Hillary vs Tulsi

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Most 2020 Candidates Have Something In Common: Their Supporters Also Like Warren | FiveThirtyEight - has a poll of second choices for all the candidates. Elizabeth Warren does the best there.

That's just among Democrats. The only polls that will matter are how right-leaning Independents and Republicans view any of the contenders. This YouGov poll of Independents from July is extremely encouraging in regard to Warren's chances. Here's the breakdown.

Among "VERY Conservative" Indies, at least 62% would vote for a female POTUS (with 69% of "NET Conservatives" saying they would vote for a woman).

Well that's awfully sad. 100% should be willing to vote for "a woman" if she has the right ideas and platform.

That's the problem with the right in America. Now you're finally getting it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Well that's awfully sad. 100% should be willing to vote for "a woman" if she has the right ideas and platform.

That's the problem with the right in America. Now you're finally getting it.

It's cute that you think it's only the right.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well that's awfully sad. 100% should be willing to vote for "a woman" if she has the right ideas and platform.

That's the problem with the right in America. Now you're finally getting it.

It's cute that you think it's only the right.

It's tiresome that you can't ever seem to post without stuffing straw.

 

[fromderinside]

Of course stuff straw. We need something to protect us from reality. (for the obtuse earth). It's what humans do.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's cute that you think it's only the right.

It's tiresome that you can't ever seem to post without stuffing straw.

Ironic that you write this after your last post was itself straw. I never upheld the right as a beacon of equality. In fact you usually bark at me because I dismiss your beloved Hillary in preference for those further left.

 

[Gun Nut]

Well that's awfully sad. 100% should be willing to vote for "a woman" if she has the right ideas and platform.

That's the problem with the right in America. Now you're finally getting it.

It's cute that you think it's only the right.

The word "only" is all you got going for you. If you can find one example of something, you can't say only. You are the ONLY person saying "only". "the problem is on the right" is not related to what you are saying "the ONLY problem is the right".

You have been programmed well. Keep banging on the table. Whatabout something else!!!!?!?1

 

[ZiprHead]

Tulsi Gabbard Drops a Big Hint About Running a Spoiler Campaign for Trump

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/tulsi-gabbard-third-party-campaign-russia-spoiler.html?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The+National+Interest+-+Column+Alert+-+Wed+Oct+30+2019&utm_term=Subscription+List+-+The+National+Interest

“Hillary Clinton emerged recently to claim, with no basis in fact, that I am being ‘groomed’ by the Russian government to undermine America,” claims Tulsi Gabbard in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today. In fact, as even the conservative Washington Examiner acknowledges, Clinton did not say that. She said Republicans were grooming Gabbard. And far from refuting that charge, everything about Gabbard’s op-ed confirms Clinton was probably right.

It is in Gabbard’s interest to conflate the charge that she is working on behalf of the Republicans with the charge that she’s working on behalf of the Russians. The former is apparent, while the latter is impossible to prove. Gabbard has taken some strident foreign-policy stances that follow no apparent American dovish objective, and do line up with Russian goals. While Gabbard presents herself as a noninterventionist, she bizarrely attacked the Obama administration for failing to bomb Al Qaeda in Syria, while crediting Russia for allegedly doing so:

In the following paragraph, Gabbard makes her strategy even more apparent. “Whether Mrs. Clinton’s name is on the ballot or not,” she writes, “her foreign policy will be, as many of the Democratic candidates adhere to her doctrine” of endless regime change, etc. Gabbard is saying right now that any Democratic nominee is going to be Hillary Clinton. What does that tell you about her intentions?

The Journal editorial page is not normally enthusiastic about running screeds denouncing the bloodstained neocon war machine. But it’s happy to make an exception for somebody who’s in the electing-Republicans business.

Gabbard’s op-ed is structured as an apparent refutation of the claim Clinton made about her. In fact, nothing could do more to vindicate Clinton’s suspicion that Gabbard is being groomed by the Republican party as a spoiler candidate than a Wall Street Journal op-ed previewing her case for a spoiler campaign.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That article strikes me as anti-Tulsi and pro-Clinton. For example, this:

“Whether Mrs. Clinton’s name is on the ballot or not,” she writes, “her foreign policy will be, as many of the Democratic candidates adhere to her doctrine” of endless regime change, etc. Gabbard is saying right now that any Democratic nominee is going to be Hillary Clinton.

Tulsi seems to be discussing primary ballot which makes the conclusion incorrect. Maybe I am wrong?

 

[fromderinside]

I see the logical extension from any primary candidate who wins, because they share Hillary stance, will be Hillary on that issue.


Actually all that missing on the intervention issue is the actual candidate to wear rail, tar, feathers.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Luckily, we have a big spoiler in the GOP primaries. Donald Trump. Even Tulsi can't help him now.

 

[Harry Bosch]

That article strikes me as anti-Tulsi and pro-Clinton. For example, this:

“Whether Mrs. Clinton’s name is on the ballot or not,” she writes, “her foreign policy will be, as many of the Democratic candidates adhere to her doctrine” of endless regime change, etc. Gabbard is saying right now that any Democratic nominee is going to be Hillary Clinton.

Tulsi seems to be discussing primary ballot which makes the conclusion incorrect. Maybe I am wrong?

Wrong. Tulsi is expressing rhetorical nonsense. There is no democrat running today that wants "endless regime change". Most of the dems running were against Trump transferring US troops from Northern Syria to Saudi Arabia with a treat because it directly lead to the deaths of a thousand Kurds, who had been our alley for the last 10 years. Now if the definition of "endless regime change", then color me a ghengis Khan! Because that's crazy. My respect for Tulsi has gone way done since her appearance on Fox News.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Tulsi is irrelevant. The larger story here is Hillary and her comrades' smear campaign against those who dare not follow them. That includes Tulsi, but also Stein (called a Russian asset in the same podcast by her, Bernie (who she tried to paint as a misogynists asset (Bernie bros)), and will include anyone else who runs that doesn't fall in line.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Tulsi is irrelevant. The larger story here is Hillary and her comrades' smear campaign against those who dare not follow them. That includes Tulsi, but also Stein (called a Russian asset in the same podcast by her, Bernie (who she tried to paint as a misogynists asset (Bernie bros)), and will include anyone else who runs that doesn't fall in line.

Tulsi Gabbard was provided a massive push in the DNC despite her relative newness in the party. Her reaction was then to leave said party to push the alternate person (who wasn't a Democrat) running for the Democrat nomination. That is going to ruffle feathers.

You are outside the US, so you don't have any real sense of the media exposure, but there is a peculiar affinity that the right-wing has developed for Gabbard, on AM radio, cable news, etc... It is one of those things that makes red flags pop up, right-wing enamoring over a three term liberal representative from Hawaii.

 

[ZiprHead]

Tulsi is irrelevant. The larger story here is Hillary and her comrades' smear campaign against those who dare not follow them. That includes Tulsi, but also Stein (called a Russian asset in the same podcast by her, Bernie (who she tried to paint as a misogynists asset (Bernie bros)), and will include anyone else who runs that doesn't fall in line.

Calling it a smear campaign makes it sound like what was said isn't true.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The larger story here is Hillary and her comrades' smear campaign

There is no such "campaign" nor any story. Clinton did nothing but express facts; the Republicans--and Russians--were and are continuing to use Tulsi's campaign for their own ends, just as the Russians did with Stein's campaign. That's what being an "asset" entails.

You know this, yet continue to desperately try to spin it. Why?

 

[PyramidHead]

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Tulsi is irrelevant. The larger story here is Hillary and her comrades' smear campaign against those who dare not follow them. That includes Tulsi, but also Stein (called a Russian asset in the same podcast by her, Bernie (who she tried to paint as a misogynists asset (Bernie bros)), and will include anyone else who runs that doesn't fall in line.

Calling it a smear campaign makes it sound like what was said isn't true.

That Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein are Russian assets? Does that make Hillary herself a Russian asset for her attack on Gabbard and Gabbard having gained in the polls as a result? Are we supposed to take that as a great negative the way that she presented it?

Or for Hillary to become a Russian Asset would Stein have to "give it up" like Hillary said in that podcast against Gabbard? Stein somehow controls if she is or isn't a Russian Asset?

 

[ZiprHead]

Tulsi is irrelevant. The larger story here is Hillary and her comrades' smear campaign against those who dare not follow them. That includes Tulsi, but also Stein (called a Russian asset in the same podcast by her, Bernie (who she tried to paint as a misogynists asset (Bernie bros)), and will include anyone else who runs that doesn't fall in line.

Calling it a smear campaign makes it sound like what was said isn't true.

That Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein are Russian assets? Does that make Hillary herself a Russian asset for her attack on Gabbard and Gabbard having gained in the polls as a result? Are we supposed to take that as a great negative the way that she presented it?

Or for Hillary to become a Russian Asset would Stein have to "give it up" like Hillary said in that podcast against Gabbard? Stein somehow controls if she is or isn't a Russian Asset?

Another strawman. Luckily you're not in California with all the straw you try to burn.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein are Russian assets? Does that make Hillary herself a Russian asset for her attack on Gabbard and Gabbard having gained in the polls as a result? Are we supposed to take that as a great negative the way that she presented it?

Or for Hillary to become a Russian Asset would Stein have to "give it up" like Hillary said in that podcast against Gabbard? Stein somehow controls if she is or isn't a Russian Asset?

Another strawman. Luckily you're not in California with all the straw you try to burn.

Lazily calling something a strawman without explanation. What a shocker. If Tulsi is called a "Russian asset" because Hillary and her comrades think Tulsi's actions benefit the Russians, and by doing so she boosts Tulsi in the polls, then that would also be to Russian benefit, so by Hillary's own logic, she is a "Russian asset" as well. The smear comes back to cover the smearer.

 

[Harry Bosch]

That Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein are Russian assets? Does that make Hillary herself a Russian asset for her attack on Gabbard and Gabbard having gained in the polls as a result? Are we supposed to take that as a great negative the way that she presented it?

Or for Hillary to become a Russian Asset would Stein have to "give it up" like Hillary said in that podcast against Gabbard? Stein somehow controls if she is or isn't a Russian Asset?

Another strawman. Luckily you're not in California with all the straw you try to burn.

Lazily calling something a strawman without explanation. What a shocker. If Tulsi is called a "Russian asset" because Hillary and her comrades think Tulsi's actions benefit the Russians, and by doing so she boosts Tulsi in the polls, then that would also be to Russian benefit, so by Hillary's own logic, she is a "Russian asset" as well. The smear comes back to cover the smearer.

What is your definition of an asset? It's pretty simple to me, if Tulsi runs as a third party, she will be helping the Russians keep Trump in. She'll be an asset. The Russian Bots didn't run ads saying how wonderful Trump was. They ran ads that attempted to divide the dems. Anything that divides the left, demoralizes the left, creates chaos in the US is a Russian asset.