Tulsi Gabbard goes on Hannity, calls the impeachment inquiry secretive, says she's not seeking re-election

[ewdotson]

Buttigieg is a veteran as well. He's not my first choice as a candidate either, but I'd vote for him in a primary *long* before I'd vote for Gabbard. (i'd obviously vote for either should they win the Democratic nomination.)

Other's mileage may obviously vary. I'm just pointing out that Gabbard's status as a vet isn't unique.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Buttigieg is a veteran as well. He's not my first choice as a candidate either, but I'd vote for him in a primary *long* before I'd vote for Gabbard. (i'd obviously vote for either should they win the Democratic nomination.)

Other's mileage may obviously vary. I'm just pointing out that Gabbard's status as a vet isn't unique.

Are you for some reason saying his veteran status is > hers?

This is obvious trolling, with intent. It constitutes a sly personal attack of its own, as nowhere in the statement you quote can be found any basis for what you are surmising he said. Your statement was so egregious, it caused another poster below to get infracted for a personal attack. Since we can no longer call a troll a troll, fair is fair, and you are now infracted as well.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[Meghan54]

Are you for some reason saying his veteran status is > hers?

Damn....that's some fucked up twisted reading of what he said.....

And then I was going to ask how in the hell you came away with that, but then I remembered.....

 

[darkswordsman17]

The amount of gaslighting in this thread is simply astounding.

The dumbest part of that is they seriously think they're being incredibly clever and manipulative. Granted it does seem to work some of the time. (The "Obiwon Romney, save us you're our only hope!" nonsense that cropped up for a bit there.)

 

[ewdotson]

Are you for some reason saying his veteran status is > hers?

How on earth did you get that out of my post? Of course I'm not saying that.

 

[Meghan54]

How on earth did you get that out of my post? Of course I'm not saying that.

I'd say consider the source, but then that possibly could be considered a "personal" attack, so I shall not say that.

That's a personal attack worded to circumvent the rules. Not allowed either.
admin allisolm

 

[Jhhnn]

How on earth did you get that out of my post? Of course I'm not saying that.

He's in attack mode.

 

[Meghan54]

He's in attack mode.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

 

[Starbuck1975]

The DNC doesn't nominate anyone. Democratic primary voters, not the DNC, chose Clinton, primarily because Bernie Sanders never made a meaningful outreach to black and Hispanic voters.

The superdelegates last time around certainly prematurely weighed the scales. I would assume democratic socialist ideals as universally appealing.

Not sure what that has to do with anything, by your own argument Gabbard is not a centrist.

No she is not, if anything she has been a thorn in the side for centrists

The last veteran president we had got us into several ruinous wars of choice. The one prior to that engaged in the conflict with Iraq that arguably got us into all this shit. In my lifetime it's the veterans who keep starting wars and the hippies and draft dodgers who keep avoiding them. I think we've had enough veterans for awhile.

What about Mayor Pete

 

[ivwshane]

The superdelegates last time around certainly prematurely weighed the scales. I would assume democratic socialist ideals as universally appealing.

No she is not, if anything she has been a thorn in the side for centrists

What about Mayor Pete

Which super delegates announced support for a candidate before their states primary election?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Which super delegates announced support for a candidate before their states primary election?

Ask the media. One of Sanders’ main contentions was that the media was counting superdelegates as part of Clinton’s pledged delegate total prior to the convention, which essentially signaled in no uncertain terms to other candidates that the party leadership was aligning to Clinton. CNN made these determinations by polling and interviewing superdelegates.

 

[ivwshane]

Ask the media. One of Sanders’ main contentions was that the media was counting superdelegates as part of Clinton’s pledged delegate total prior to the convention, which essentially signaled in no uncertain terms to other candidates that the party leadership was aligning to Clinton. CNN made these determinations by polling and interviewing superdelegates.

No I’m asking you since you made the claim. Show us how the super delegates influenced the 2016 primary election. Who were these super delegates and how are you rating their influence on voters? You are implying that people voted based on how people, who I bet not a single democrat on this board could name, voted because they are superdelegates.

 

[cytg111]

Are you for some reason saying his veteran status is > hers?

Hahahaha dude ... no that is what YOU said, from reading his post. He said nothing of the sort but you accidentally did with this post. Stop busting your self up man, is a "personal attack" vs. one self against the new rules? Hows that work?

 

[Starbuck1975]

No I’m asking you since you made the claim. Show us how the super delegates influenced the 2016 primary election. Who were these super delegates and how are you rating their influence on voters? You are implying that people voted based on how people, who I bet not a single democrat on this board could name, voted because they are superdelegates.

Which I already answered. Delegate count establishes candidate momentum and drives the front runner narrative. Clinton’s strategy was one of inevitability, supported by the party leadership aligning to her early in the process, thereby discouraging other candidates.

This is why Sanders rightfully opposed the super delegate process.

This is why Gabbard supported him.

This is why the DNC revised the process. If the process if flawless, why the drive to change it?

This is why the candidate pool is so wide this election.

This is why Sanders is still a candidate, and the movement he inspired is front and center.

This is why Clinton is now wandering the woods of Chappaqua.

 

[ivwshane]

Which I already answered. Delegate count establishes candidate momentum and drives the front runner narrative. Clinton’s strategy was one of inevitability, supported by the party leadership aligning to her early in the process, thereby discouraging other candidates.

This is why Sanders rightfully opposed the super delegate process.

This is why Gabbard supported him.

This is why the DNC revised the process. If the process if flawless, why the drive to change it?

This is why the candidate pool is so wide this election.

This is why Sanders is still a candidate, and the movement he inspired is front and center.

This is why Clinton is now wandering the woods of Chappaqua.

No you are stating your feels. In 2008 Hillary had the superdelegate lead early on, according to you she must have won. She didn’t. So either either your hypothesis is bull shit or reality doesn’t exist and since you have yet to post a single shred of data showing superdelegates have any kind of sway on a primary election voter I’m going to call bull shit. Here are the facts though; Hillary received more votes and won over more states, whether the primary was opened or closed. So unless you have some data that shows voters tended to vote for whoever superdelegates supported you can stop repeating your bull shit claim.

 

[ivwshane]

Which I already answered. Delegate count establishes candidate momentum and drives the front runner narrative. Clinton’s strategy was one of inevitability, supported by the party leadership aligning to her early in the process, thereby discouraging other candidates.

This is why Sanders rightfully opposed the super delegate process.

This is why Gabbard supported him.

This is why the DNC revised the process. If the process if flawless, why the drive to change it?

This is why the candidate pool is so wide this election.

This is why Sanders is still a candidate, and the movement he inspired is front and center.

This is why Clinton is now wandering the woods of Chappaqua.

I see you added more baseless claims to your post.

The DNC made the change to eliminate claims like the ones you and sanders are making. It will have zero impact on the primary as superdelegates almost always chose to support the candidate primary voters voted for.

There is zero evidence that the rule change is what lead to the large field of candidates.

Sanders is running because he thinks his vision has the backing of the American people and while his vision is supported, he is not which is why he’s never led in any single poll despite having name recognition second to only Biden.

 

[brycejones]

I'd be interested in hearing what the leftist utopia you apparently desire would look like.

This is totally the comment of someone who is very concerned about extreme partisanship.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I see you added more baseless claims to your post.

The DNC made the change to eliminate claims like the ones you and sanders are making. It will have zero impact on the primary as superdelegates almost always chose to support the candidate primary voters voted for.

There is zero evidence that the rule change is what lead to the large field of candidates.

Sanders is running because he thinks his vision has the backing of the American people and while his vision is supported, he is not which is why he’s never led in any single poll despite having name recognition second to only Biden.

“No candidate should have an accumulated lead, whether real or perceived, before a first ballot is cast.” - Tom Perez

 

[ivwshane]

“No candidate should have an accumulated lead, whether real or perceived, before a first ballot is cast.” - Tom Perez

And?

 

[fskimospy]

Which I already answered. Delegate count establishes candidate momentum and drives the front runner narrative. Clinton’s strategy was one of inevitability, supported by the party leadership aligning to her early in the process, thereby discouraging other candidates.

This is why Sanders rightfully opposed the super delegate process.

This is why Gabbard supported him.

This is why the DNC revised the process. If the process if flawless, why the drive to change it?

This is why the candidate pool is so wide this election.

This is why Sanders is still a candidate, and the movement he inspired is front and center.

This is why Clinton is now wandering the woods of Chappaqua.

Basically none of this is even remotely accurate. Sanders is still a candidate because of changes to the superdelegate process? You’re living in a dream world.

 

[dank69]

I'd be interested in hearing what the leftist utopia you apparently desire would look like.

A world where people choose policy using logic and evidence instead of feelings. Where they consider each policy based on its merits instead of the person proposing it. A world where people understand that a successful society is a mix of socialism and capitalism instead of being convinced and trying to convinced everyone else that socialism will turn us into Venezuela while simultaneously acting like cops/military are better people than everyone else with absolutely no self awareness.

 

[Jhhnn]

And now, the old superdelegate canard. It's just an exercise in tearing down the Democrats. Superdelegates never changed anything. The winner of the pledged delegate race won the nomination every time since the system was adopted in the early 80's. Superdelegates exist so that a nominee can be determined in a three way race where no contender has a majority of pledged delegates. It hasn't happened yet. It's a red herring in the context of this discussion.

 

[Amused]

The dumbest part of that is they seriously think they're being incredibly clever and manipulative. Granted it does seem to work some of the time. (The "Obiwon Romney, save us you're our only hope!" nonsense that cropped up for a bit there.)

Why are any of you allowing yourselves to be pulled down into this gaslighting bro-logic pit of stupidity?

This reality denial and spinning is a lot like every flat earth and anti-vax debate I've seen.

 

[Meghan54]

Which I already answered. Delegate count establishes candidate momentum and drives the front runner narrative. Clinton’s strategy was one of inevitability, supported by the party leadership aligning to her early in the process, thereby discouraging other candidates.

This is why Sanders rightfully opposed the super delegate process.

This is why Gabbard supported him.

This is why the DNC revised the process. If the process if flawless, why the drive to change it?

This is why the candidate pool is so wide this election.

This is why Sanders is still a candidate, and the movement he inspired is front and center.

This is why Clinton is now wandering the woods of Chappaqua.

So, I see you are so very concerned about the Democratic primary season.

Have any concern for the Republican party canceling primaries in states across the U.S. just to prevent the challengers to Trump from having an open platform to openly debate Trump on his promises/performance/etc.....and to keep the GOP voters in line?

 

[zinfamous]

Are you for some reason saying his veteran status is > hers?

dude. I mean...c'mon man. You realize that whenever you make a post about "low IQ" people (about 98% of your posts), it is the blatant inability to understand words, like in this response of yours to a very direct comment, that makes it very difficult to take you seriously?

The new culture in P&N can only work well if everyone takes the responsibility upon themselves to reply honestly to others, to accept that the universal set of facts are the only set of facts that we have, and that you aren't going to just put words into other people's comments and strive to argue with them on the merits of what people are actually saying. ...obviously, this requires a real ability to understand context, and I'm wondering if this is intentional on your part, or just indicative of some holes in your basic education that you never cared to address?