Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Franknbeans

Tulsi Gabbard 2020

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, squistion said:

Tulsi Gabbard appears on Hannity and criticizes the impeachment inquiry process by saying she doesn’t know what’s going on behind closed doors and that she wants transparency.

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1187544241427214336 (video clip at link)

:(

Why is a Democratic member of Congress parroting GOP talking points on Fox? 

I am surprised she didn't take time off from the campaign trail to join Matt Gaetz and friends in the takeover of the SCIF meeting the other day.

What's wrong with transparency.  BHO (The Candidate) was all for it.

Share this post


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

What's wrong with transparency.  BHO (The Candidate) was all for it.

Doing closed-door depositions is standard procedure. There will be public hearings soon.

Share this post


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

What's wrong with transparency.  BHO (The Candidate) was all for it.

Just the fact that it's a GOP talking point while she is supposedly running as a Democrat.

This would be like a Republican candidate for President talking about slashing the defense budget.

Share this post


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

Just the fact that it's a GOP talking point while she is supposedly running as a Democrat.

This would be like a Republican candidate for President talking about slashing the defense budget.

So the GOP has a monopoly on transparency now?  Well that ####### sucks.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So the GOP has a monopoly on transparency now?  Well that ####### sucks.

 

Kind of feels like you're not being genuine here...

The GOP has a monopoly on demanding transparency when they're the ones who made the current rules that the Democrats are following re: impeachment.

Put simply, they're not arguing in good faith.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2019 at 8:39 PM, Maurile Tremblay said:

And speaking of Assad using chemical weapons on people, it's well established that he did, but Gabbard is nonetheless "skeptical" about it, taking the side of Russia and Syria over that of all western intelligence agencies.

You want to quote the relevant passage from that article that supports your assertion?  I'm not sure it is saying what you think it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given how shabbily the Democrats have treated her, it won’t surprise me if she runs as an independent to snag some votes from the eventual democratic nominee and essentially give an FU to the Dems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ghost Rider said:

Given how shabbily the Democrats have treated her, it won’t surprise me if she runs as an independent to snag some votes from the eventual democratic nominee and essentially give an FU to the Dems. 

im sure all the Gary johnson votes will go her way now

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

Given how shabbily the Democrats have treated her, it won’t surprise me if she runs as an independent to snag some votes from the eventual democratic nominee and essentially give an FU to the Dems. 

Well yeah, if she wants her paycheck from Putin she's gonna have to follow orders.

Edited by Skoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

Given how shabbily the Democrats have treated her, it won’t surprise me if she runs as an independent to snag some votes from the eventual democratic nominee and essentially give an FU to the Dems. 

would be a smart career move. 

Share this post


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

What's wrong with transparency.  BHO (The Candidate) was all for it.

Hello, likely alias.

First, as others have stated, this deposition process is following the same methods and rules as established by the GOP in 2015 for the Benghazi hearings.

Now, here's the thing: the DOJ has made it very clear that they believe any wrongdoing by the President cannot be investigated or prosecuted through the legal system (there's obviously a ton of disagreement on that idea, but their stance certainly isn't going to change anytime soon).

Given that claim, that leaves Congressional investigations as the only outlet for investigating and possible punishment for wrongdoing by the President. As such, they need to conduct their investigation in specific ways - namely, closed door depositions with key witnesses. Compare it to a law enforcement agency questioning someone in a criminal investigation - they're not going to do that in public. If they did, it would be very easy for different people to coordinate their stories to hide wrongdoing. There's also the fact that, as we've all seen and has always been the case, public Congressional hearings almost always devolve into pointless soundbite garbage in 5 minute blocks of back and forth - hardly the proper format for actually figuring anything out. 

After fact finding is complete, they'll move on to public hearings. Let the process play out before crying foul.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Skoo said:

Oh look, some more whataboutism!

I don’t think it’s unfair to point out that this spook worked with terrorists.  I think people should be more weary about letting spooks who worked with Al Qaeda form their worldview.  

Also dismissing factual context as ‘whataboutism’ is honestly superweak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd really like to see Gabbard's district in Hawaii and see what's going on there. Is it like Honolulu quasi-Trumpian suburbia or something?

Share this post


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

I don’t think it’s unfair to point out that this spook worked with terrorists.  I think people should be more weary about letting spooks who worked with Al Qaeda form their worldview.  

Um, you are aware that those who work for the CIA are undercover and don't get to pick and choose their assignments? That doesn't mean, as you seem to suggest, that he has some sort of loyalty to Al Qaeda. 

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tulsi Gabbard is to 2020 what Gary Johnson was to 2016.

She will have millions of supporters that Trump voters "voted" for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, squistion said:

Um, you are aware that those who work for the CIA, are undercover and don't get to pick and choose their assignments? That doesn't mean, as you seem to suggest, that he has some sort of loyalty to Al Qaeda. 

The better question is, what business does the CIA have working with Al Qaeda?  I thought they were the bad guys?  What good could possibly come from a US agency working with them?  What does it say about McMullin and the CIA that they would work with these cretins?  

Anyway, even if McMullin weren't a neocon, I disagree with his comment.  I don't really like Tulsi and I didn't watch the 6-minute video (i clicked through it) but I don't see where she's "covering for Trump's abuses" in that thread.  And she should be trashing mainstream Democrats, they are abhorrent.  They're pro-war, pro-insurance lobby, pro-bank, pro-prison, pro-surveillance state.  All these centrist liberals seem to want is a president that can put them back to sleep again.  The Clinton wing of the party doesn't have a monopoly on who gets to be a Good Democrat.  

They need to quit crying about a 3rd party run that hasn't even happened yet and provide a more compelling vision for this country, that's how elections work.  

Share this post


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

The better question is, what business does the CIA have working with Al Qaeda?  I thought they were the bad guys?  What good could possibly come from a US agency working with them?  What does it say about McMullin and the CIA that they would work with these cretins?  

 

Part of counter-terrorism activity (hell, part of plain old police work, for that matter) is trying to get the bad guys to rat out other bad guys.

Share this post


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

The better question is, what business does the CIA have working with Al Qaeda?  I thought they were the bad guys?  What good could possibly come from a US agency working with them?  What does it say about McMullin and the CIA that they would work with these cretins?  

:mellow:

Quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_counter-terrorism_activities_of_the_CIA 

International counter-terrorism activities of the CIA

[...]

The National Clandestine Service (NCS) of the CIA can infiltrate or otherwise gain human intelligence (HUMINT) from terrorist organizations, their supporters, or from friendly foreign intelligence services.

[...]

No different than the FBI domestically working through undercover operatives to infiltrate the KKK, Neo-Nazi or White Supremacist organizations. 

Edited by squistion

Share this post


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

What's wrong with transparency.  BHO (The Candidate) was all for it.

Nothing wrong with transparency at all, however at this time the standard procedure is closed door meetings. Keep in mind that there are representatives from both parties involved in these closed-door meetings. So this isn’t a case of democrats trying to hide something from republicans. Despite what some republicans would like you to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, squistion said:

:mellow:

 

24 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Anyway, even if McMullin weren't a neocon, I disagree with his comment.  I don't really like Tulsi and I didn't watch the 6-minute video (i clicked through it) but I don't see where she's "covering for Trump's abuses" in that thread.  And she should be trashing mainstream Democrats, they are abhorrent.  They're pro-war, pro-insurance lobby, pro-bank, pro-prison, pro-surveillance state.  All these centrist liberals seem to want is a president that can put them back to sleep again.  The Clinton wing of the party doesn't have a monopoly on who gets to be a Good Democrat.  

They need to quit crying about a 3rd party run that hasn't even happened yet and provide a more compelling vision for this country, that's how elections work.  

 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Gabbard has the support of 2% of Democrats, 7% of Independents, and 26% of Republicans.

https://twitter.com/dznyc/status/1189215929613389830

She always does very well on the Drudge Report post-debate "polls" so I guess that makes sense. Maybe she'll re-style herself as a "new" Republican post-Trump?

Share this post


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

Gabbard has the support of 2% of Democrats, 7% of Independents, and 26% of Republicans.

https://twitter.com/dznyc/status/1189215929613389830

My guess is a huge chunk of those 26% of Republicans are those who want no part of Trump anymore, and since there really isn't any Republican who is showing that they will try to wrestle the GOP nomination from him next year, these people are throwing their support behind the Democrat who is getting the most favorable coverage by Fox and other conservative media outlets.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2019 at 1:00 PM, ren hoek said:

The better question is, what business does the CIA have working with Al Qaeda?  I thought they were the bad guys?  What good could possibly come from a US agency working with them?  What does it say about McMullin and the CIA that they would work with these cretins?  

Anyway, even if McMullin weren't a neocon, I disagree with his comment.  I don't really like Tulsi and I didn't watch the 6-minute video (i clicked through it) but I don't see where she's "covering for Trump's abuses" in that thread.  And she should be trashing mainstream Democrats, they are abhorrent.  They're pro-war, pro-insurance lobby, pro-bank, pro-prison, pro-surveillance state.  All these centrist liberals seem to want is a president that can put them back to sleep again.  The Clinton wing of the party doesn't have a monopoly on who gets to be a Good Democrat.  

They need to quit crying about a 3rd party run that hasn't even happened yet and provide a more compelling vision for this country, that's how elections work.  

Goes back to the Cold War. Its been awhile since I researched this so my memory is a bit cloudy. The US and CIA instead of doing stuff that would get the USSR to blame the US would have others do their bidding such as Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. To Protect the USSR from InVading the ME and the Byzantine area and such Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were supplied weapons and other things to defend against the Soviets. As per usual US standards the US then broke promises given to Bin Laden and his people. The WTC attack in the 90s and then the infamous 9/11 were blow back from those promises being broken. 

The US wanted someone to do their dirty work for them and as usually then go and bend that person backwards without giving them what they promised them. The US gets what they want one way or the other

Tulsi isn't a Russian asset. This was nothing more then something HRC and DNC concocted after losing the elections. Was there Russian interference? Per the reports yes but it was said it was never enough to ruin the election. The DNC and HRC sabotage the Primaries for HRC to win over Bernie. HRC put in a lot of Money to the DNC after for whatever reason it had big economic loses from Obama Administration a lot of what was paid back during the 16 election. Donna Brazile even admired HRC and the DNC rigged the Dam Primaries to get HRC elected. 

No sooner does HRC fail to win Presidential election within 48 hrs she's screaming Russians when its been proven documents from the DNC got leaked to Russia about Bernie and the other candidates not named HRC. What HRC and the DNC didn't realize was she was so not liked by many Dems especially younger who supported Sanders. She never gained those votes like everyone thought she would. Some like my Uncle Voted 3rd party, some to spite the DNC left or just voted Trump and others just didn't vote. Thats why she lost. Amazing how all the Candidates supported Tulsi after HRC attacked her. 

HRC The Russians did it is getting very dangerous into McCarthyism. There's also a ton of crumbs linking the Clintons and trumps together for yrs including both Bill and Donny boy going to Epsteins estate on the Lolita express. One of my HS Best Friends father worked in the Government before retiring and knew one of the top Secrete Service guys during Bill's time in Office. They still talk and as recently as Trump announcing he was being elected at events the Clintons hosted Donny Boy and his wife he was told were very present and friendly as can be. 

As for Gabbard the DNC/HRC side hate her because she is too progressive. HRC is also still unhappy since Tulsi backed Bernie in 2016 and sent her resignation as Vice Chair from the DNC after the primaries as well. HRC is just spewing a ton of bull#### to spite Tulsi. What HRC is doing to Tulsi she will start doing to Bernie soon. If AOC was running for President she'd be trying to smear her as well. It's the old we like you since you are part of our party but not enough because you aren't company yes men. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ren hoek I should also point out the US gets what they want no matter what. This is why there's blowback on us  for things we put our noses in that it doesn't belong such as the Middle East Region in general simple for the Oil and Opiod fields. 

Gabbard is right on Syria. I actually have a friend from college who has friends in Syria and like Soccer has opened my eyes to views of people in other countries on culture and politics. Assad is an enemy simple because he stopped using the American $$$$ in the Syrian Economy. He didn't use chemical weapons on his own people and many of the people I talk to don't have a lot of bad to say about the guy. This isn't to say there are some questionable things he's done and non any the less the US or it's allies have gotten away with either. The UN reported the Chemical weapons were used by Syrian rebels and propaganda images and links were sent to those helping the rebels to promote Assad being bad. The Rebels we are helping in Syria have links to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS so when Trump talks about killing Al Bashaddi (SP) it's a blanket statement. You just killed the leader of a group you were being allied with. And people in the US wonder why 9/11 happened? Exhibit 1A folks right there. Then Trump's comments we're only in Turkey to protect Oil Fields? This is the type of stuff these terror groups use to get new recruits saying the US is only in their countries to steal land and resources. Not helpful. 

Gabbard on the War Monger policies is absolutely correct. I've heard and talked to many US military personnel including friends and others who've done tours in the ME and else where. Many if they haven't been brainwashed into good little killing soldiers are asking questions more so these days than anything else. If you remember the book and HBO Mini Series Generation Me they go over this with the group the book covers with them after not finding WMD's asking why are they there and such. Today more and more vets are coming home not getting anything promised to them by the US government (Gee sound familiar?) and asking these questions. Many will fight as soldiers for their country but they refuse to now do it for political/economic agenda's for their own government. 

From people I talked to we are the real threat to the world not the terrorists. To put it in terms some people will relate better too lets go with Stars wars. We're the imperial empire and the rest of the world fighting against us are the Jedi's. Now I'm not excusing Extremists by any means here. They are bad but some of the stuff used as propaganda against them is just wrong. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DJackson10 said:

It's the old we like you since you are part of our party but not enough because you aren't company yes men. 

Buddy you are preaching to the choir here.  I am with you 100%- people will say you're unAmerican or unpatriotic or something, I see it the other way around, your perspective is informed and critical and they've got it all backwards.  To be honest it's a relief to see it here, I wish more people thought like that.  I was just trying to get @squistion to reflect on citing these CIA disinformation operatives like McMullen and Brennan that the media promotes as trustworthy and noble.  

There's this great piece written by Seymour Hersh about the Turkish ratlines in Syria, it's something everyone should read before talking out of their ### end about Assad using chemical weapons on his own people.  It made zero sense from a military strategy standpoint, and it made zero sense in light of them agreeing to let the UN/Russia handle chemical weapon disarmament after the 'red line' scare. 

They should also read this great piece by RFK Jr. about the real history of the US and the middle east, and how the US govt and its corporate partners have turned their world upside down, not for freedom and democracy, but for money and power.  I was looking for a video of Mossadeq the other day, the would-be Democratic leader of Iran who believed in our claimed American values.  I'd never heard him speak before- I still haven't.  We overthrew him in 1953, and changed the world forever.  But this comment on that video really affected me:

Friendly sky6 months ago

I remember all my life the blatant propaganda slurs of narration. The security council agreed with the elected prime minister of Iran that the Anglo-Iran Oil Co should share half of Iran's oil with Iran. Jebb the double talking liar of the evil rich represented Satan. Only everything was enough for them. Truman refused to overthrow him. Eisenhower sadly listened to Dulles' lies of Soviet commie red scare fear mongering. The CIA sent Kermit with cash for a coup de etat in 53. So ended a great nation... Ours.

What's interesting about that video, aside from the fact that it totally distorts everything about Iran/the West and doesn't translate a word of Mossadeq's, is that Movietone was ultimately part of the Fox News bubble.  Corporate media has always worked like that.  It's been the same game, rinse and repeat, over and over again, forever.  

Last couple things about chemical weapons, there was this leaked OPCW report that was withheld from the OPCW's final report on the Douma attacks which undermined the official story, and now there's multiple OPCW whistleblowers saying their views have been suppressed (Jonathan Steele speaks in linked audio around 10:50). 

The reality is that a lot of this was propaganda led by the western-backed rebel side to give the West a precursor to bomb Damascus.  Notice the hurry they were in to bomb Syria before the dust settled, before the evidence could be independently analyzed.  Notice how they speak of Assad as a war criminal, a term they will never use for American war criminals or our Saudi/Israeli partners.  Notice that Syria is one of the last secular countries in the middle east, yet the jihadists attempting to install an Islamic caliphate are painted as the moderate ones.  This hypocrisy reveals them to be disingenuous frauds with no sense of ethics or morality, and they're running the show.  

Edited by ren hoek
  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


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

Buddy you are preaching to the choir here.  I am with you 100%- people will say you're unAmerican or unpatriotic or something, I see it the other way around, your perspective is informed and critical and they've got it all backwards.  To be honest it's a relief to see it here, I wish more people thought like that.  I was just trying to get @squistion to reflect on citing these CIA disinformation operatives like McMullen and Brennan that the media promotes as trustworthy and noble.  

There's this great piece written by Seymour Hersh about the Turkish ratlines in Syria, it's something everyone should read before talking out of their ### end about Assad using chemical weapons on his own people.  It made zero sense from a military strategy standpoint, and it made zero sense in light of them agreeing to let the UN/Russia handle chemical weapon disarmament after the 'red line' scare. 

They should also read this great piece by RFK Jr. about the real history of the US and the middle east, and how the US govt and its corporate partners have turned their world upside down, not for freedom and democracy, but for money and power.  I was looking for a video of Mossadeq the other day, the would-be Democratic leader of Iran who believed in our claimed American values.  I'd never heard him speak before- I still haven't.  We overthrew him in 1953, and changed the world forever.  But this comment on that video really affected me:

Friendly sky6 months ago

I remember all my life the blatant propaganda slurs of narration. The security council agreed with the elected prime minister of Iran that the Anglo-Iran Oil Co should share half of Iran's oil with Iran. Jebb the double talking liar of the evil rich represented Satan. Only everything was enough for them. Truman refused to overthrow him. Eisenhower sadly listened to Dulles' lies of Soviet commie red scare fear mongering. The CIA sent Kermit with cash for a coup de etat in 53. So ended a great nation... Ours.

What's interesting about that video, aside from the fact that it totally distorts everything about Iran/the West and doesn't translate a word of Mossadeq's, is that Movietone was ultimately part of the Fox News bubble.  Corporate media has always worked like that.  It's been the same game, rinse and repeat, over and over again, forever.  

Last couple things about chemical weapons, there was this leaked OPCW report that was withheld from the OPCW's final report on the Douma attacks which undermined the official story, and now there's multiple OPCW whistleblowers saying their views have been suppressed (Jonathan Steele speaks in linked audio around 10:50). 

The reality is that a lot of this was propaganda led by the western-backed rebel side to give the West a precursor to bomb Damascus.  Notice the hurry they were in to bomb Syria before the dust settled, before the evidence could be independently analyzed.  Notice how they speak of Assad as a war criminal, a term they will never use for American war criminals or our Saudi/Israeli partners.  Notice that Syria is one of the last secular countries in the middle east, yet the jihadists attempting to install an Islamic caliphate are painted as the moderate ones.  This hypocrisy reveals them to be disingenuous frauds with no sense of ethics or morality, and they're running the show.  

Yeah I wasn't going in this thread reading every post so I wasn't sure what was going on. I saw your post and it was a simple hey I've studied middle eastern history and I also took a class called Global Affairs in College. Funny thing Is this class had zero biased towards it. We had no cut and paste book to read up on the issues the school wanted us to learn. I had a military vet in the class, a conspiracist in the class, another guy who at the time thought was crazy but in reality today I agree with and my Professor was one of the best I ever had. He completely let us take what ever turn for the class we wanted it too. We did follow curriculum guidelines and had to map out the Middle East by Countries and stuff and so fourth. But that and my History of Islam class were pretty big. My World religion class as well just showed what bull#### the religions are. It's essentially the same story with the prophet named differently and different outcomes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard‏ @TulsiPress 1h1 hour ago

Yesterday, I introduced H.Res.662, a resolution that calls on the Federal Government to declassify and release information regarding the September 11, 2001 attacks in order to ensure a full public understanding of what happened and who was involved.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now only one poll away from qualifying for the November debate. All thanks to those dastardly Russians no doubt.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Murph said:

Now only one poll away from qualifying for the November debate. All thanks to those dastardly Russians no doubt.

Nate has a theory on that:

Nate Silver@NateSilver538 ·42m

Another wrinkle to this: There are, in every Democratic primary, some voters (5-10% of the electorate?) who hate Democrats, since indies and R's can vote in many primaries, plus some nominal D's who always vote R now but never changed their registration.

I do NOT mean anti-establishment liberals. I mean people, usually conservative, who would never vote for a D presidential nominee in a million years. Before, their votes were distributed among several different candidates. Now, they're all with Tulsi, the anti-Democrat Democrat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe her anti war message resonates with many people.  Along with her measured response to impeachment.  And let’s face it, When places like MSNBC are against you, it’s kind of a tell that you represent something better than the status quo of the democrat party.  She will continue to rise in the polls, IMO. Hillary did her an enormous solid.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Murph said:

Now only one poll away from qualifying for the November debate. All thanks to those dastardly Russians no doubt.

Passed Harris as well 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

Nate has a theory on that:

Nate Silver@NateSilver538 ·42m

Another wrinkle to this: There are, in every Democratic primary, some voters (5-10% of the electorate?) who hate Democrats, since indies and R's can vote in many primaries, plus some nominal D's who always vote R now but never changed their registration.

I do NOT mean anti-establishment liberals. I mean people, usually conservative, who would never vote for a D presidential nominee in a million years. Before, their votes were distributed among several different candidates. Now, they're all with Tulsi, the anti-Democrat Democrat.

Given the choice I would take Tulsi over Warren.

Share this post


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

Same, they're 2nd and 3rd to Bernie for me

Would take Tulsi over Bernie as well.  I am more of a moderate Dem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, she voted in favor of the impeachment resolution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

For the record, she voted in favor of the impeachment resolution. 

No, she didn't. She's in the Senate and Senators don't vote on House resolutions.

(All the more remarkable that Ann Coulter has made like a half dozen tweets since that and has not acknowledged that fact.)

  • Laughing 3

Share this post


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

No, she didn't. She's in the Senate and Senators don't vote on House resolutions.

(All the more remarkable that Ann Coulter has made like a half dozen tweets since that and has not acknowledged that fact.)

From the Twitters: :lol:

I really think everyone is glossing over the best part of this, which is that Ann Coulter quote tweeted someone named Cat Turd.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 1:48 PM, Don Quixote said:

No, she didn't. She's in the Senate and Senators don't vote on House resolutions.

(All the more remarkable that Ann Coulter has made like a half dozen tweets since that and has not acknowledged that fact.)

Would you expect anything less from her. The misinformation on both sides regarding Tulsi is absolute garbage. I honestly think Trump's defense of Tulsi not being a Russian spy isn't him defending her it'a trying to create more division in the Dem Party as he knows she's the only real threat to his reelection. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 9:05 AM, Summer Wheat said:

Given the choice I would take Tulsi over Warren.

I liked Warren at first but I recently saw a post on about 20 reasons why you should Vote for Tulsi Gabbard and I literally agreed with all 20 issues she believes in. Thats rare for me. I voted Obama but there were definitely issues he stood for I thought differently on. Bernie I think was 10 reasons and I think I was only able to agree on 5 of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dschuler said:

I think Tulsi would swing lots of independents and Republicans 

Which is why the BS excuse given to Hillary that she was saying "republicans" were grooming her make no sense.  She'd pull more votes from Trump than whoever the dems run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard pass for me:

Quote

 

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) wants Americans to believe that their government has concealed the truth about the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The 2020 Democratic presidential contender sent out a campaign email Tuesday that hinted at a conspiracy at the highest levels of the U.S. government to stop the public from fully knowing the role that longtime U.S. partner Saudi Arabia played in the attacks.

 

 

Share this post


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

She's on the House Committee on Armed Services, I'm willing to hear her out

On conspiracy theories about an event that happened 20 years ago?  Ok.

Share this post


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

On conspiracy theories about an event that happened 20 years ago?  Ok.

She's in the room... if she actually has something I'm ok hearing it

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.