16
   

Tulsi Gabbard Is Having A MAGA Moment After Her Debate Performance.

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  3  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2019 01:12 pm
@neptuneblue,
As is your right

There are plenty of good reasons not to support her. That some conservatives find her appealing is not one of them
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Fri 22 Nov, 2019 11:51 am
Is Tulsi Gabbard the Jill Stein of 2020?


Published January 14, 2019


Quote:
The ill will toward Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who announced Friday that she is running for president, goes a long way toward explaining the political psychosis that has gripped the Democratic Party since Russia intervened in 2016 to elect Donald Trump. In another timeline, Gabbard might be an ideal 2020 candidate: Samoan-American, Hindu, female, an Iraq War veteran, and environmentalist who broke with the D.N.C. to support Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in the primary. But Democratic attitudes have changed since Trump took office. Liberals who once encouraged diverse primaries are now deeply suspicious of alleged spoilers like 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who has faced questions about her ties to Russia; a party that has traditionally prided itself on skepticism toward military adventurism has since embraced a more muscular, anti-Russia foreign policy. All of which makes Gabbard the odd woman out in a soon-to-be crowded field.

Perhaps the biggest red flag for the Russia-gate crowd is Gabbard’s perplexing coziness with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, with whom she met in 2017. Gabbard reportedly did not notify her Democratic peers before flying to Syria on the trip. Afterward, Gabbard said she was “skeptical” that Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people, calling the accusations just another round of “pointing fingers.” Critics have accused her of being an “Assad shill” and therefore also a “Putin puppet”—or, as Russian state television network RT put it, “daring to seek firsthand accounts rather than blindly trusting the MSM narrative.”

Gabbard’s foreign-policy heterodoxy might be surmountable if not for a multitude of other original sins. In late 2016, amid rumors that she was being considered for a Trump administration position, Gabbard took a Trump Tower meeting brokered by Steve Bannon, who praised the Democrat for embracing the term “radical Islamic terrorism.” Outside of U.S. politics, Gabbard has offered vociferous support for India’s staunchly nationalist prime minister, Narendra Modi, who, as chief minister of Gujarat, was accused of complicity in a 2002 religious riot against Muslims that killed more than 1,000 people. (Barack Obama, for what it’s worth, had an “unlikely friendship” with Modi, himself.)

Fears that Gabbard might play the Jill Stein–esque spoiler, then, are likely overblown—if only because Gabbard’s presidential aspirations are probably dead on arrival. Over the weekend, the photogenic 37-year-old congresswoman was forced to apologize for working for her father’s anti-gay organization in the early 2000s, which, per CNN, actively opposed same-sex marriage in Hawaii and supported conversion therapy. (As a state representative, Gabbard was not quiet about her beliefs, testifying on a committee in 2004 against “homosexual extremists” pushing for civil unions.) For today’s Democratic Party, no love of surfing, millennial élan, or fondness for leis will be enough to overcome past homophobia or a Trumpian foreign policy. As R.N.C. spokesman Michael Ahrens told Axios: “Liberals think she’s too conservative, conservatives think she’s too liberal, and just about everyone thinks her coziness with Bashar al-Assad is disturbing.” That doesn’t leave many constituents in Gabbard’s corner—except, perhaps, RT.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/01/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-run
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Wed 18 Dec, 2019 08:49 pm
(Tulsi Gabbard) votes 'present' on impeaching Trump


Published December 18, 2019


Quote:
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), who is running for president, on Wednesday voted “present” on impeaching President Trump in an unexpected defection among Democrats.

Tulsi Gabbard claimed in a statement that she was “standing in the center” with her “present” vote.

“I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing,” Gabbard said.

“I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country,” Gabbard continued.

Tulsi Gabbard declined to respond to reporters’ questions as she left the House floor, instead repeatedly referring them to her statement.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/475233-gabbard-votes-present-on-impeaching-trump
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 07:33 am
@Real Music,
Quote:
“I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country,” Gabbard continued.

This is a key component of the GOP and Russian propaganda project - "impeachment is a partisan effort, thus illegitimate". So again she's acting as a troll in support of the bad-faith players.

And of course she won't clarify what she means by Trump's "wrong doing" because there's no rational way to elucidate that and to then get from there to the second part of her statement.
Brand X
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 08:05 am
@blatham,
Associating everything with Russia is the worst thing that's happened to this country the past two years, do you even get that?
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 08:20 am
@Brand X,
Quote:
Associating everything with Russia
A robustly unbright and uncareful formulation of my or others' criticisms.

Quote:
is the worst thing that's happened to this country the past two years
An even worser unbrightness.

So, two blue ribbons for you this morning. Congrats.
georgeob1
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 11:27 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
I'm not a fan of Tulsi Gabbard.

I am just pointing out who her fans are.

It appears that conservative pundits support Tulsi Gabbard because they hope that she will cause division in the democratic party.

It also appears that Russia supports Tulsi Gabbard because they also hope she will cause division in the democratic party.

As noted elsewhere, two to three weeks ago, Lash admitted that the real reason for her support of Gabbard was that Gabbard was doing damage to Kamala Harris' candidacy.

This is precisely the sort of activity we can expect from Russian troll accounts (or others of like mind) seeking to hurt strong Dem candidates through sewing division and discord. Let's not be dumb about this.


Are you suggesting that Kamala Harris is or was a "strong Democrat Candidate" ? Certainly the effects of her now failed campaign don't support that.

What is your basis for asserting that "the Russians support Tulsi Gabbard"? Or more than that, that the Russians have any reason to fear our Democrat Party? President Trump's policies have been a far grater setback to Russia's ability to do mischief in the world than anything that preceded him. He has provided meaningful weapons support to Ukraine, something Obama refused to do even as Russia took Crimea and invaded the Donbass in eastern Ukraine, and instead sent Hillary to Moscow with her absurd "reset button". In addition his development of U.S. petroleum and natural gas exports has lowered the international price for Russia's principal source of foreign income, causing them real economic contraction at a time when they can ill afford it. He has also opposed the Russian Pipeline through the former East Prussia and across the Baltic directly to Germany, and thereby increased the leverage of Ukraine, Belarus and Poland over Putin's adventures.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 12:01 pm
@Brand X,
Brand X wrote:

Associating everything with Russia is the worst thing that's happened to this country the past two years, do you even get that?

He does not. They don’t see how they’re being duped and used.

This is quite a dumb flock of idiots pretending to be liberals.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 12:03 pm
@Real Music,
Sometimes, I like Tulsi, sometimes I question her motives...like this time.

Was it a PR move to get conservative votes? 🤨She frames it as a bid for ‘unity’.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 12:51 pm
Quote:

Are you suggesting that Kamala Harris is or was a "strong Democrat Candidate" ?

"Was", obviously.

I agree with Gabbard on the censure vote. I think it would be a good idea — but not until after the Senate trial.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 02:12 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Are you suggesting that Kamala Harris is or was a "strong Democrat Candidate" ? Certainly the effects of her now failed campaign don't support that.
Is your premise here that every candidate whose campaign for a nomination has proven unsuccessful was therefore, axiomatically, a "weak" candidate? That would include Reagan in 1968 and 1976.
Quote:
What is your basis for asserting that "the Russians support Tulsi Gabbard"?

There's actually been quite a bit of reporting on this, george. But clearly you've missed it which may have something to do with your information input.
Quote:
The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020.

An NBC News analysis of the main English-language news sites employed by Russia in its 2016 election meddling shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is set to make her formal announcement Saturday, has become a favorite of the sites Moscow used when it interfered in 2016.

Several experts who track websites and social media linked to the Kremlin have also seen what they believe may be the first stirrings of an upcoming Russian campaign of support for Gabbard.
HERE Or Tulsi Gabbard: White nationalists and Russian propaganda machine throw support behind 2020 candidate

Quote:
Or more than that, that the Russians have any reason to fear our Democrat Party?
Come on, george. If you are going to reject the overwhelming evidence (I've provided some for you before) that the Russians were and are heavily invested in working towards a Trump win, then there's no reason for us to talk about any of this.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 02:31 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Come on, george. If you are going to reject the overwhelming evidence (I've provided some for you before) that the Russians were and are heavily invested in working towards a Trump win, then there's no reason for us to talk about any of this.

It appears to me that you are ignoring the overwhelming body of evidence and that with respect to what are very likely by far the most significant issues in the eyes of the Russian leadership - namely the loss of Ukraine, the preservation of the economic independence of Ukraine and Poland and their chief source of income from international trade - oil & gas.

Compare the effect of Trump's Foreign & economic policies with the rather supine accommodation of the Obama-Clinton years, and ask yourself which Putin would likely prefer.

Do you for a moment imagine the Russian FSA wasn't directly involved in the production of the Trump dossier they sold to the Clinton campaign in 2016? Compare
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 03:09 pm
Kamala Harris was never a double digit, was she?

If so, for a minute after a heavily contrived zinger at Biden?

Her own state and race threw her in the trash.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 04:51 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
It appears to me that you are ignoring the overwhelming body of evidence and that with respect to what are very likely by far the most significant issues in the eyes of the Russian leadership - namely the loss of Ukraine, the preservation of the economic independence of Ukraine and Poland and their chief source of income from international trade - oil & gas.
What you offer as "evidence" isn't evidence. It is a set of notions or theories. "Evidence" is:
Quote:
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

There is an overwhelmingly large body of facts and information that Russia was working to damage Clinton and forward Trump. This set of facts has been established by all US intel and policing entities, by the Pentagon, by numerous intel services abroad, by solid reporting here and elsewhere and by tech companies worldwide and by independent/private internet security companies.

But you are not available to view or consider this body of facts. So I'm not going to engage you on this any further.
georgeob1
 
  3  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2019 01:08 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

There is an overwhelmingly large body of facts and information that Russia was working to damage Clinton and forward Trump. This set of facts has been established by all US intel and policing entities, by the Pentagon, by numerous intel services abroad, by solid reporting here and elsewhere and by tech companies worldwide and by independent/private internet security companies.

But you are not available to view or consider this body of facts. So I'm not going to engage you on this any further.

You merely appear unwilling to deal with the real complexity of the very issues you raise.

Sewing public discord and confusion among competing powers is and has long has a practice of many governments, Including the USA with respect to the former USSR, Cuba and recently Venezuela. Russia has been doing it with both the US and several European powers for years, and with this they are merely continuing the long standing practice of the former Soviet State, now with the FSA and other agencies modeled after their Soviet antecedents. I agree with you that they are doing such things, but I find no evidence to support your odd certainty that you know exactly what were their specific motives in doing so.

It's generally safe to assume that the Russians are rational actors and pursuing their own self interest. Sewing the seeds of discord and disunity in a rival government & nation, such as we are experiencing now, is something that is clearly in Putin's interest. However it is quite another thing to assume that Putin feared Hillary's election in 2016 - after her and Obama's supine acceptance of the Russian seizure of Crimea and invasion of the Ukrainian Donbass region, and Hillary's sublimely absurd "reset button" what more could he have wished for in a U.S. government?? In contrast Trump represented a strong potentially unpredictable and disruptive force in American politics, one that could indeed threaten Putin's vital interests. Indeed that has happened - in spades. Trump has transformed the U,S. onto an exporter of petroleum products, thus disrupting the OPEC & Russian control of prices and significantly reducing the economic value of Russia's principal export and source of hard currency. This is indeed a serious and immediate threat to Putin's ability to hold power in Russia and do his mischief in the Western World and Middle East. The evidence all points to this as a particularly serous threat to Putin - one he almost certainly would not face with a Clinton government.

The untested, thoughtless and complacent Democrat assumption that Putin somehow feared a Democrat victory in 2016 stands in laughable conflict with the obvious salient facts. Your odd certainty in this matter and expressed unwillingness to address the likely real issues motivating Putin are merely expressions of your own credulous acceptance of Democrat propaganda and unwillingness to really think about the matter.

If however there is some factual basis on which to conclude that there was indeed a consistent anti Clinton bias in Russian actions - they (the Russian FSA) after all delivered Steele's sources for the anti Trump dossier Clinton's campaign paid for - I would be glad to see it. Until then I will simply recognize your unwillingness and likely inability to deliver any persuasive evidence or argument.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2019 09:59 pm
@georgeob1,
You better talk to someone else, george. I'm not interested.
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2019 11:24 pm
(Tulsi Gabbard) lays low after voting ‘present’ on impeachment.



Published December 20, 2019

Quote:
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard gifted her long-shot presidential campaign a burst of attention after casting a “present” vote on the House’s two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump.

But not all publicity is good publicity.

Democrats across the political spectrum continue to rip her decision not to vote “yes” or “no,” portraying the move as cowardly and emblematic of how out of touch she is with the Democratic Party she’s seeking to represent.

“Because she’s running for president of the United States, I think if yesterday was a test for who could be a good commander in chief, she got an F-plus,” said Bakari Sellers, a former South Carolina state legislator who supported California Sen. Kamala Harris’ campaign before she dropped out of the race earlier this month.

Gabbard became a trending topic in the U.S. — first by name, then by the hashtag “#TulsiCoward” — Thursday after becoming the lone member of Congress not to take a side on impeachment.

Gabbard is the only remaining Democratic House member running for president. The rest of the Democratic field voiced their support for the president’s impeachment.

Gabbard’s vote Wednesday was more in line with House Republicans, who voted “no” in a unified bloc. And her “present” vote also revived allegations that she’s a Russian asset who could play spoiler in the general election by running a third-party campaign, echoing criticism Hillary Clinton lobbed at the Hawaii congresswoman in October when she called Gabbard “the favorite of the Russians” in a podcast interview.

Gabbard is frequently mentioned in Russian propaganda and media, and her views on foreign policy have been criticized for aligning too closely with Russia and other foreign adversaries, such as Syria and its president, Bashar Assad.

Gabbard didn’t decide she would vote “present” until she got to the House floor on Wednesday, according to a source familiar with her thinking. But the campaign was at least somewhat prepared for it.

In a lengthy statement released by her campaign 15 minutes after the vote, she framed it as one that put the country first, explaining that while she believes “Trump is guilty of wrongdoing,” she “could not in good conscience” vote “yes” or “no” because the process was too partisan and “fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.”

Supporters received her explanation around midnight that evening, and Gabbard recorded a four-and-a-half-minute video delivering her earlier campaign statement after she finished voting. It was posted online to Twitter at 1:25 a.m. and has since been viewed more than 1.2 million times.

Just three Democrats voted “no” on impeachment articles: Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, who plans to join the Republican Party in the coming days; Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, a powerful committee chairman who represents a district Trump won by 31 points in 2016; and Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, a freshman lawmaker who voted “yes” on the abuse-of-power charge but “no” on obstruction of Congress.

Gabbard addressed the barrage of backlash she’s faced in a selfie video posted Thursday afternoon.

“My stance yesterday, my vote, was opting out of this zero-sum game mindset and back into one of negotiation and compromise,” she said. “We’re stuck right now in this terrible scenario where everyone is trying to exact maximum hurt from their opponent for a ‘win.’ My present vote was not passive. It was an active protest against the terrible fallout of this zero-sum mindset that the two opposing political parties have trapped America in.”

Gabbard wasn’t on Thursday’s debate stage in Los Angeles because she failed to meet the Democratic National Committee’s qualifications. Instead, she was to be in New Hampshire, where she’s a top-five candidate, according to RealClearPolitics’ average of surveys in the Granite State. Her team believes she can break into the top four there.

Her campaign announced Thursday that she would hold a media availability ahead of her scheduled event in Manchester but canceled it 75 minutes later, citing votes in the House. After Christmas, she will hold a series of daily town halls across the state until Dec. 30 then resume campaigning on New Year’s Day with a town hall in Barrington.

In an interview Thursday morning on Rising with The Hill’s Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti, Gabbard estimated receiving just two questions about impeachment as she’s campaigned for president.

“A total of two questions,” she emphasized. “That in and of itself, I think, speaks volumes about what the American people are most concerned about.”

Indeed, voters are more concerned about issues such as health care than the president’s impeachment. But polls have shown that Democrats are largely supportive of impeachment, while nearly half of independents support it.

In Quinnipiac’s poll of New Hampshire last month, Gabbard was fifth among candidates with 6 percent support. The bulk of her supporters identify as moderate and conservative or independent.

In her interview with The Hill, Gabbard called rumors that she would mount a third-party bid “ridiculous” and cast her campaign as one that welcomes and respects Republicans and independents.

“I don’t call people names and deplorables,” she said, an unmistakable reference to Clinton.

Philippe Reines, a former senior adviser to Clinton at the State Department, tweeted that Gabbard’s vote was “about as pathetic as calling in sick.”

Kathy Sullivan, former chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, said she didn’t agree with Gabbard’s vote — “You either think that Trump violated the Constitution or you don’t, right?” she said — but stressed that Gabbard shouldn’t be “tarred and feathered and run out of town for it, either.”

“The people who are today out there being very vociferous about Tulsi and her ‘present’ vote were never gonna vote for her anyway. They just weren’t going to,” Sullivan said. “So I don’t see it hurting her in that sense with that part of the voting base, and it may help her with the people that are already supporting her.”

In a sign of the swift blowback Gabbard faced — and the lack of attention Democrats are paying to her campaign — Matthew Miller, a former Department of Justice spokesman for ex-Attorney General Eric Holder, tweeted a link to Kai Kehele’s campaign website, mistakenly promoting him as Gabbard’s primary challenger.

Kehele, a Hawaii state senator, is running to succeed Gabbard, who is not seeking reelection.

Miller’s post was retweeted nearly 7,000 times and garnered more than 17,000 likes. His follow-up 15 minutes later acknowledging that Gabbard isn’t running for her seat in Congress again got significantly less engagement.

Kehele, for his part, also plugged his campaign, posting a link to ActBlue for donations.

“I am running to replace Tulsi Gabbard in Congress because our district deserves better than this,” he tweeted. “Unlike her, I will always put our country before politics.”

His post was similarly retweeted more than 7,000 times and liked more than 20,000 times.

He told POLITICO that Wednesday was a “good night” for his campaign and that he was “shocked” when he saw a House member voted “present.”

“I’m like, ‘Who has the hell voted — who’d do that?’ And then, of course, it quickly became apparent it was her,” he recalled. “It’s totally unacceptable.”

Kehele, accused Gabbard of abandoning her district and her duty in Congress by repeatedly missing votes and campaigning in New Hampshire instead of engaging with constituents in her district in Hawaii. He noted that she still collects a taxpayer salary while fellow House members Seth Moulton of Massachusetts and Eric Swalwell of California abandoned their long-shot presidential bids earlier this year to represent their districts.

“Last night, the biggest vote that the House took this year, obviously one of the biggest votes in our nation’s history, and half of the state of Hawaii was left voiceless because, in my opinion, it was a political stunt,” said Kehele, who added that Gabbard’s campaign has “zero” chance of winning the nomination and that he would be ready to step in immediately if she resigned from her seat before the end of her term.

Democrats have speculated that Gabbard could become a talking head, perhaps on Fox News or another network, when her campaign ends. There’s little belief, if any, among mainstream Democrats that Gabbard could become the nominee.

In New Hampshire, where polls show Gabbard’s campaign has the most support, Sullivan — the former state Democratic Party chair — said she doesn’t hear people talking about Gabbard in her circles and could only recall her name being brought up when voters at a local event in Manchester cited her as a candidate they aren’t supporting in general conversations about the 2020 field.

“Other than that, no, I really don’t hear people talking about her campaign,” Sullivan said. “I think she’s drawing most of her support from people who aren’t Democrats, so the people who I talk politics with are not Tulsi people. There’s a reason why they hold the election and count the ballots, but at this point I would say no, I don’t think she’s got a good chance of being the nominee.”

Sellers, the former South Carolina legislator, was more explicit.

Tulsi Gabbard stands the same chance of winning the Democratic nomination as I do of winning the NFL MVP. I mean, that ain’t happening,” he said.

Her endgame is to be a famous Fox News commentator and go on there and bash Democrats all day.

She speaks more harshly about Hillary Clinton than Bashar al Assad and Donald Trump.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/gabbard-lays-low-after-voting-present-on-impeachment/ar-BBYc7aI?li=AAJUkZb&ocid=UE13DHP
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2019 10:19 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

You better talk to someone else, george. I'm not interested.


I'm well aware of that. You don't tolerate rational disagreement very well.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2019 10:39 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
You don't tolerate rational disagreement very well.
I guess I have to admit that you and Donald Trump have me beat on this one.

snood
 
  2  
Reply Sat 21 Dec, 2019 10:40 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
You don't tolerate rational disagreement very well.
I guess I have to admit that you and Donald Trump have me beat on this one.




🤣😂😁
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/04/2020 at 08:46:56