10-2019 2:02pm

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.

SJW Lover · 18-10-2019 2:17pm

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.

mcmoustache · 18-10-2019 2:31pm

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.

Spencerfreeman · 18-10-2019 2:37pm

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.

mcmoustache · 18-10-2019 2:55pm

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.

Spencerfreeman · 18-10-2019 2:58pm

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?

mcmoustache · 18-10-2019 3:13pm

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?

Spencerfreeman · 18-10-2019 4:06pm

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.

mcmoustache · 18-10-2019 4:11pm

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.

SJW Lover · 18-10-2019 4:15pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

maybe you can show me your evidence that the polling was garbage.

Take a look in the White House. Any sign of Hillary Clinton? Nope, didnt think so.

SJW Lover · 18-10-2019 4:16pm

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.

You misinterpreted a simple statement disingenuously. Tulsi Gabbard is not part of the blue tick entertainment brigade. Referring to her as part of that is false.

James Brown · 18-10-2019 4:19pm

SJW Lover wrote: »

You misinterpreted a simple statement disingenuously. Tulsi Gabbard is not part of the blue tick entertainment brigade. Referring to her as part of that is false.

What's the membership? People you disagree with?

mcmoustache · 18-10-2019 4:20pm

SJW Lover wrote: »

Take a look in the White House. Any sign of Hillary Clinton? Nope, didnt think so.

You clearly don't understand what polling is if that's your argument. There are online resources available online if you want to brush up on probability and statistics if you want to get a better idea.

SJW Lover · 18-10-2019 4:22pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

You clearly don't understand what polling is if that's your argument. There are online resources available online if you want to brush up on probability and statistics if you want to get a better idea.

Oh i understand polling just fine. You seemingly are having trouble with it.

mcmoustache · 18-10-2019 4:28pm

SJW Lover wrote: »

Oh i understand polling just fine. You seemingly are having trouble with it.

Your response earlier demonstrated that you don't.

In the unlikely event that you do, maybe you can explain how the 538 predictions lining up with the result within quoted margins has anything to do with who is in the white house.

Spencerfreeman · 18-10-2019 4:31pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

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.

Verify this;

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/tulsi-gabbard-low-dnc-polls-popularity-trends/

"The reality is that since June 28 (the first day of the time in which polls can be counted towards September qualification), Gabbard has hit 2% or higher in eight different polls, which is more than the already-qualified Klobuchar and Yang.

Yet, the DNC only counts one of those as an approved poll, meaning Gabbard still needs three more polls to her resume. If she can’t do that, missing the September debates will be a de facto death blow to her campaign.

Gabbard, a staunch anti-war candidate, has been getting the ‘Ron Paul treatment’ from the DNC and the media since ABC’s first primary debate. While her appeal to the voters has been demonstrated (as she was the most googled candidate after each debate), she’s still getting push back. It seems almost improbable that Gabbard can continually pull between 2 and 3% in some polls and then struggle to register even 1% in what the DNC counts as polls."

like you the DNC like cherries.

mcmoustache · 18-10-2019 4:48pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Verify this;

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/tulsi-gabbard-low-dnc-polls-popularity-trends/

"The reality is that since June 28 (the first day of the time in which polls can be counted towards September qualification), Gabbard has hit 2% or higher in eight different polls, which is more than the already-qualified Klobuchar and Yang.

Yet, the DNC only counts one of those as an approved poll, meaning Gabbard still needs three more polls to her resume. If she can’t do that, missing the September debates will be a de facto death blow to her campaign.

Gabbard, a staunch anti-war candidate, has been getting the ‘Ron Paul treatment’ from the DNC and the media since ABC’s first primary debate. While her appeal to the voters has been demonstrated (as she was the most googled candidate after each debate), she’s still getting push back. It seems almost improbable that Gabbard can continually pull between 2 and 3% in some polls and then struggle to register even 1% in what the DNC counts as polls."

like you the DNC like cherries.

The article doesn't specify what those polls were so they could have been twitter polls for all I know. That the article doesn't say what those polls were when they are almost the subject of the article leads me to believe that the author left them out deliberately.

ohnonotgmail · 18-10-2019 4:49pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Verify this;

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/tulsi-gabbard-low-dnc-polls-popularity-trends/

"The reality is that since June 28 (the first day of the time in which polls can be counted towards September qualification), Gabbard has hit 2% or higher in eight different polls, which is more than the already-qualified Klobuchar and Yang.

Yet, the DNC only counts one of those as an approved poll, meaning Gabbard still needs three more polls to her resume. If she can’t do that, missing the September debates will be a de facto death blow to her campaign.

Gabbard, a staunch anti-war candidate, has been getting the ‘Ron Paul treatment’ from the DNC and the media since ABC’s first primary debate. While her appeal to the voters has been demonstrated (as she was the most googled candidate after each debate), she’s still getting push back. It seems almost improbable that Gabbard can continually pull between 2 and 3% in some polls and then struggle to register even 1% in what the DNC counts as polls."

like you the DNC like cherries.

was she most googled because people were asking "who is she and why is trump so supportive of her?"

Spencerfreeman · 18-10-2019 4:50pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

The article doesn't specify what those polls were so they could have been twitter polls for all I know. That the article doesn't say what those polls were when they are almost the subject of the article leads me to believe that the author left them out deliberately.

They must be Russian bots.

mcmoustache · 18-10-2019 4:56pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

They must be Russian bots.

You're not making any sense.

Spencerfreeman · 18-10-2019 4:58pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

was she most googled because people were asking "who is she and why is trump so supportive of her?"

Trump is supportive of Tulsi Gabbard?
I think she worries him the most.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 18-10-2019 4:58pm

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.

What’s “mature” about conspiracy theory paranoia? And why do you think that anybody who opposes American wars is alt right? Or a bot.

All of these terms are designed to shut down debate.

Tulsi is an anti war democrat. That’s it. Regardless of who else supports her that is primarily what she is.

In fact in a sane world her detractors would be seen as the far right. However we do not live in a sane world.

ohnonotgmail · 18-10-2019 5:02pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Trump is supportive of Tulsi Gabbard?
I think she worries him the most.

No, you're right, it wasn't trump directly supporting her. It was the russians. and they continue to do so with their many bots. In fact i suspect i'm talking to one of them right now.

mcmoustache · 18-10-2019 5:03pm

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

What’s “mature” about conspiracy theory paranoia? And why do you think that anybody who opposes American wars is alt right? Or a bot.

Nope. I didn't say that. My claim was that Gabbard is very popular on Russia Today (you can confirm this yourself if you like. The website is publicly accessible) and bots on twitter. Again, you can check this yourself - tweets and replies are public to everyone not blocked and there are plenty of analytical tools available too.

I made no claims about anti war candidates in general so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

SJW Lover · 18-10-2019 5:06pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

Your response earlier demonstrated that you don't.

In the unlikely event that you do, maybe you can explain how the 538 predictions lining up with the result within quoted margins has anything to do with who is in the white house.

Here's a 538 article trying to explain why the polls were so wrong

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-missed-trump-we-asked-pollsters-why/

To argue that polls werent incredibly off the mark in 2016 is like trying to reason with a horse that has bolted and is no longer there.

Now, if you are going to continue being disingenuous as you have done on a few threads with me in the past few weeks (how's the search for my re-reg status going by the way) then i am going to have to start ignoring you. I wont put you on block because i enjoy your posts (albeit not in the way you'd like).

SJW Lover · 18-10-2019 5:08pm

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

What’s “mature” about conspiracy theory paranoia? And why do you think that anybody who opposes American wars is alt right? Or a bot.

All of these terms are designed to shut down debate.

Tulsi is an anti war democrat. That’s it. Regardless of who else supports her that is primarily what she is.

In fact in a sane world her detractors would be seen as the far right. However we do not live in a sane world.

Its amazing how pro-war all of these "anti-Trumpers" are. I guess they prefer their murder sugarcoated with a winning smile and some comedic timing as during the Obama years.

Spencerfreeman · 18-10-2019 5:08pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No, you're right, it wasn't trump directly supporting her. It was the russians. and they continue to do so with their many bots. In fact i suspect i'm talking to one of them right now.

Da tovarish. Open your eyes.

SJW Lover · 18-10-2019 5:10pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

Nope. I didn't say that. My claim was that Gabbard is very popular on Russia Today (you can confirm this yourself if you like.

Can you strain yourself as to considering why this might be the case?

She is an anti-war democratic candidate in a country whose foreign policy has been unsubtle imperialism for decades. Why wouldnt Russia, or any sane person, like that?

SJW Lover · 18-10-2019 5:12pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

was she most googled because people were asking "who is she and why is trump so supportive of her?"

No. Its because she is an army veteran who has served in areas of conflict yet here she is telling the American public that wars and imperialism are wrong. That makes her stand out from the crowd. It's certainly why she stands out to me.

Your above comment really just highlights the lack of any critical thought you have put into this.

Franz Von Peppercorn II · 18-10-2019 5:13pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

Nope. I didn't say that. My claim was that Gabbard is very popular on Russia Today (you can confirm this yourself if you like. The website is publicly accessible) and bots on twitter.

The former may be true but so what. The second is pure guesswork.

Again, you can check this yourself - tweets and replies are public to everyone not blocked and there are plenty of analytical tools available too.

Really? Analytical tools, no less. And those tools can catch Russians but not, say Israelis, or anybody else who might be pro war. Is a boy just someone who disagrees.

I made no claims about anti war candidates in general so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

I believed that I spoke in general terms. Anyway all candidates who have an anti war position are accused of being Russian stooges.

Edit. I should perhaps have in my second sentence been less specific.

mcmoustache · 18-10-2019 5:58pm

SJW Lover wrote: »

Here's a 538 article trying to explain why the polls were so wrong

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-missed-trump-we-asked-pollsters-why/

To argue that polls werent incredibly off the mark in 2016 is like trying to reason with a horse that has bolted and is no longer there.

Now, if you are going to continue being disingenuous as you have done on a few threads with me in the past few weeks (how's the search for my re-reg status going by the way) then i am going to have to start ignoring you. I wont put you on block because i enjoy your posts (albeit not in the way you'd like).

Some polls will be sh!te and other polls will be good. That's not news so of course some will be off the mark. For example, my twitter poll of three mates will be rubbish while professional polsters with larger and more representative sampling and so on will be better.

What 538 does is aggregates them based on past performance and 538 was the most popular reference that people were using. And it's model was very accurate so to make a sweeping generalisation that the polls were rubbish when their weighted average was extremely close to the result is not accurate.

Also, I don't recall saying that I would find out your previous accounts. You must be confusing me with someone else.

mcmoustache · 18-10-2019 6:08pm

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

The former may be true but so what. The second is pure guesswork.

Really? Analytical tools, no less. And those tools can catch Russians but not, say Israelis, or anybody else who might be pro war. Is a boy just someone who disagrees.

I grant that analysing bots and shills has an element of guesswork but it's not impossible. And I never said they can't catch Israelis and I don't recall seeing anyone else make that claim. I'm around long enough to remember the megaphone shills on newsgroups to know that Israel have been engaging in serious propaganda war online for donkey's years.

Disinformation is cheap nowadays and if an adversary of the US wasn't doing it, they would be negligent.

Overheal · 18-10-2019 6:42pm

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/

Spencerfreeman · 18-10-2019 6:46pm

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/

It's behind a paywall, can you provide a synopsis please?

Overheal · 18-10-2019 6:49pm

Here’s a reblog

On the phone so copying WaPo is eh.

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/hillary-clinton-claims-russians-are-grooming-a-female-2020-dem-candidate-for-third-party-run/

Not sure how jokey she was

Spencerfreeman · 18-10-2019 6:50pm

Overheal wrote: »

Here’s a reblog

On the phone so copying WaPo is eh.

https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/hillary-clinton-claims-russians-are-grooming-a-female-2020-dem-candidate-for-third-party-run/

Thanks.

Spencerfreeman · 18-10-2019 6:55pm

“I’m not making any predictions,” Clinton told David Plouffe on his podcast Campaign HQ before going on to speculate one of the candidates was supported by Russia and that they’re going to encourage a third-party campaign to help tip the election to President Donald Trump.

“I think they’ve got their eye somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s a favorite of the Russians,” she said around the 35 minute mark in the podcast. “They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”

A nothing piece. Names nobody, but I hope she means Gabbard, Clintons disapproval will do wonders for her support.

mcmoustache · 18-10-2019 10:18pm

Well, she's not taking it lying down.

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1185289626409406464

Rjd2 · 18-10-2019 10:22pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

Well, she's not taking it lying down.

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1185289626409406464

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.

Tulsi Gabbard

Comments