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

[fskimospy]

Remove Republicans and you haven’t completely eroded Gabbard’s base. The data you showed also demonstrates Gabbard is drawing independents. Where Trump, Sanders and Gabbard intersect is on global isolationism.

So what if Republicans don’t represent the entirety of her support, they represent the majority of it which was my point. She’s the strong favorite of people who aren’t going to support the democratic nominee anyway and so if people are wondering where her newfound support came from that answers the question.

 

[Vic]

Remove Republicans and you haven’t completely eroded Gabbard’s base. The data you showed also demonstrates Gabbard is drawing independents. Where Trump, Sanders and Gabbard intersect is on global isolationism.

So much intentionally divisive BS.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Hey guys, do you need a refill on tinfoil? I don't think your hats are big enough.

Did you ever think... maybe... just maybe.... these supposed "republicans" are pissed off at their current candidate and are actively looking to the democratic party to supply a competent person? Crazy, I know, right? You could... I don't know... support their movement to potentially *gasp* take away more votes from Trump? NO WAY!

 

[fskimospy]

Hey guys, do you need a refill on tinfoil? I don't think your hats are big enough.

Did you ever think... maybe... just maybe.... these supposed "republicans" are pissed off at their current candidate and are actively looking to the democratic party to supply a competent person? Crazy, I know, right? You could... I don't know... support their movement to potentially *gasp* take away more votes from Trump? NO WAY!

I'm perfectly happy if they are going to vote for a Democratic candidate but that doesn't mean nominating one that basically no Democrats support just to cater to that small group.

It's an argument for nominating a more centrist candidate but that centrist candidate would be someone like Biden who, you know, Democrats actually like.

Also, I have no idea why you put Republicans in quotes. That's what they identified themselves as.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I'm perfectly happy if they are going to vote for a Democratic candidate but that doesn't mean nominating one that basically no Democrats support just to cater to that small group.

It's an argument for nominating a more centrist candidate but that centrist candidate would be someone like Biden who, you know, Democrats actually like.

Also, I have no idea why you put Republicans in quotes. That's what they identified themselves as.

Harris did more damage to Biden than Gabbard.

Gabbard isn’t so much a centrist as she is a perspective reflective of her military service. She was vice chair of the DNC. She was also critical of Hillary and the super delegate process, something she was correct about.

Maybe the DNC should pay more attention to what she has to say.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So much intentionally divisive BS.

Concern duly noted

 

[fskimospy]

Harris did more damage to Biden than Gabbard.

Gabbard isn’t so much a centrist as she is a perspective reflective of her military service. She was vice chair of the DNC. She was also critical of Hillary and the super delegate process, something she was correct about.

Maybe the DNC should pay more attention to what she has to say.

What specific points do you think she is making that the Democratic Party is not taking into account?

 

[HomerJS]

Harris did more damage to Biden than Gabbard.

Gabbard isn’t so much a centrist as she is a perspective reflective of her military service. She was vice chair of the DNC. She was also critical of Hillary and the super delegate process, something she was correct about.

Maybe the DNC should pay more attention to what she has to say.

How am I supposed to pay attention to her when she has turned into a serial liar the rest of the Republicans?

 

[dank69]

Hey guys, do you need a refill on tinfoil? I don't think your hats are big enough.

Did you ever think... maybe... just maybe.... these supposed "republicans" are pissed off at their current candidate and are actively looking to the democratic party to supply a competent person? Crazy, I know, right? You could... I don't know... support their movement to potentially *gasp* take away more votes from Trump? NO WAY!

So if Democrats could just be more like Republicans maybe we could get Republicans to vote for us? Let me think about that for a minute...no...Republicans that don't like Republicans can either vote for Democrats or fuck right off. I don't care either way.

 

[Starbuck1975]

What specific points do you think she is making that the Democratic Party is not taking into account?

Foreign policy is probably the most prominent. From Clinton to Bush to Obama, we have yet to elect a President capable of defining America’s role in a post Cold War world. She is also the strongest voice against overseas wars and investment in infrastructure.

She is also a strong voice against offshore tax breaks and tech antitrust.

I don’t agree with her on everything, but align with her on things I strongly agree with. I don’t see a centrist DNC platform embracing any of those things.

 

[fskimospy]

Foreign policy is probably the most prominent. From Clinton to Bush to Obama, we have yet to elect a President capable of defining America’s role in a post Cold War world. She is also the strongest voice against overseas wars and investment in infrastructure.

She is also a strong voice against offshore tax breaks and tech antitrust.

I don’t agree with her on everything, but align with her on things I strongly agree with. I don’t see a centrist DNC platform embracing any of those things.

Uhm, what you're describing there is the standard Democratic platform that basically every single candidate running has. You're basically reading the Democratic platform back at the Democrats and asking why none of them are running on it when all of them are. Basically Gabbard's defining difference from the rest of the Democratic field is her foreign policy views, some of which are good (fewer wars!) and some of which are bad (pro-torture!).

It's kind of weird that you're trying to say that the DNC needs to listen to her when she just basically toes the party line on all the issues you mentioned except for maybe one.

 

[ewdotson]

That's been bog standard for the Very Serious People for a while now. They'd love to support a party who does [all the things the Democratic party is trying to do]. Maybe a third party could do it! But since no one is willing to step up and do [all of the things the Democratic party is trying to do], they'll just have to support the Republicans!

 

[fleshconsumed]

Thanks for the nice post. always enjoy reading your posts, though we have kinda argued always over foreign policy.

Maybe we cannot intervene in Russian elections but if you go back in time, between the 90's and early / mid 2000, we influenced a lot of their elections. I remember the russians esp Putin complaining early in the decade about american NGO and US AID interference in their local and duma elections.

Again countries try to influence other elections, not sure why it is tough for us to get over it. We inflluence others and that's ok but no one can interfere in ours. Simple question to you.

-do you think we are special? different from others in the world.
- do you think we can influence the world according to our vision of democracy but other countries cannot do the same?
- do you think we are morally right to be in over 800 places in the world
- do you think for us talking about democracy, a person embracing the democratic traditions that people have died over around the world, why are we dissing and sticking to the 2 party system. We criticize Ralph Nadar, Jill Stein. however they reflected the outcome of the elections [Yuck Bush, Trump], they are still under and following the democratic traditions that this country was founded on. Why is this sudden aversion and pigeon holing of people not subscribing to the two party system. I feel that intellects like you falling for the 'it only has to be dems ' everyone else is a russian agent, is a flaw in our system then


Have a good rest of the week

Yes, US interfered in the foreign elections in the past. Yes, Russia interfered with American elections in the past and continues to do so.

Here's the difference though. Typically a government does not permit foreign interference in local elections. As you have noted Russia vocally opposed American involvement in their politics in the past. Enter Trump and GOP who instead actively block any law designed to minimize foreign interference in US elections and actively solicit foreign help in winning local elections.

- US interfering in other elections is a fact
- Russia interfering in US elections is a fact
- Russia opposing US interference is a fact
- Trump GOP welcoming foreign interference, sadly, is a fact

Big difference.

 

[zinfamous]

Hey guys, do you need a refill on tinfoil? I don't think your hats are big enough.

Did you ever think... maybe... just maybe.... these supposed "republicans" are pissed off at their current candidate and are actively looking to the democratic party to supply a competent person? Crazy, I know, right? You could... I don't know... support their movement to potentially *gasp* take away more votes from Trump? NO WAY!

Do you still think the "Democrats should vote for the conservative candidate that Republicans like the most!" suggestion has any merit?

 

[Amused]

The amount of gaslighting in this thread is simply astounding.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Uhm, what you're describing there is the standard Democratic platform that basically every single candidate running has. You're basically reading the Democratic platform back at the Democrats and asking why none of them are running on it when all of them are. Basically Gabbard's defining difference from the rest of the Democratic field is her foreign policy views, some of which are good (fewer wars!) and some of which are bad (pro-torture!).

It's kind of weird that you're trying to say that the DNC needs to listen to her when she just basically toes the party line on all the issues you mentioned except for maybe one.

Not really. She is most aligned with Sanders and Warren, less so with say Biden or Harris. She has a unique perspective on foreign policy.

 

[fskimospy]

Not really. She is most aligned with Sanders and Warren, less so with say Biden or Harris. She has a unique perspective on foreign policy.

So the Democrats would be well served to listen to a person whose platform is highly similar to two of the three leading candidates for the nomination?

It's a strange argument to say that a party needs to learn from someone whose ideas are already reflected in numerous leading candidates. I also don't find her perspective to be particularly unique on foreign policy as Warren has basically the same idea, just with less torture.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So the Democrats would be well served to listen to a person whose platform is highly similar to two of the three leading candidates for the nomination?

It's a strange argument to say that a party needs to learn from someone whose ideas are already reflected in numerous leading candidates. I also don't find her perspective to be particularly unique on foreign policy as Warren has basically the same idea, just with less torture.

The DNC had an opportunity to nominate one of those candidates last time around, and we’ve heard ad nauseum how Democrat voters decisively dismissed his politics and that a “socialist” candidate would never win against Trump.

Go to the NYT’s opinion section right now and there is a vibrant debate about whether Democrats should shift left or reclaim the center.

Gabbard is a distinct voice as a veteran. I would like to see a veteran President or VP. She also had the audacity to challenge the party leadership. If they drive her out to consider a 3rd party run, that is their choice.

If it goes to a brokered convention, we’ll see how much the DNC learned regarding the influence of superdelegates and power brokers.

 

[dank69]

The DNC had an opportunity to nominate one of those candidates last time around, and we’ve heard ad nauseum how Democrat voters decisively dismissed his politics and that a “socialist” candidate would never win against Trump.

Go to the NYT’s opinion section right now and there is a vibrant debate about whether Democrats should shift left or reclaim the center.

Gabbard is a distinct voice as a veteran. I would like to see a veteran President or VP. She also had the audacity to challenge the party leadership. If they drive her out to consider a 3rd party run, that is their choice.

If it goes to a brokered convention, we’ll see how much the DNC learned regarding the influence of superdelegates and power brokers.

The center is shit. It has been shit since Bill Clinton was in charge. That's why when Bill Clinton compromised with the GOP on NAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, our country went to shit and why the GOP then shifted to blaming Bill Clinton for both of those policies when they were GOP policy from the beginning. So please, tell us more about how we need a good centrist.

 

[fskimospy]

The DNC had an opportunity to nominate one of those candidates last time around, and we’ve heard ad nauseum how Democrat voters decisively dismissed his politics and that a “socialist” candidate would never win against Trump.

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.

Go to the NYT’s opinion section right now and there is a vibrant debate about whether Democrats should shift left or reclaim the center.

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

Gabbard is a distinct voice as a veteran. I would like to see a veteran President or VP.

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.

She also had the audacity to challenge the party leadership. If they drive her out to consider a 3rd party run, that is their choice.

What is this persecution fantasy nonsense? No one has driven her out or anything even remotely close to it.

If it goes to a brokered convention, we’ll see how much the DNC learned regarding the influence of superdelegates and power brokers.

Huh? Clinton didn't win because of superdelegates, she won because she got way more votes than Sanders. If anything the rules of the primary HELPED him, not hurt him.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Gabbard is hardly A strong voice against overseas wars, in particular when it comes to Syria

https://twitter.com/x/status/649615636088365058

Watching this was enough for me to say - no thanks!

A phony science of identity cult Hare Krishna cult member has no shot at the presidency. Even if she wins the presidency, what she gonna do? Use a psychopath like Butler as some wacky spiritual guide to run run this country. Much like what happened with Park Geunhye and her "spiritual guide" over in South Korea.

Her guru "paramahamsa" is AKA Chris Butler, a sociopath who is the leader of a hate cult in hawaii known as the science of identity. They do not claim to be a hindu group, yet she claims to be the first hindu member of congress. Phony Baloney.

The Trumper Republicans want her in the media spouting off how unfair and rigged the DNC is for the GOP's political gain, so they will continue to support her in the media and with donations

 

[Victorian Gray]

Interesting opinion piece in Haraatz (originally published in Jan. reprinted in Oct.)

Opinion: Tulsi Gabbard Unites Putin Apologists, Bloodstained Modi, Genocidal Assad and the U.S. Far Right

Tulsi Gabbard unites Putin apologists, bloodstained Modi, genocidal Assad and the U.S. far right | Opinion

***

www.haaretz.com

 

[woolfe9998]

Gabbard is hardly A strong voice against overseas wars, in particular when it comes to Syria

https://twitter.com/x/status/649615636088365058

Watching this was enough for me to say - no thanks!

A phony science of identity cult Hare Krishna cult member has no shot at the presidency. Even if she wins the presidency, what she gonna do? Use a psychopath like Butler as some wacky spiritual guide to run run this country. Much like what happened with Park Geunhye and her "spiritual guide" over in South Korea.

Her guru "paramahamsa" is AKA Chris Butler, a sociopath who is the leader of a hate cult in hawaii known as the science of identity. They do not claim to be a hindu group, yet she claims to be the first hindu member of congress. Phony Baloney.

The Trumper Republicans want her in the media spouting off how unfair and rigged the DNC is for the GOP's political gain, so they will continue to support her in the media and with donations

Yes, and according to the article linked by VG above, a third of her donations have come from donors of Hindu origin, making her dubious claim of being a Hindu quite a successful little scam.

 

[Jhhnn]

The DNC had an opportunity to nominate one of those candidates last time around, and we’ve heard ad nauseum how Democrat voters decisively dismissed his politics and that a “socialist” candidate would never win against Trump.

Go to the NYT’s opinion section right now and there is a vibrant debate about whether Democrats should shift left or reclaim the center.

Gabbard is a distinct voice as a veteran. I would like to see a veteran President or VP. She also had the audacity to challenge the party leadership. If they drive her out to consider a 3rd party run, that is their choice.

If it goes to a brokered convention, we’ll see how much the DNC learned regarding the influence of superdelegates and power brokers.

"Drive her out" is, of course, what a propagandist would say to justify a third party run. You know, just for spite & glory. She's just not getting there with Dems in general & should drop out gracefully if that becomes appropriate. That's if she cares about the threat Trump represents to this country.

 

[compuwiz1]

The center is shit. It has been shit since Bill Clinton was in charge. That's why when Bill Clinton compromised with the GOP on NAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, our country went to shit and why the GOP then shifted to blaming Bill Clinton for both of those policies when they were GOP policy from the beginning. So please, tell us more about how we need a good centrist.

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