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

[Paladin3]

Yes, but why does everyone keep telling liberals to be nicer to conservatives but no one ever tells conservatives to be nicer to liberals?

Because I have no interest in urging Republicans to sugar-coat their message to be less divisive to win more votes. I'm actually kinda glad their intolerant, hateful asses are hanging out in the wind for all to see. Hopefully it will be enough to get some normally republican voters to switch over and vote Democratic, especially if its calmly shown to them why it's in their own best interest.

But no message with an insult attached was ever received well. And I think it's more important to sway 5-10% away from the Republicans than it is to take on the whole hateful party.

 

[Paladin3]

Can you provide an example of a current Democratic Presidential candidate who has in any way insinuated that half of the country's voters are the enemy? I haven't seen anything remotely like that.

Meanwhile, the Republican President refers to disloyal members of his own party as "human scum." We can only imagine what he thinks of the half of the country's voters who vote Democratic. But funny, I don't recall ever seeing you lecture the Republicans here about that.

Why would I even engage a hateful republican? Or a flat-Earther? Or a science-denier? What could I ever say to even Trump himself that would change him? My words would fall on deaf ears.

I've aggressively lectured people in the past, often in person, and all it does is solidify their resistance to the message and their dislike of me. That's why I've suggested maybe a more loving approach that points out why the democrats represent policies that are, for the most part, in the best interests of all Americans and not just the top 1%. If you insist you've done that already and no more progress can be made, then so be it.

But this is just my opinion, you folks are free to disregard it all you want.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Arming / creating a rebel insurgency increases the violence and the genocide. Don't you think so?

Assad created his own insurgency. Torturing and killing kids in your prisons for reasons as innocuous as anti govt. graffiti sometimes has that effect. Having your troops fire on peaceful demonstrators sometimes has that effect. <shrug>

 

[dank69]

Why would I even engage a hateful republican? Or a flat-Earther? Or a science-denier? What could I ever say to even Trump himself that would change him? My words would fall on deaf ears.

I've aggressively lectured people in the past, often in person, and all it does is solidify their resistance to the message and their dislike of me. That's why I've suggested maybe a more loving approach that points out why the democrats represent policies that are, for the most part, in the best interests of all Americans and not just the top 1%. If you insist you've done that already and no more progress can be made, then so be it.

But this is just my opinion, you folks are free to disregard it all you want.

We tried love too, and Republicans/Independents spit in our faces for it. So the stick it shall be.

 

[Paladin3]

We tried love too, and Republicans/Independents spit in our faces for it. So the stick it shall be.

That's my whole point. You have no stick. How can you beat someone into voting Democrat?

 

[JSt0rm]

That's my whole point. You have no stick. How can you beat someone into voting Democrat?

Its not in our interests to pander to the simplistic thinking of the average gop voter.

 

[Vic]

Why would I even engage a hateful republican? Or a flat-Earther? Or a science-denier? What could I ever say to even Trump himself that would change him? My words would fall on deaf ears.

I've aggressively lectured people in the past, often in person, and all it does is solidify their resistance to the message and their dislike of me. That's why I've suggested maybe a more loving approach that points out why the democrats represent policies that are, for the most part, in the best interests of all Americans and not just the top 1%. If you insist you've done that already and no more progress can be made, then so be it.

But this is just my opinion, you folks are free to disregard it all you want.

This sounds great, and I don't disagree, but you dodged my question. Can you provide an example of a current Democratic Presidential candidate who has in any way insinuated that half of the country's voters are the enemy?
In the meantime, I don't believe in double standards.

 

[Vic]

That's my whole point. You have no stick. How can you beat someone into voting Democrat?

No one should bother doing that. Trying to appeal to people who are never ever going to vote for them, while neglecting to appeal to and rally their own voters to the polls, is exactly the reason why the Democrats lost in 2016.
I used to believe in the swing voter myth myself, but it's just not true. Voters rarely change the party they vote for, they just stay home some years.

 

[dank69]

That's my whole point. You have no stick. How can you beat someone into voting Democrat?

We don't. We let you beat yourselves to death with the GOP stick you love so much.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Found this video to do a good job of giving a background on this whole Tulsi thing... and really just highlighting what a crock of shit Hillary is and why she is trying to spite Tusli with her history at the DNC.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Found this video to do a good job of giving a background on this whole Tulsi thing... and really just highlighting what a crock of shit Hillary is and why she is trying to spite Tusli with her history at the DNC.

Why am I not surprised it's a rando youtube person in a video game t-shirt?

 

[dank69]

Found this video to do a good job of giving a background on this whole Tulsi thing... and really just highlighting what a crock of shit Hillary is and why she is trying to spite Tusli with her history at the DNC.

The claims from 4:00-5:30 are not substantiated by any evidence...

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

The claims from 4:00-5:30 are not substantiated by any evidence...

... What part? The Debbie Wasserman? Please don't tell me you're saying that part isn't substantiated......

 

[cytg111]

Found this video to do a good job of giving a background on this whole Tulsi thing... and really just highlighting what a crock of shit Hillary is and why she is trying to spite Tusli with her history at the DNC.

He sounds like a partisan hack to me. In fact all his videos sound like that. She went on Hannity ffs. She might as well have blown Nunes on pornhub.

 

[woolfe9998]

Because I have no interest in urging Republicans to sugar-coat their message to be less divisive to win more votes. I'm actually kinda glad their intolerant, hateful asses are hanging out in the wind for all to see. Hopefully it will be enough to get some normally republican voters to switch over and vote Democratic, especially if its calmly shown to them why it's in their own best interest.

But no message with an insult attached was ever received well. And I think it's more important to sway 5-10% away from the Republicans than it is to take on the whole hateful party.

It's a fair point, but you have to realize that conservatives have been pissing all over liberals for decades now, so it's a tall order to expect liberals to suddenly be civil toward them. You can expect it from our candidates because they understand that alienating any sector of voters is a bad idea. But don't expect it from the rank and file. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction is a law of Newtonian physics, but it also applies pretty well in the social realm. People tend to hate people who hate them.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

He sounds like a partisan hack to me. In fact all his videos sound like that. She went on Hannity ffs. She might as well have blown Nunes on pornhub.

"IF you go on the enemies TV show and argue/debate with them then YOURE HITLER!!"

That's what you sound like broceritops. This is why the dems lose elections - and if your candidate this year is too scared to go on a Fox News show and debate a stupid moron (like Hannity) then congratulations - you just got 4 more years of Trump.

 

[dank69]

... What part? The Debbie Wasserman? Please don't tell me you're saying that part isn't substantiated......

The popular myth is that DWS resigned because she was caught intervening for Hillary. There are zero emails to support this claim. The reality is that she resigned under pressure from other Democrats, but I cannot find any reason given.

 

[dank69]

Found this video to do a good job of giving a background on this whole Tulsi thing... and really just highlighting what a crock of shit Hillary is and why she is trying to spite Tusli with her history at the DNC.

The claims about New Knowledge are not fully substantiated either. The claim is that they intended to influence the Alabama election but they claim the intent was to measure the effect a disinformation campaign could have on an election. While this may be a very minor distinction because in order to measure you would have to attempt to affect the election, it counters the narrative that their actual research is tainted.

 

[cytg111]

"IF you go on the enemies TV show and argue/debate with them then YOURE HITLER!!"

That's what you sound like broceritops. This is why the dems lose elections - and if your candidate this year is too scared to go on a Fox News show and debate a stupid moron (like Hannity) then congratulations - you just got 4 more years of Trump.

Yea, Hannity is an incarnation of something disturbing and evil. Got that right.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Yea, Hannity is an incarnation of something disturbing and evil. Got that right.

He's just a moron - just like any other talk show host save for... I guess Bill Maher which is more political satire debate.

That goes for any of them in all honesty - You're right there at the same IQ level if you watch CNN Hannity equivalents as well. But you should be going on there and having debates with them. IF they really are that dumb (and trust me, they usually are) then you should be able to competently have a sane debate with them and potentially change some voter minds on topics.

 

[Vic]

Are we talking about the same Hannity who told his viewers in 2009 to stop making the mortgage payments on their underwater homes because Obama's socialism would make it so the housing market would never recover? While at the same time he was using HUD money to buy up distressed properties?
Sounds like a real trustworthy guy..

 

[fskimospy]

I have to say I’m really happy to see that conservatives have turned a corner here. The fact that they are still concerned about the conduct of the 2015-16 Democratic primary nearly four years later shows how genuine their care for their democratic friends really is.

 

[brycejones]

Found this video to do a good job of giving a background on this whole Tulsi thing... and really just highlighting what a crock of shit Hillary is and why she is trying to spite Tusli with her history at the DNC.

Yawn

 

[hal2kilo]

The popular myth is that DWS resigned because she was caught intervening for Hillary. There are zero emails to support this claim. The reality is that she resigned under pressure from other Democrats, but I cannot find any reason given.

You can't help the Wasserman obsessed.

 

[HomerJS]

He's just a moron - just like any other talk show host save for... I guess Bill Maher which is more political satire debate.

That goes for any of them in all honesty - You're right there at the same IQ level if you watch CNN Hannity equivalents as well. But you should be going on there and having debates with them. IF they really are that dumb (and trust me, they usually are) then you should be able to competently have a sane debate with them and potentially change some voter minds on topics.

I don't know why you insist on sticking up for Gabbard when she is willing to go on TV and promote the lie hearings are in secret.