Hit the road Tulsi, and don't you come back, no more, no more, no more, no more

jamie said:

This just out - Gabbard is vulnerable to a primary challenger in her house district.  May be the reason she's trying to get in on a different race:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2020-democrat-tulsi-gabbard-vulnerable-to-primary-challenge-in-her-house-district-poll-shows

I can understand not having the time or inclination to delve too deeply into the methods and background of Public Policy Polling, which is one reason I choose media sources I trust to consider some of those questions for me. What made you choose The Washington Examiner?


With so much interest in the lady from Navatek, I thought this thread would get more traffic. Looks like the buzz for Gabbard on MOL is fading. Not even a video!



Klinker said:

With so much interest in the lady from Navatek, I thought this thread would get more traffic. Looks like the buzz for Gabbard on MOL is fading. Not even a video!

 Don't despair.  As they say in Hawai'i, "Ka ikaika i ke ki, e kuu pokii, la ola" (""Pull hard at the ki root my boys, you'll get it at last").

Tulsi Gabbard’s return sets stage for debate fireworks

Democrats are bracing for Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to blow up the next Democratic presidential debate.
...
And with Gabbard and others looking to break open a campaign that has been largely static behind the front-runners, Democrats in other campaigns are buzzing over who the iconoclastic Hawaii congresswoman could target next. Gabbard’s non-interventionist foreign policy platform could mean trouble for Joe Biden. She recently questioned Elizabeth Warren’s national security experience.

She could even decide to put the whole Democratic presidential field on blast for politicizing the impeachment process, after tweeting recently that candidates fundraising off the inquiry were “undermining credibility” of House Democrats’ probes of President Donald Trump.

Woo-Hoo!  Watch party at Paul's house.


I'm glad she'll be back in the debate mix. She adds some variety, and I would like to see as many women candidates as possible actually reach the primary stage.

I also think they should put the lowest polling candidates in the middle of the stage instead of the other way around. Stir the pot, don't physically marginalize those on the bubble.


jimmurphy said:

“She seems very Trumpian.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

 We always knew she had three supporters. Now we know who they are. 


Klinker said:

jimmurphy said:

“She seems very Trumpian.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

 We always knew she had three supporters. Now we know who they are. 

 Here's the antidote to this toxic NYT hit piece:


paulsurovell said:

 Here's the antidote to this toxic NYT hit piece:

 Why would the NYT bother to write a hit piece about Gabbard?  Don't you have to be relevant to get a hit piece?

I mean, Gorpo the Clown is "running" for President but you don't see the Times writing hit pieces on him. According to the latest polling, he's only 2 percentage points behind Tulsi.  That's within the margin of error.


Putin, the old ex-KGB colonel, believes that Russia gains influence and domination when the economic and political disintegration of the West is facilitated. His agenda is to undermine Western powers by disrupting national self confidence, increasing social unrest and stimulating disunity. Disunity in the Democratic party helps his agenda.

To call this out is not McCarthyism. Those here helping in the facilitation of social unrest, disunity and disruption of national self confidence are useful fools. Greenwald is wrong to label DNC criticism as McCarthyism. 


Klinker said:

paulsurovell said:

 Here's the antidote to this toxic NYT hit piece:

 Why would the NYT bother to write a hit piece about Gabbard?  Don't you have to be relevant to get a hit piece?

I mean, Gorpo the Clown is "running" for President but you don't see the Times writing hit pieces on him. According to the latest polling, he's only 2 percentage points behind Tulsi.  That's within the margin of error.

 If there's one thing we've learned these last few years its that polling is never wrong. 


terp said:

Klinker said:

paulsurovell said:

 Here's the antidote to this toxic NYT hit piece:

 Why would the NYT bother to write a hit piece about Gabbard?  Don't you have to be relevant to get a hit piece?

I mean, Gorpo the Clown is "running" for President but you don't see the Times writing hit pieces on him. According to the latest polling, he's only 2 percentage points behind Tulsi.  That's within the margin of error.

 If there's one thing we've learned these last few years its that polling is never wrong. 

 It’s wrong by the margins. Even if you double Gabbard’s numbers she is still an irrelevant footnote in the history of the election. 


As the corporate media ignores candidates they see having views outside of what should be allowed, as Democrats, you should ask yourselves if you want these people on your side during the general election.



terp said:

As the corporate media ignores candidates they see having views outside of what should be allowed, as Democrats, you should ask yourselves if you want these people on your side during the general election.

 You know, I have closely examined the (ex?) homophobeTulsiu Gabbard and her views and I don't see anything there that needs more attention.  Perhaps you have a larger point  and perhaps, in a general context, that point needs more attention but I am perfectly fine leaving Gabbard in the dustbin of history.  


Just for the record, I'd like to remind people that the average of national polls in 2016 was within a percentage point of the actual result.


Klinker said:

terp said:

As the corporate media ignores candidates they see having views outside of what should be allowed, as Democrats, you should ask yourselves if you want these people on your side during the general election.

 You know, I have closely examined the (ex?) homophobeTulsiu Gabbard and her views and I don't see anything there that needs more attention.  Perhaps you have a larger point  and perhaps, in a general context, that point needs more attention but I am perfectly fine leaving Gabbard in the dustbin of history.  

 I obviously don't agree with her on much, but she seems to be a true anti-war candidate.   For whatever reason, the corporate media is consistently hostile to candidates who hold that value and there are attempts to assassinate her character like you do above.  It's a shame IMO.  A lot of this military empire stuff is way worse than anything we do to immigrants in this country, and the damage dwarfs that of gun violence in this country.  It is quite amazing that the corporate media never seems to focus on that. 

Anyway, I'm glad you're not the arbiter of who should get attention.  Alas, the corporate media still controls much of this. 
 


terp said:

 I obviously don't agree with her on much, but she seems to be a true anti-war candidate.   …
 

 Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Anti-War


nohero said:

terp said:

 I obviously don't agree with her on much, but she seems to be a true anti-war candidate.   …
 

 Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Anti-War

 That's a good point.  Why would I listen to what she has to say,  when I can just read hit pieces? 


terp said:

 That's a good point.  Why would I listen to what she has to say,  when I can just read hit pieces? 

You haven't been around much for the past couple of months but I think it is safe to say that we have all heard what she has to say.  

If I hadn't heard the fullness of both what she has to say and what she has said, I probably wouldn't be so committed to oppose her.


terp said:

Klinker said:

terp said:

As the corporate media ignores candidates they see having views outside of what should be allowed, as Democrats, you should ask yourselves if you want these people on your side during the general election.

 You know, I have closely examined the (ex?) homophobeTulsiu Gabbard and her views and I don't see anything there that needs more attention.  Perhaps you have a larger point  and perhaps, in a general context, that point needs more attention but I am perfectly fine leaving Gabbard in the dustbin of history.  

 I obviously don't agree with her on much, but she seems to be a true anti-war candidate.   For whatever reason, the corporate media is consistently hostile to candidates who hold that value and there are attempts to assassinate her character like you do above.  It's a shame IMO.  A lot of this military empire stuff is way worse than anything we do to immigrants in this country, and the damage dwarfs that of gun violence in this country.  It is quite amazing that the corporate media never seems to focus on that. 

Anyway, I'm glad you're not the arbiter of who should get attention.  Alas, the corporate media still controls much of this. 
 

 Right, the media fears Tulsi's antiwar position, but it's more than that. She consistently identifies the Military Industrial-Complex as the source for our endless war and regime-change ideology. That's also an attack on the media which is essentially a mouthpiece for the MIC (when was the last time an anti-war activist versus a retired military or intelligence officer was asked to comment on issues of War and Peace?).  Additionally, Tulsi call for ending the new Cold War with Russia and China is a threat to carefully cultivated MSM narrative and to the roughly $1 trillion in contracts for the MIC.

Tulsi is also uniquely against our regime-change "meddling" in Venezuela and takes the position North Korea will not give up its nukes as long as US policy is guided by regime-change. She's attacked the indictment of Julian Assange and she's held talks with Assad.

In short, to the Church of the MSM/MIC, Tulsi isn't just a critic, she's a dangerous heretic.


paulsurovell said:

 Right, the media fears Tulsi's antiwar position, but it's more than that. She consistently identifies the Military Industrial-Complex as the source for our endless war and regime-change ideology. That's also an attack on the media which is essentially a mouthpiece for the MIC (when was the last time an anti-war activist versus a retired military or intelligence officer was asked to comment on issues of War and Peace?).  Additionally, Tulsi call for ending the new Cold War with Russia and China is a threat to carefully cultivated MSM narrative and to the roughly $1 trillion in contracts for the MIC.

Tulsi is also uniquely against our regime-change "meddling" in Venezuela and takes the position North Korea will not give up its nukes as long as US policy is guided by regime-change. She's attacked the indictment of Julian Assange and she's held talks with Assad.

In short, to the Church of the MSM/MIC, Tulsi isn't just a critic, she's a dangerous heretic.

 Spoken like a "true believer".  Some of us take into account the facts and not just how they're interpreted to support faith in Tulsi.


And if you don't like Tulsi, that makes you a you-know-what.  Even if you're Ronan Farrow's mom -


Tulsi is an embarrassment.



I'll bet you're a regime-change warmonger.

Sounds like someone's debate night didn't go the way they had hoped.


sbenois said:

Tulsi is an embarrassment.

That guy on twitter is an embarrassment.


For what it's worth I don't think she's an embarrassment. I think she's outspoken and has some views that other democrats are uncomfortable with. Her willingness to express those views gives me an impression of sincerity. 

I think she's still evolving as a politician. She suffers from a lack of name recognition at this point, but that's something that will change now. She should keep campaigning and raising money for as long as she can, keep getting her ideas out there and build her political brand. 

She is (if you ask me) making a mistake by embracing the "rigged system" rhetoric. To me it makes her look petulant and like a sore loser. And it presents a risk to the ultimate goal of defeating Donald Trump next November.

The two major parties are like massive battleships. It takes a while to get them to turn. I think she's expecting too much too fast.


My view differs from mrincredible's.  I don't think her motives and intentions are all that benign.  She sees a path towards prominence and a payoff, and is finding her audience for that.

The debate was her latest "audition" for a role as a "Fox News Democrat".


mrincredible said:

She is (if you ask me) making a mistake by embracing the "rigged system" rhetoric. To me it makes her look petulant and like a sore loser. And it presents a risk to the ultimate goal of defeating Donald Trump next November.

As an example, I disagree that this is a "flaw" for her.  It's a "feature", and a Donald Trump win would be perfect for her "brand". 


nohero said:

My view differs from mrincredible's.

 I admire your courage to be incorrect. surprised


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Advertise here!

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Rentals