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
1…789101113»

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,187 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    I have been reading interesting documents is all I'll say on this.

    You will agree with Trump soon enough.

    are these documents from your CIA source?


  • Options
    #363
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    are these documents from your CIA source?

    Anderson Cooper.....sshh


  • Options
    #364
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    are these documents from your CIA source?

    No FBI


  • Options
    #365
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,187 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    No FBI


    LOL


  • Options
    #366
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Unlike yourself obviously, for me the Clintons are an ex President and losing Presidential candidate. I've not much interest in what becomes of them. Nothing they say or do has any bearing on my view of Trump and the damage he does to the United States.

    Gabbard is being used by Trumpeters as just another tool in a pretty pathetic arsenal to dismiss or distract from the human sh*t show that is Donald Trump.

    I was suggesting, as per your reference to the Clinton's, that Hilary's fantasy podcast calling Tulsi a Russian bot was what was responsible for the bump in Tulsi's polling numbers.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    LOL
    Why don't you go read it and I'll explain where the connection is.


  • Options
    #368
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,187 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    Why don't you go read it and I'll explain where the connection is.

    I was laughing at you having FBI contacts. Laughing at you mind.


  • Options
    #369
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    I was laughing at you having FBI contacts. Laughing at you mind.

    Hooting like a ninny no doubt.
    Do you need a link?


  • Options
    #370
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,187 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    Hooting like a ninny no doubt.
    Do you need a link?

    to your FBI contacts?


  • Options
    #371
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    to your FBI contacts?

    no, you silly goose, the FBI document.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    I was suggesting, as per your reference to the Clinton's, that Hilary's fantasy podcast calling Tulsi a Russian bot was what was responsible for the bump in Tulsi's polling numbers.

    Likely right.


  • Options
    #373
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    I have been reading interesting documents is all I'll say on this.

    Would this be the QAnon type stuff or are we talking about the more recent stuff from Giuliani, Firtash, Parnas, Fruman and Solomon?


  • Options
    #374
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    Would this be the QAnon type stuff or are we talking about the more recent stuff from Giuliani, Firtash, Parnas, Fruman and Solomon?

    No, the FBI documents released the other day.


  • Options
    #375
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    This is one of the reasons that they are keeping Tulsi out of the MSM in terms of coverage.



  • Options
    #376
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Gabbard was written off for the next Democratic debate, but suddenly is on the cusp of being included. I believe she is now only one poll away from joining the field in the November debate, and is half way through the polling requirements for the December debate. If she does make the November debate I think she will become a lightning rod for criticism by the other candidates because of her willingness to condemn queen Hillary’s statements about her… thus elevating Tulsi’s profile with the sane Democrat voters. What a strange primary this is. Perhaps Hillary, out of a deep patriotic desire, will decide to jump into the race in order to counter the growing popularity of the Russian asset.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #377
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Gabbard was written off for the next Democratic debate, but suddenly is on the cusp of being included. I believe she is now only one poll away from joining the field in the November debate, and is half way through the polling requirements for the December debate. If she does make the November debate I think she will become a lightning rod for criticism by the other candidates because of her willingness to condemn queen Hillary’s statements about her… thus elevating Tulsi’s profile with the sane Democrat voters. What a strange primary this is. Perhaps Hillary, out of a deep patriotic desire, will decide to jump into the race in order to counter the growing popularity of the Russian asset.

    Strange Primary indeed.
    They will cherry pick the polls so nothing is certain yet.

    Isn't it strange that an issue that Tulsi has now associated with, namely Saudi involvement in 9/11, and which could cause damage to Trump, or at least some useful negative headlines in the press, still won't get her exposure?


  • Options
    #378
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    Strange Primary indeed.
    They will cherry pick the polls so nothing is certain yet.

    Isn't it strange that an issue that Tulsi has now associated with, namely Saudi involvement in 9/11, and which could cause damage to Trump, or at least some useful negative headlines in the press, still won't get her exposure?
    She has committed the ultimate sin in the eyes of the DNC... a message that appeals to some conservatives.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #379
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    notobtuse wrote: »
    She has committed the ultimate sin in the eyes of the DNC... a message that appeals to some conservatives.

    I found this piece interesting. It is a good take on the Tulsi Gabbard v Hilary Clinton thing.
    Others be warned it's a bloke in a tee shirt.



  • Options
    #380
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Delighted to see Tulsi has qualified for the next Dem debate on the 20th.
    Could be fireworks if she gets equal time.


  • Options
    #381
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,848 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    Delighted to see Tulsi has qualified for the next Dem debate on the 20th.
    Could be fireworks if she gets equal time.

    will she retort to Warren with "ok Boomer!" :pac:

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    silverharp wrote: »
    will she retort to Warren with "ok Boomer!" :pac:

    As it's on MSNBC I don't expect she will get an uninterrupted chance to say much.
    She very astute so I think she will attack policies, given that she gets so little time on the MSM to do that.
    She gets about as much time as questions about Epstein.

    She may just say "oops!" to Warren.

    0wssezqbfpx31.gif


  • Options
    #383
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Gabbar will probably be savaged by the debate inquisitors ‘moderators.’ But it won’t much matter because the vast majority of viewers for the debate will be the kool-aid faithful of MSLSD. Andrea Mitchell, Rachel Maddow, and two others who don’t matter, will be leading the Spanish inquisition. In February of this year NBC ran a story about Tulsi Gabbard and claimed her campaign was benefiting from Russian state media. Russia, Russia, Russia... again? And they have the audacity to call themselves ‘journalists?’ Give me a break!

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #384
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    The very definition of an echo chamber :)


  • Options
    #385
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Gabbar will probably be savaged by the debate inquisitors ‘moderators.’ But it won’t much matter because the vast majority of viewers for the debate will be the kool-aid faithful of MSLSD. Andrea Mitchell, Rachel Maddow, and two others who don’t matter, will be leading the Spanish inquisition. In February of this year NBC ran a story about Tulsi Gabbard and claimed her campaign was benefiting from Russian state media. Russia, Russia, Russia... again? And they have the audacity to call themselves ‘journalists?’ Give me a break!

    The Democrats should just hire the Russians to run their campaign. They are clearly far better at it than the DNC machine


  • Options
    #386
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The Democrats should just hire the Russians to run their campaign. They are clearly far better at it than the DNC machine
    One has to wonder why the DNC seems to have zero interest into investigating (and even crippled the FBI investigation) the supposed hacking into their email system during the 2016 election by Russia? Afraid of exposing Russian collusion with the DNC and/or Hillary Clinton, apparently.

    Is there any question in the next debate MSLSD will extol Chief Lies Alot Warren and relegate Gabbard to the bottom of the totem pole?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #387
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,855 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    One has to wonder why the DNC seems to have zero interest into investigating (and even crippled the FBI investigation) the supposed hacking into their email system during the 2016 election by Russia? Afraid of exposing Russian collusion with the DNC and/or Hillary Clinton, apparently.

    Is there any question in the next debate MSLSD will extol Chief Lies Alot Warren and relegate Gabbard to the bottom of the totem pole?

    It was investigated.

    [url] https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/18/mueller-clinton-arizona-hack/[/url]


  • Options
    #388
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Seems Tulsi Gabbard might be suing Hillary Clinton over her defamatory comments that Gabbard is a Russian asset and being groomed by Russia. Her lawyers are demanding Clinton hold a press conference to “verbally retract” her comments. She says the fabricated story is so facially improbable that it is actionable as defamation. Gabbard should sue the pantsuits off Clinton.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #389
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,855 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Seems Tulsi Gabbard might be suing Hillary Clinton over her defamatory comments that Gabbard is a Russian asset and being groomed by Russia. Her lawyers are demanding Clinton hold a press conference to “verbally retract” her comments. She says the fabricated story is so facially improbable that it is actionable as defamation. Gabbard should sue the pantsuits off Clinton.

    She's a public figure, and Clinton did not invoke the reference to Tulsi Gabbard in her Russia comments. It's a lawsuit that would go nowhere, like the vast majority of threatened defamation suits in DC that almost never make it past a hearing. The allegation doesn't check the boxes of the required litmus tests for defamation law and precedent. It's just one of those things Tulsi has to do in order to perpetuate her campaign, she is doing it for the headlines.

    Furthermore nothing in Clinton's statement would inculpate/allege Tulsi is doing anything wrong, her statement said some unnamed Democratic female candidate was favored by the Russians and they have bot nets etc. to help her. Her comment was also clearly prefaced as speculative, which blows a cannon-hole in any potential defamation suit.


Advertisement