Tulsi Gabbard

Spencerfreeman · 21-10-2019 2:53am

rossie1977 wrote: »

Morning consult she is on 1%, The Hill she is on 1%, Fox News she is on 1% https://www.scribd.com/document/429686638/Fox-News-Poll-October-6-8-2019

Quinnipiac she is 0%

I have already pointed to poll results earlier in the thread that contradict the one you posted a link to. The poll you linked to was a telephone poll of one thousand people, two thirds of which were on mobile phones with a 3% +/- error. I don't have much faith in Fox news polls.

It's all change now anyway after Trumps comments. A clever move by Trump, it will massively raise her profile but it may turn away some Dem voters.

Spencerfreeman · 21-10-2019 2:54am

mcmoustache wrote: »

Mmm. Do I believe the guy talking out of his ass or the guy who backs up his assertions with sources?

Wednesday, October 16
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Economist/YouGov Biden 25, Warren 29, Sanders 13, Buttigieg 7, Harris 5, O'Rourke 2, Yang 2, Klobuchar 2, Booker 1, Steyer 1, Gabbard 3, Bennet 1, Castro 0 Warren +4

Why don't you go back to the ****show you're helping to create in the Trump thread.

Gynoid · 21-10-2019 5:40am

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Wednesday, October 16
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Economist/YouGov Biden 25, Warren 29, Sanders 13, Buttigieg 7, Harris 5, O'Rourke 2, Yang 2, Klobuchar 2, Booker 1, Steyer 1, Gabbard 3, Bennet 1, Castro 0 Warren +4

Why don't you go back to the ****show you're helping to create in the Trump thread.

I dont understand the Democrats. Biden is such a weird, sleazy, creepy old schmoozer and Warren comes off as a hysterical neurotic and lying oddball. Can these really be their top available options?

Spencerfreeman · 21-10-2019 5:51am

Gynoid wrote: »

I dont understand the Democrats. Biden is such a weird, sleazy, creepy old schmoozer and Warren comes off as a hysterical neurotic and lying oddball. Can these really be their top available options?

I know, it's like they want Trump to be re-elected.

mad muffin · 21-10-2019 7:51am

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I have already pointed to poll results earlier in the thread that contradict the one you posted a link to. The poll you linked to was a telephone poll of one thousand people, two thirds of which were on mobile phones with a 3% +/- error. I don't have much faith in Fox news polls.

It's all change now anyway after Trumps comments. A clever move by Trump, it will massively raise her profile but it may turn away some Dem voters.

You make a great point. Trump knows (especially after his comment about the wall) that what ever he is for or like, the Dems will be against or hate.

mcmoustache · 21-10-2019 8:55am

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Wednesday, October 16
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Economist/YouGov Biden 25, Warren 29, Sanders 13, Buttigieg 7, Harris 5, O'Rourke 2, Yang 2, Klobuchar 2, Booker 1, Steyer 1, Gabbard 3, Bennet 1, Castro 0 Warren +4

Why don't you go back to the ****show you're helping to create in the Trump thread.

I had a look at the economist website and they have her at less than 1% too. You should link your sources.

ZeroThreat · 21-10-2019 9:57am

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

"May not be a russian stooge"
That's not what I'd call credible or unbiased either.

I think you're seeing bias where none exists and conspiracy theories everywhere tbh.

Clinton/Obama Derangement Syndrome is as debilitating as Trump Derangement Syndrome you know.

SJW Lover · 21-10-2019 12:22pm

Hector Savage wrote: »

IRony is , Gabbard is someone that could actually beat Trump if the party and MSM got behind her.

This. She is clearly the best candidate if you dont want wars. However, the dems are yet to meet a war they dont like so they are pushing Biden (who, let's face it is a crap candidate), Warren (an absolute weirdo who constantly lies) or Kamala Harris (another fruitcake neocon wrapped in a progressive blanket).

If you think someone saying that war is wrong makes them a "Putin puppet", then frankly you are way too far down the wrong path and need to get a grip of yourself.

Danzy · 21-10-2019 12:24pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Seems the Democratic MSM and the Twitterverse all hate her. Yet she ticks all the diversity boxes: she's ethnic Samoan, a woman, anti war and Liberal on spending. There have been several hit pieces on her being a Russian spy and an Assad lover among others, which are utterly ridiculous.

Then there was Google shutting down her Google Ads account right after the first debate, depriving her of funding.

The only thing I can see is that she's against third term abortions... A pretty reasonable stance assuming she excludes FFA from that (I haven't checked).

The only other thing I can see is that she is a very beautiful and fit woman, and actually comes across as genuine so doesn't fit the feminist penis envy archetype, but is an actual strong woman. Also she doesn't play identity politics like the rest of them. Thoughts?

She doesn't conform to what they expect her to be.

To the activist left group in the Democrats, non conformity to their analysis is a great wrong.

Bit of that in the rest of the party as well.

rossie1977 · 21-10-2019 12:35pm

Gynoid wrote: »

I dont understand the Democrats. Biden is such a weird, sleazy, creepy old schmoozer and Warren comes off as a hysterical neurotic and lying oddball. Can these really be their top available options?

Sleazy, creepy, neurotic, lying. Maybe they want to fight fire with fire..

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I have already pointed to poll results earlier in the thread that contradict the one you posted a link to. The poll you linked to was a telephone poll of one thousand people, two thirds of which were on mobile phones with a 3% +/- error. I don't have much faith in Fox news polls.

It's all change now anyway after Trumps comments. A clever move by Trump, it will massively raise her profile but it may turn away some Dem voters.

Fox news is considered an A level rated poll along with Marxist, Quinnipiac and NBC/Wall Street Journal.

I do not see anything changing much. She clearly has zero chance of winning primary and can't now run as third party candidate after outing herself.

She also has issues now as the progressives are going to challenge for her house seat in 2020.

rossie1977 · 21-10-2019 12:37pm

SJW Lover wrote: »

This. She is clearly the best candidate if you dont want wars. However, the dems are yet to meet a war they dont like so they are pushing Biden (who, let's face it is a crap candidate), Warren (an absolute weirdo who constantly lies) or Kamala Harris (another fruitcake neocon wrapped in a progressive blanket).

The best candidate if you don't want war is Sanders clearly. His anti interventionist stance hasn't changed in three decades.

This is not a million years ago..
https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/649458891168714752?lang=en

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/649615636088365058?lang=en

SJW Lover · 21-10-2019 12:41pm

rossie1977 wrote: »

The best candidate if you don't want war is Sanders clearly. His anti interventionist stance hasn't changed in three decades.

But the Dems dont want Sanders either. They rigged 2016 to stop him and to push their pro-war candidate Clinton. I would have no issue with Bernie taking the nomination and i think he could give Trump a good rattle. But i also have a suspicion that, when it comes down to it, Bernie will cave to the nefarious interests in the Democrat party. The fact he is all in on the Russia collusion hoax shows that.

Danzy · 21-10-2019 1:16pm

Sanders isn't getting any where near enough support to strike for President.

The heart attack was just the icing on the cake.

Would have to get on Warren getting it, momentum building for her.

Her or Biden, it's a 2 horse race now.

James Brown · 21-10-2019 2:11pm

Gabbard is a right wing Democrat. The U.S. needs a left leaning politician. Clinton seemed sad and petty talking about her. Clinton is like the conservative ghost of elections past.
It's looking like Biden. He might even get a few sympathy votes from the Trump assassination attempt.

Love Bernie, but ain't never going to happen.
Unless the Republicans grow a conscience and ethics, Trump is still a strong contender.

Spencerfreeman · 21-10-2019 2:19pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

I had a look at the economist website and they have her at less than 1% too. You should link your sources.

As it says above
Economist/YouGov
You have all the details you find it.

notobtuse · 21-10-2019 2:21pm

Am I correct in regards to Hillary Clinton that her ‘Vast Right Wing Conspiracy’ is out, and in is Russian assets Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein being groomed to destroy the US by running as third-party candidates? If ‘the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long’ is thinking of jumping in the race for POTUS again, she is going about it rather oddly by smearing someone one of her own. Gabbard is a fighter and giving it right back to Clinton, even though she has no chance in the primary. But I do admire Gabbard spunk although her politics are rather rubbish. John Kerry is probably thinking it's time to report for POTUS duty again with such a week Democratic field and Clinton going nuts. But he may have problems with the Logan Act recently if he is thinking of jumping into the race.

Overheal · 21-10-2019 2:21pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Wednesday, October 16
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Economist/YouGov Biden 25, Warren 29, Sanders 13, Buttigieg 7, Harris 5, O'Rourke 2, Yang 2, Klobuchar 2, Booker 1, Steyer 1, Gabbard 3, Bennet 1, Castro 0 Warren +4

Why don't you go back to the ****show you're helping to create in the Trump thread.

That poll projects itself to have a 3.1% error and was taken of 1045 registered voters and it was web based. Didn’t you just **** on a poll with less error?

James Brown · 21-10-2019 2:26pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Am I correct in regards to Hillary Clinton that her ‘Vast Right Wing Conspiracy’ is out, and in is Russian assets Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein being groomed to destroy the US by running as third-party candidates? If ‘the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long’ is thinking of jumping in the race for POTUS again, she is going about it rather oddly by smearing someone one of her own. Gabbard is a fighter and giving it right back to Clinton, even though she has no chance in the primary. But I do admire Gabbard spunk although her politics are rather rubbish. John Kerry is probably thinking it's time to report for POTUS duty again with such a week Democratic field and Clinton going nuts. But he may have problems with the Logan Act recently if he is thinking of jumping into the race.

As I posted, Clinton sounded petty and sad. She has absolutely no hope. I kinda hope she throws her hat in the ring, it'll show up the Democrats who support her run as the self serving people they are. I can't see anyone genuinely believing Clinton is a good choice even if they thought she had a chance against Trump, which she doesn't.

Spencerfreeman · 21-10-2019 2:31pm

Overheal wrote: »

That poll projects itself to have a 3.1% error and was taken of 1045 registered voters and it was web based. Didn’t you just **** on a poll with less error?

I shat on a poll from Fox News which was carried out mainly on mobile phones. I didn't think you would support them.
I referenced a poll from a respected source.

Danzy · 21-10-2019 2:36pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

As I posted, Clinton sounded petty and sad. She has absolutely no hope. I kinda hope she throws her hat in the ring, it'll show up the Democrats who support her run as the self serving people they are. I can't see anyone genuinely believing Clinton is a good choice even if they thought she had a chance against Trump, which she doesn't.

Part of her must think about entering the race as she watched the last debate.

The depth is not there.

I doubt she will but we might see a late entrant try get the nomination.

Spencerfreeman · 21-10-2019 2:42pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Am I correct in regards to Hillary Clinton that her ‘Vast Right Wing Conspiracy’ is out, and in is Russian assets Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein being groomed to destroy the US by running as third-party candidates? If ‘the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long’ is thinking of jumping in the race for POTUS again, she is going about it rather oddly by smearing someone one of her own. Gabbard is a fighter and giving it right back to Clinton, even though she has no chance in the primary. But I do admire Gabbard spunk although her politics are rather rubbish. John Kerry is probably thinking it's time to report for POTUS duty again with such a week Democratic field and Clinton going nuts. But he may have problems with the Logan Act recently if he is thinking of jumping into the race.

I disagree, I think Gabbard does have a growing chance.
I recommend this interview;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbXfsaJ8krw

There is a longer version that drills down more into her policies from the same source.

Overheal · 21-10-2019 2:44pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I shat on a poll from Fox News which was carried out mainly on mobile phones. I didn't think you would support them.
I referenced a poll from a respected source.

Carried out mainly on web browsers with a higher error so how is that more respected?

Spencerfreeman · 21-10-2019 2:47pm

Overheal wrote: »

Carried out mainly on web browsers with a higher error so how is that more respected?

The Economist/youGov are not more respected sources in your eyes?
Really?

Overheal · 21-10-2019 2:54pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

The Economist/youGov are not more respected sources in your eyes?
Really?

Frankly, no. And your contention wasn’t because it was a “Fox” poll, it was because the error rate was [less than the yougov poll] and because it was carried out via mobile phone whereas yougov was handled by a browser page.

Spencerfreeman · 21-10-2019 3:01pm

Overheal wrote: »

Frankly, no. And your contention wasn’t because it was a “Fox” poll, it was because the error rate was [less than the yougov poll] and because it was carried out via mobile phone whereas yougov was handled by a browser page.

My main contention was that it was a Fox News poll. Frankly.

Overheal · 21-10-2019 3:02pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

My main contention was that it was a Fox News poll. Frankly.

Don’t see a problem with it then. Now the cell phone blustering you did just looks childish.

Spencerfreeman · 21-10-2019 3:03pm

Overheal wrote: »

Don’t see a problem with it then. Now the cell phone blustering you did just looks childish.

So does your signature.

notobtuse · 21-10-2019 3:04pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I disagree, I think Gabbard does have a growing chance.
I recommend this interview;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbXfsaJ8krw

There is a longer version that drills down more into her policies from the same source.

She’s the logical choice of sane Democrats... but unfortunately the primaries are controlled by the progressive extremists and media activists. The DNC and the mainstream media have been ignoring Gabbard for months. She’s running a classy campaign, she’s civil, and she understands the detrimental impact the radical left's unmerciful attempts to overturn the 2016 election and destroy Trump will actually have on the voters. The Democratic party and their medial handmaidens can have none of that. The fact that the DNC is giving Bernie Sanders, who is not even a member of their party more love than Gabbard should tell you everything you need to know.

Overheal · 21-10-2019 3:06pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

So does your signature.

Are those still a thing? Haven’t had them on in years

Spencerfreeman · 21-10-2019 3:08pm

notobtuse wrote: »

She’s the logical choice of sane Democrats... but unfortunately the primaries are controlled by the progressive extremists and media activists. The DNC and the mainstream media have been ignoring Gabbard for months. She’s running a classy campaign, she’s civil, and she understands the detrimental impact the radical left's unmerciful attempts to overturn the 2016 election and destroy Trump will actually have on the voters. The Democratic party and their medial handmaidens can have none of that. The fact that the DNC is giving Bernie Sanders, who is not even a member of their party more love than Gabbard should tell you everything you need to know.

I don't blame them for backing Bernie, he's one of the few with an actual chance.
The GOP is as rotten, if not more so than the DNC.

Tulsi Gabbard

Comments