Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Franknbeans

Tulsi Gabbard 2020

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

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

It was the most tragic event in how many decades and how many of the high-jackers were from SA?  Almost all of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

Hard pass for me:

 

This isn't like the people saying that it didnt happen or the US was involved in 9/11.

This is regarding a 2012 report that some believe proved certain saudi officials were involved or at least knew about it

2012 report by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) said the agency was investigating Fahad al-Thumairy and Omar Ahmed al-Bayoumi, Saudi nationals who had allegedly helped the attackers.

There is a third redacted name that many believe is somebody higher up. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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

what if its not a conspiracy theory?  And its not just an event that happened 20 years ago.  It shaped our foreign policy for those last 20 years.  Its dumbfounding to me that anyone wouldn't want the most information about 9.11

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see the import of playing the "What If" game for something that happened 2 decades in our past when our current situation here is really boinked up.  We have people still screaming over what the Clinton administration did, now we have Gabbard clamoring for a review of the Bush administration all while the rest of the country is up in arms over what the Trump administration did or is doing.  So by all means, let's allocate more resources, time and money into examining the past because by golly, everything is peachy keen currently.

I just can't get behind this.  Sorry.

Share this post


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

It was the most tragic event in how many decades and how many of the high-jackers were from SA?  Almost all of them?

And?  What are we looking to do here?  What's the end-game?  Go to war with Saudi Arabia?  Stop giving them money?  Stop taking their money?  Punish them and punish them how?  Make the victims of 9/11 relive the experience through a different prism?  Not bad enough that they lost loved ones or nearly died themselves, now we get to expose the truth and inform them that their government wasn't on their side, wasn't honest, wasn't forthright so give them a new trauma to deal with?  

Like I said, I think this sort of email is pointless:
 

Quote

“We deserve all the information on 9/11,” read the subject line. In a video linked to in the email and posted on Gabbard’s website alongside a petition asking President Donald Trump to declassify “all information related to 9/11,” Gabbard wrote: “The American people still don’t have access to the truth about Saudi Arabia and who helped Al Qaeda carry out these deadly attacks … It is absolutely unacceptable that our government’s investigation into Saudi ties has been kept from these 9/11 families and from the American people.”

Ah yes, Donald Trump, the same guy who won't release his tax returns, won't cooperate with anybody on anything, listens to nobody and fires people like it's a bodily function is just going to listen to Gabbard and declassify all the information related to 9/11.  Why waste the key strokes.  I don't fault her for wanting to get to the bottom of 9/11 if there is a bottom to get to; I fault her for being so dense that she thinks this sitting president will even entertain her request, let alone listen to her.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 9/11 commission was “set up to fail.”  Then-Director Mueller concealed the FBI’s relationship with an informant that knew two of the hijackers, at the behest of the White House.  The Saudi govt appeared to threaten Canada with a 9/11-style attack.  And Bush/Cheney were by all appearances mortified of a serious investigation into the attacks.  It doesn’t take a tinfoil hat to think there was something seriously wrong with all of that.  

I’m surprised Gabbard went there but I’d welcome any kind of daylight into this critical moment in history. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, rustycolts said:

To be fair, Joy Behar is a complete moron; just about anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence could school her. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

To be fair, Joy Behar is a complete moron; just about anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence could school her. 

I wanted to say something like that but I have never been suspended and with all the new rules and all just thought I would leave it out.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, General Malaise said:

And?  What are we looking to do here?  What's the end-game?  Go to war with Saudi Arabia?  Stop giving them money?  Stop taking their money?  Punish them and punish them how?  Make the victims of 9/11 relive the experience through a different prism?  Not bad enough that they lost loved ones or nearly died themselves, now we get to expose the truth and inform them that their government wasn't on their side, wasn't honest, wasn't forthright so give them a new trauma to deal with?  

uh, yeah. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

uh, yeah. 

And how do you expect to do that?  She's recommending Trump declassify the docs.  That's her strategy.  It's mind bogglingly stupid of her to think that's a possibility.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still wild to me that Democrats will look for any excuse to avoid/dismiss the only vocally antiwar candidate in the race.  I get there’s some flaws with Gabbard but crikes, I don’t see anyone else talk about it hardly at all.    

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

And how do you expect to do that?  She's recommending Trump declassify the docs.  That's her strategy.  It's mind bogglingly stupid of her to think that's a possibility.  

Yeah, the truth is for suckers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2019 at 12:46 PM, KiddLattimer said:

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

Why hasn’t she shared specifics yet, if she knows so much?

Share this post


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

Still wild to me that Democrats will look for any excuse to avoid/dismiss the only vocally antiwar candidate in the race.  I get there’s some flaws with Gabbard but crikes, I don’t see anyone else talk about it hardly at all.    

Tell me, who are the pro war Democrat candidates?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Alex P Keaton said:

Why hasn’t she shared specifics yet, if she knows so much?

It's possible she can't share specifics if they're classified.  On Rogan, Snowden talked about a couple of senators who knew about the spying program but couldn't discuss publicly so they "lassie barked" as he called it to get people to look into it.  Maybe she's doing the same.  

Of course I'm speculating but if she actually has something I'm willing to hear it.  If she's quoting Alex Jones (doubtful) then forget it. 

Edited by KiddLattimer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cap'n grunge said:

Tell me, who are the pro war Democrat candidates?

As far as I can gather, all of them are.  Even Tulsi and Bernie are a little too warlike for me.  Bernie has endorsed every Democrat for President since 1996, which means he endorses all the wars and killing that they did.  

Still, at least Tulsi talks about it in a serious way.  Like I said I just think it's funny how people look for any excuse to write her off.  

Share this post


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

Like I said I just think it's funny how people look for any excuse to write her off.  

:shrug:

She is polling in the low single digits.  Thats why people write her off...

Share this post


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

As far as I can gather, all of them are.  Even Tulsi and Bernie are a little too warlike for me.  Bernie has endorsed every Democrat for President since 1996, which means he endorses all the wars and killing that they did.  

Still, at least Tulsi talks about it in a serious way.  Like I said I just think it's funny how people look for any excuse to write her off.  

Seriously? I don't see any of the Dems as Hawks. At all. 

Share this post


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

:shrug:

She is polling in the low single digits.  Thats why people write her off...

I'm not talking about poll numbers.  I mean one sleazy msm narrative after another that falls apart upon basic scrutiny.  Assad apologist, russian bots like her, David Duke likes her, Richard Spencer likes her, she's barely even a Democrat, Hillary said she's a russian asset, on and on and on.  None of this started in earnest until she renounced her role in the DNC after they cheated in the 2016 primary, and backed Sanders in 2016.  It's the most cynical, pathetic, transparently partisan garbage I've seen in recent memory.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cap'n grunge said:

Seriously? I don't see any of the Dems as Hawks. At all. 

Would you think it was hawkish if people died from sanctions regimes that the US enforces on Venezuela, Iran, Syria etc., and Democrats supported that?  Or if they took political donations from defense contractors that made money off the Saudis blowing up schoolbuses in Yemen?  Would either of those things register as hawkish at all?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, cap'n grunge said:

Seriously? I don't see any of the Dems as Hawks. At all. 

They don't flaunt it but many of them are

If you go to this Wiki page and scroll down to "politicians" theres a list of them.  The little numbers have links as to why they're so hawkish

Share this post


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

Would you think it was hawkish if people died from sanctions regimes that the US enforces on Venezuela, Iran, Syria etc., and Democrats supported that?  Or if they took political donations from defense contractors that made money off the Saudis blowing up schoolbuses in Yemen?  Would either of those things register as hawkish at all?  

I would need more information, but I guess my definition of a hawk would be someone who believes in aggressive regime change and saber rattling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cap'n grunge said:

I would need more information, but I guess my definition of a hawk would be someone who believes in aggressive regime change and saber rattling.

The person I was thinking of was Adam Schiff.  He once held a fundraiser cosponsored by Raytheon at a Beyonce concert, a manufacturer that helped the Saudi Kingdom commit war crimes in Yemen.  He goes on MSNBC to tell us how crazy and bloodthirsty Donald Trump is while voting to give him $717 billion military budgets the president can unilaterally control at will.  He immediately blamed Iran for the oil tanker attacks and called for an international 'response.'

But there are many more like him.  

Share this post


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

Yeah, the truth is for suckers.

We live under a president and with half of a nation that believes the news being reported on a daily basis is fake.  And you think Gabbart is gonna expose the truth on 9/11 by asking Mr. Fake News to open his kimono to the world?  Glllllllllllll

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2019 at 12:55 AM, General Malaise said:

We live under a president and with half of a nation that believes the news being reported on a daily basis is fake.  And you think Gabbart is gonna expose the truth on 9/11 by asking Mr. Fake News to open his kimono to the world?  Glllllllllllll

 

You don't care about the truth, fine.  You do you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2019 at 9:35 AM, Navin Johnson said:

You don't care about the truth, fine.  You do you.

And you do?  You have some sort of ability I don't to be the arbiter of what is true and what isn't?  

What I find off-putting is that she's suggesting she knows while we don't.  Okay, what is it then?  If this 'truth' is so important, then spill it?  What's worse is her playbook consists of asking Trump to declassify information.  What a brilliant idea!  Sorry, I just can't get behind a person who thinks that's a suitable play call here.  

Throw your vote away.  I don't care.

Share this post


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

The most obvious one is her saying that the U.S. Troops in Syria -- the ones who were battling ISIS in cooperation with the Kurds, the ones who were just withdrawn -- were there for a "regime change war." "Regime change" itself is a very old phrase. "Democratic regime change" was part of the Bush Worldview Doctrine. But the phrase "regime change war" ... if you google for it now, you'll get a zillion hits about Tulsi Gabbard. If you googled for it before she started using it, you'd get hits mainly at anti-U.S. sites like Russia Today (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...). It's a special phrase made in favor of a false claim. Syria has been in a civil war since 2011, and during part of that time, the U.S. was actively backing anti-Assad forces, supplying them with training and weapons. The U.S. position was that the Syrians should be able to elect their own leader instead of having a murderous dictator rule them against their wishes. We therefore opposed Assad. But our own troops did not attack Assad -- alongside the Kurds, our troops were there to fight ISIS, not Assad. (The Kurds did most of the heavy lifting.)

Speaking of those anti-Assad rebels, they're a sympathetic group. Assad used chemical weapons on them -- civilians. Gabbard portrayed them as terrorists. "There is no difference between ‘moderate’ rebels and al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) or ISIS—they are all the same,” Gabbard told Jake Tapper. That's another point drawn directly from Russian and Syrian propaganda.

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.

https://www.newsweek.com/now-mattis-admits-there-was-no-evidence-assad-using-poison-gas-his-people-801542?fbclid=IwAR3PTD9eWh8m71FLcK7vRUM3_tOyT9n47pDCyjIl_Usx8cFQvJliXNQ9L-I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2019 at 5:31 PM, ren hoek said:

As far as I can gather, all of them are.  Even Tulsi and Bernie are a little too warlike for me.  Bernie has endorsed every Democrat for President since 1996, which means he endorses all the wars and killing that they did.  

Still, at least Tulsi talks about it in a serious way.  Like I said I just think it's funny how people look for any excuse to write her off.  

I’m shocked — shocked! — that you would be in favor of a person who’s presence in the presidential race would help Putin. 

Share this post


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

I’m shocked — shocked! — that you would be in favor of a person who’s presence in the presidential race would help Putin. 

Didn't know that an individual choosing to participate in a democratic primary somehow helps Putin.  Good to know.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2019 at 9:41 AM, ren hoek said:

Hate to bring up news articles about pantsuits, but this is a pretty staggering display of bias: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1197689154060115968?s=20

Not surprising look at the back drop Tulsi and Yang and Bernie got to the other candidates. It was all red or mostly red where the rest had the blue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2019 at 7:22 AM, Franknbeans said:

Mar Zuckerberg gave Mayor Pete 2 of his former ad guys to help Petes campaign. Thats pretty newsworthy for numerous reasons but mainstream media won't report on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, rustycolts said:

Here is a real interesting article about Tulsi and the top Dems in the race.  It is from The American Spectator so I am sure it will be poo pooed by the majority here.  I thought it made a lot of sense though.

https://spectator.org/tulsi-gabbard-canary-in-the-democratic-coal-mine/

There was nothing wrong with that article.  The writer cited polls to back his claims. 

Bums me out to read that only 80% of people oppose day-before-birth abortions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Max Power said:

There was nothing wrong with that article.  The writer cited polls to back his claims. 

Bums me out to read that only 80% of people oppose day-before-birth abortions.

Unfortunately I think the majority of the top runners for the nomination are in that 20% that feel 3rd trimester abortions are ok.

Edited by rustycolts

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.