Tulsi Gabbard

Spencerfreeman · 31-10-2019 5:35pm

Overheal wrote: »

Crimes you say?

Yes, crimes against Children and else.
I've lost the last of my innocence.

ohnonotgmail · 31-10-2019 5:35pm

Overheal wrote: »

Crimes you say?

They have people murdered you know. you need to be careful what you say about them.

Overheal · 31-10-2019 5:39pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Yes, crimes against Children and else.
I've lost the last of my innocence.

Against children? What are you talking about.

Spencerfreeman · 31-10-2019 5:41pm

Overheal wrote: »

Against children? What are you talking about.

Since it has bog all to do with Tulsi I will take it elsewhere where you can moderate with pride.

Overheal · 31-10-2019 5:43pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Since it has bog all to do with Tulsi I will take it elsewhere where you can moderate with pride.

Well that is where such fantasies belong

Spencerfreeman · 31-10-2019 5:44pm

Overheal wrote: »

Well that is where such fantasies belong

Thank you.

Spencerfreeman · 31-10-2019 5:48pm

In other news.....Tulsi is cleaving her way through the infirm of mind and body, as predicted.
Onward and upward.
Untill they peg her out of the party that is.

James Brown · 31-10-2019 5:59pm

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.

'Human scum' like the GOP Trump don't like?

Spencerfreeman · 31-10-2019 6:08pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

'Human scum' like the GOP Trump don't like?

I have been reading interesting documents is all I'll say on this.

You will agree with Trump soon enough.

James Brown · 31-10-2019 6:13pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I have been reading interesting documents is all I'll say on this.

You will agree with Trump soon enough.

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.

ohnonotgmail · 31-10-2019 6:14pm

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?

James Brown · 31-10-2019 6:20pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

are these documents from your CIA source?

Anderson Cooper.....sshh

Spencerfreeman · 31-10-2019 6:20pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

are these documents from your CIA source?

No FBI

ohnonotgmail · 31-10-2019 6:23pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

No FBI

LOL

Spencerfreeman · 31-10-2019 6:24pm

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.

Spencerfreeman · 31-10-2019 6:25pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

LOL

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

ohnonotgmail · 31-10-2019 6:25pm

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.

Spencerfreeman · 31-10-2019 6:28pm

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?

ohnonotgmail · 31-10-2019 6:29pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

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

to your FBI contacts?

Spencerfreeman · 31-10-2019 6:30pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

to your FBI contacts?

no, you silly goose, the FBI document.

James Brown · 31-10-2019 7:10pm

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.

mcmoustache · 31-10-2019 7:21pm

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?

Spencerfreeman · 31-10-2019 7:23pm

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.

Spencerfreeman · 01-11-2019 12:52pm

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

notobtuse · 01-11-2019 5:03pm

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.

Spencerfreeman · 01-11-2019 5:11pm

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?

notobtuse · 01-11-2019 5:14pm

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.

Spencerfreeman · 02-11-2019 1:54pm

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.

Spencerfreeman · 09-11-2019 7:26pm

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

silverharp · 09-11-2019 7:52pm

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:

Spencerfreeman · 09-11-2019 8:02pm

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.

notobtuse · 11-11-2019 3:13pm

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!

James Brown · 11-11-2019 3:30pm

The very definition of an echo chamber

11-11-2019 4:35pm

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

notobtuse · 11-11-2019 4:50pm

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?

Overheal · 11-11-2019 4:56pm

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]

notobtuse · 11-11-2019 7:29pm

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.

Overheal · 11-11-2019 7:36pm

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.

Tulsi Gabbard

Comments