Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Franknbeans

Tulsi Gabbard 2020

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, OrtonToOlsen said:

I think you and I have a different definition of "powerful".  

adjective

having great power or strength.

 

Gabbard spoke out against Hillary directly and called her what she is. Who else has done that within the Democratic party? That's power and strength. Hillary wishes she'd never uttered those words now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Koya said:

Perhaps the issue is your choice of term “crazy”

None of those views are crazy.

Small minded, hateful, discriminatory and with a lack of humanity and compete lack of acceptance of another human being? Sure.  If ill will and a cold heart? Yeah that too.

sadly though, hardly crazy. 

I would consider the ability to hold two diametrically opposed ideas in one's head and simultaneously believe both as mildly crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

If Gabbard is being targeted by Hillary for her 2016 support of Bernie, why isn’t Hillary actually going after Bernie himself?  

Because everything is a conspiracy now.  1+1=2 has become 1+8-9+3+15-13-3=2 and that's not including the question about whether 2 even equals 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess he would know.

Hawaii News Now

@HawaiiNewsNow

Trump defends Gabbard in Clinton spat, says ‘she’s not a Russian agent’ http://bit.ly/2N0dOJn #HNN

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I would consider the ability to hold two diametrically opposed ideas in one's head and simultaneously believe both as mildly crazy.

So again, being personally against abortion, perhaps to the point of thinking it evil, while also recognizing a woman’s personal right to choose is crazy?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, unckeyherb said:

So again, being personally against abortion, perhaps to the point of thinking it evil, while also recognizing a woman’s personal right to choose is crazy?  

Being against it? No.  Believing it's evil? I guess that depends on your definition, but potentially, yes.  I've discussed evil on this board before, I think even in this context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you legitimately think something is murder, you absolutely should believe it should be illegal.  Otherwise what the heck do we have laws for?

disagree with people who think abortion is murder and want it to be illegal.  I do so on the basis of facts and scientific definitions.  I believe such people are ill informed.  If you believe it's the murder of babies and it should be legal, that's at least mildly crazy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is such a bizarre story that should never have popped up to the national media.

Gabbard - like her or don't like her - she is not a factor in the Dem primary.  She could shoot Clinton on 5th Avenue, and would still be a non-factor in the Dem primary.

 

Whether or not Russia bots are amplifying her message - it is not going to resonate with most Dem voters, and it will not prevent most Dem voters from supporting the eventual nominee.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

I haven't done much any research on Tulsi so I don't have an opinion, but saw this on reddit today. Sorry if already posted: https://i.redd.it/9linfab4spt31.jpg

Can't imagine why I have such an issue trusting her and get this queasy feeling that something's amiss with her.  Hmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Henry Ford said:

I would consider the ability to hold two diametrically opposed ideas in one's head and simultaneously believe both as mildly crazy.

So as a lawyer, do you only represent clients with values and beliefs that are the same as your own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Navin Johnson said:

So as a lawyer, do you only represent clients with values and beliefs that are the same as your own?

No, nor is that necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tulsi Gabbard discussed her beliefs.  Not those of her constituents.  Hers.  That her views have not changed and also that she does not believe gay marriage should be illegal because of her epiphany during her time serving her country.  

If she had said I still believe that homosexuality is what the organizations I used to fight for think it is and also that my constituents have different views and I vowed to fight for what they want that would be a different conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Navin Johnson said:

Seems crazy that you can suspend your biases to do your job.

Does it?  That seems like a different set of criteria than what I just spoke of, but I'm open to your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quotes below show me someone that HAS changed her views on this.  Her previous views-when she was an impressionable 20 year-old-are not who she is now.  It’s not how she’s voted and it’s not what she’s said.

 

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard apologized Thursday for "wrong" and "hurtful" statements she made years ago touting her work for an anti-gay group, saying in a series of posts to Twitter that "my views have changed significantly since then."

"I grew up knowing that every person is a child of God, and equally loved by God. I have always believed in the fundamental rights and equality of all people," Gabbard wrote in a flurry of posts that was also accompanied by a video apology. "But I also grew up in a socially conservative household, where I was raised to believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. For a period of my life I didn’t see the contradiction in those beliefs."

"While many Americans may relate to growing up in a conservative home, my story is a little different because my father was very outspoken. He was an activist who was fighting against gay rights and marriage equality in Hawaii – and at that time, I forcefully defended him," she wrote on Twitter Thursday afternoon. "But over the years, I formed my own opinions based on my life experience that changed my views – at a personal level in having aloha, love, for all people, and ensuring that every American, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, is treated equally under the law."

Tulsi Gabbard said she has since changed her views and has repeatedly voted in Congress to protect gay rights. She is a member of the House LGBT Equality Caucus, and gay rights group the Human Rights Campaign gave her a score of 100 for her voting record.

The lawmaker previously apologized for her comments about LGBT issues in 2012 when she was first elected to Congress. But with a 2020 run increasing scrutiny on her past, she renewed her apology on Thursday.

"I know that LGBTQ+ people still struggle, are still facing discrimination, are still facing abuse and still fear that their hard-won rights are going to be taken away by people who hold views like I used to," the Hawaii Democrat wrote online. "I regret the role I played in causing such pain, and I remain committed to fighting for LGBTQ+ equality."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not crazy: bombing Libya, overthrowing Syria, torching Yemen, vacant McCarthyite smearjobs, idolizing Henry Kissinger... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OrtonToOlsen said:

You people with your phony murder laws.

 Sorry, but the murder analogy is an illogical one. Murder or the legality of it, has never been in question. However, the legality of gay marriage was something that was not accepted by even the highest level politicians in the Democratic Party at the time where she (Tulsi) held the same views. Obama, Clinton, and a good swath of the rest of the Democratic Party still had not embraced gay marriage as a platform they’d be willing to champion or support after the point in time where she was against it. Context matters, especially with regards to this.  She, like our former president, has evolved on this issue.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, squistion said:

Fox & Friends promotes Tulsi Gabbard:

"She's been an absolute standout during this whole election campaign"

"This helps her because she's not part of the establishment"

"We don't really know what happens behind the scenes, and it looks like she's pulling back the curtain"

https://twitter.com/revrrlewis/status/1186261021348028416 (video clip at link)

You do realize that she has an actual track record of voting, yes?  Her voting record score is almost exactly the same as Nancy Pelosi.  Is Nancy a Russian asset, right wing plant, as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

She could shoot Clinton on 5th Avenue, and would still be a non-factor in the Dem primary.

Oh, I think that might raise her profile a bit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

 Sorry, but the murder analogy is an illogical one. Murder or the legality of it, has never been in question. However, the legality of gay marriage was something that was not accepted by even the highest level politicians in the Democratic Party at the time where she (Tulsi) held the same views. Obama, Clinton, and a good swath of the rest of the Democratic Party still had not embraced gay marriage as a platform they’d be willing to champion or support after the point in time where she was against it. Context matters, especially with regards to this.  She, like our former president, has evolved on this issue.  

Trump Dismisses Doral Criticism: ‘You People With This Phony Emoluments Clause’

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-dismisses-doral-criticism-you-people-with-this-phony-emoluments-clause

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since so may Republicans seem to like her maybe she should run against Trump in the primary's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

If Gabbard is being targeted by Hillary for her 2016 support of Bernie, why isn’t Hillary actually going after Bernie himself?  

Bernie will be smeared this way too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

If Gabbard is being targeted by Hillary for her 2016 support of Bernie, why isn’t Hillary actually going after Bernie himself? 

Tulsi is a much easier target, which actually proves how much of a coward Hillary is. Bernie has far fewer and less solid connections to Russia than Tulsi and has a smaller and less rabid support base, with fewer consequences for calling her out. She knows this. Of course, there are many other reasons as well. In the middle of another Red Scare here in America, those kinds of connections or riding the fence on the Russia issue are all that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

Ok.  What does this have to do with this thread?

It was a joke.  Trump says “you people and your phony emoluments clause”.

 

i figured I’d give that approach a shot with other laws etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ShamrockPride said:

Bernie has far fewer and less solid connections to Russia than Tulsi and has a smaller and less rabid support base, with fewer consequences for calling her out

I don't think Bernie has a smaller support base than Gabbard, but aren't the first dozen words of what I've quoted kind of the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

“Tulsi Gabbard is being used by the Russians, and to a former U.S. double agent, the evidence is clear | Opinion”

This article, from a spook who thinks Assange should be prosecuted for publishing classified information, contains nothing indicating Gabbard is “being used by the Russians.”  There is literally no evidence in the entire article.  None. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

“Tulsi Gabbard is being used by the Russians, and to a former U.S. double agent, the evidence is clear | Opinion”

This article, from a spook who thinks Assange should be prosecuted for publishing classified information, contains nothing indicating Gabbard is “being used by the Russians.”  There is literally no evidence in the entire article.  None. 

A smear without evidence punching to the left?  Color me shocked 🙀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has the military opened an investigation on her yet? Because this is literally treason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, KiddLattimer said:

A smear without evidence punching to the left?  Color me shocked 🙀

Will the pundits and failed political elites who made this vacant, McCarthyite smear tactic possible apologize for normalizing this new climate?  No.  Will people who indulged the TrumpRussia fantasies, falling in love with the security state and its Cold War narrative, casually sliming people who disagreed with them as 'useful idiots' and 'traitors' admit how foolish and dangerous it was?   No.  Will they confess that this delusional conspiracy theorizing wasn't brought on by the MAGA Trumpguys they love to bash, but by wealthy, educated liberals that were supposed to be a lot smarter than that?  No!  

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

“Tulsi Gabbard is being used by the Russians, and to a former U.S. double agent, the evidence is clear | Opinion”

This article, from a spook who thinks Assange should be prosecuted for publishing classified information, contains nothing indicating Gabbard is “being used by the Russians.”  There is literally no evidence in the entire article.  None. 

Right.  The entire argument in that article is that Russia may decide to "amplify" the message of a candidate and that is something we as a nation should be wary of.  The same could be said of anyone running.  They could choose to "amplify" Bernie's message.  They could choose to amplify numerous candidate's messages.  That does not mean anything about the candidate.  That they use Tulsi as the example is reckless as it implies to the casual observer that, again, there is coordination where there actually isn't.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually sounds like the coordination is coming from the Democratic-driven media complex, who are now merely positing (not asserting! Oh my!) that she might be beneficial to Russian interests.

Talk about whose hand is shaking whose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, unckeyherb said:

Right.  The entire argument in that article is that Russia may decide to "amplify" the message of a candidate and that is something we as a nation should be wary of.  The same could be said of anyone running.  They could choose to "amplify" Bernie's message.  They could choose to amplify numerous candidate's messages.  That does not mean anything about the candidate.  That they use Tulsi as the example is reckless as it implies to the casual observer that, again, there is coordination where there actually isn't.  

It's almost like it's an arbitrary smear tactic that can be used to stigmatize any dissenting opinion.  I wonder what Tulsi has to do to avoid the appearances of being "used" by "the Russians."  Should she become pro-war, and support the overthrow of Assad?  Or would that make her an ISIS asset?  🤔

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the people who are saying that Gabbard is spouting Russian talking points are not doing so without evidence.

The reason people are saying that Gabbard has a weird thing going on with Russia and Assad, and are not saying the same thing about Buttigieg or Biden, is not because they rolled some dice which randomly landed on "Gabbard." The reason people are saying that Jill Stein had a weird thing going on with Russia, and are not saying the same about Harris or Warren, is not because they flipped some coins.

It's because of what Gabbard and Stein have said and done, which other candidates (besides Trump) have not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Max Blumenthal @MaxBlumenthal

Naveed Jamali, author of a slanderous, evidence-free smear of Tulsi Gabbard, falsely identifies as an ex-“FBI double agent.” I perused his (ghostwritten) book and it’s clear he was at best a dangle. He was never an agent & only got this little league certificate for his bit part.

🤣🤣🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

It's almost like it's an arbitrary smear tactic that can be used to stigmatize any dissenting opinion.  I wonder what Tulsi has to do to avoid the appearances of being "used" by "the Russians."  Should she become pro-war, and support the overthrow of Assad?  Or would that make her an ISIS asset?  🤔

Stealing a line from Secular Talk but - the Russians are against nuclear war with America, so if she also opposes nuclear war then I guess she's an agent of Putin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, KiddLattimer said:

Stealing a line from Secular Talk but - the Russians are against nuclear war with America, so if she also opposes nuclear war then I guess she's an agent of Putin!

If she says "I'm against nuclear war," that would be fine. If she says "I'm against nuclear war even though the West violated its pledge to the USSR not to expand NATO," that would be a lot less fine.

That's a major difference between Gabbard and Sanders. They both generally favor less foreign intervention. (Fine.) Only one does so in language borrowed from Russia Today. (Less fine.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.