We Need To Check This Right Here. Who On DU is STILL Support Tulsi Gabbard After This....and WHY?

[LovingA2andMI]

Last edited Fri Oct 18, 2019, 11:35 PM - Edit history (1)

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

ENOUGH!!!

It is time to REMOVE HER as a "Option" on DU? Who Agrees?

This also needs to be added onto this thread. Excerpts from Tulsi Gabbard interview with NBC News Reporter Maura Barrett this evening and to say we're speechless is a understatement....

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Hopefully, the DU Moderators will give the question posed, some serious thoughts.

[DURHAM D]

1. I hope Hillary goes to Hawaii to campaign

for her primary opponent.

[LiberalFighter]

172. That would be fabulous.

[Joe941]

186. Or jumps into the 2020 race!

[Demsrule86]

194. No it would not...for Gods sake. Do we want to win this election...why would we give Trump Hillary

as a target?

[DURHAM D]

195. To change the subject away from Hunter Biden????? nt

[Demsrule86]

196. Well you do have point...I stand corrected.

[Hekate]

2. I hope the Admins are having a discussion about this. It's at that point.

[Hekate]

171. We definitely need to talk about Tulsi, but as we do Jill Stein.

[Demsrule86]

193. I agree...it has gone too far.

[dewsgirl]

3. I saw one earlier...it was like spotting a unicorn. I didn't know

there were any here.

[vsrazdem]

4. Do you honestly believe any Gabbard supporter is going to respond to this.

[LovingA2andMI]

5. Why not?

At this point they need to explain why they would support an alleged "Democrat" that openly attacked our previous Presidential Nominee like this.

Waiting....

[vsrazdem]

10. No. A candidate's supporter does not need to explain anything to you. And I am sure as far as

Gabbard is concerned, she is wondering why anyone would support a former presidential nominee who would attack a current sitting democratic congressman running for president. People that get attacked, usually attack back. It is not surprising that she responded, but agree that her response was extremely unwise and should have been more measured because they are both making the party look bad. This shows she does not have the temperament to be President, but does not mean she is a traitor to her country, and we do not get to chose who runs in the primaries, we get to chose who our nominee is. Anyone supporter who responds to this post is going to get skewered, and who in their right mind wants to be attacked.

[LovingA2andMI]

20. She Attacked OUR PARTY Presidential Democratic Nominee in 2016...

What do you mean? Seriously....

This shows she does not have the temperament to be President, but does not mean she is a traitor to her country, and we do not get to chose who runs in the primaries, we get to chose who our nominee is. Anyone supporter who responds to this post is going to get skewered, and who in their right mind wants to be attacked.

[vsrazdem]

35. Disliking a candidate does not make you a traitor to your country.

[StarfishSaver]

41. You think this is simply "disliking" a candidate?

[herding cats]

77. No, this is much more than honest disagreement on policy.

Much, much more. It's obvious.

[Eliot Rosewater]

31. Stop BASHING Hillary Clinton

Stop BASHING Hillary Clinton

Stop BASHING Hillary Clinton

Stop BASHING Hillary Clinton

Stop BASHING Hillary Clinton

[vsrazdem]

34. There is no where above where I based Hillary Clinton.

[Voltaire2]

158. The idea is to bait people.

[LiberalFighter]

173. You what?

[PatrickforO]

48. I know Clinton is well-loved on this site and generally in the Democratic Party.

But, as the newer member above points out, Clinton did levy a pretty serious allegation against Gabbard. Implying that Gabbard is basically a Russian asset being positioned to run as a third party candidate to ensure Trump's victory in 2020 by sucking off votes from the Democrats is so serious that Clinton should release any evidence she might have that can support the accusation. Otherwise, she'll be forced eventually to withdraw it.

Because, while I heartily disagree with Gabbard's stances, many of them, to levy this kind of accusation without releasing evidence could be truthfully be called 'dirty' or 'hardball' politics, or more vulgarly, a Rovian term that begins with the word 'rat.' It cannot really surprise anyone on this thread that Gabbard fought back hard and decisively.

And since Secretary Clinton would never personally engage in such accusations WITHOUT evidence, I call upon her to release it. Because if it is true, the Gabbard should be ejected from the Democratic party. If Clinton does NOT have such evidence, then she should withdraw the allegation.

C'mon, people. I know Clinton is rightfully popular on here, but that doesn't make her right in this case and you all know it. She accused a Democratic candidate basically of being a Russian plant.

[jcgoldie]

67. Bullshit.

"But, as the newer member above points out, Clinton did levy a pretty serious allegation against Gabbard."

Hillary Clinton never named her.

[melman]

68. Ridiculous

It was perfectly clear who she was talking about. And in case it wasn't her spokesperson has confirmed it.

Link to tweet

[jcgoldie]

69. OF COURSE ITS OBVIOUS

ITS OBVIOUS BECAUSE ITS FUCKING TRUE! And how much MORE obvious is it when Tulsi Gabbard responds with a Trumplike assinine tweet in response when she wasn't named???

[happy feet]

76. This!

[Generic Brad]

96. Don't forget about her 10,000 instant retweets

No Russian bots there, guys. I’m sure she just has 10,000 fans just hanging on her every tweet.

[Cha]

139. TG "overplayed her hand.." She hoisted on her own petard..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Karma13612]

197. Thank you for this. N/t

[Autumn]

165. Hillary didn't have to name her. Everyone and their dog knew who she was referencing.

[LiberalFighter]

175. And yet she didn't name her.

Because there was no doubt as to the identity. Due to Gabbard's history.

[Jirel]

204. She didn't have to name Tulsi because...

TULSI NAMED HERSELF. She identified herself as the topic of the conversation. Once she owned it, there’s no ambiguity.

[cwydro]

150. This.

[Trueblue Texan]

167. Well, Hillary has been pretty spot on ...

...about those Russian assets. Gabbard doesn't seem to hold Democratic values and I wouldn't put it past the Russians to plant a candidate of their own in our midst. We wouldn't be the first party that was attacked in that way.

[Land Shark]

180. If the Dem tent isn't big enough for Gabbard

...then we certainly can't blame Greens and/or Gabbard for a Dem loss. And Gabbard certainly represents more than 70,000 voters in MI (my home state), WI and PA. Purges lose elections. Van Jones called this move dangerous, and I agree.

But if not, people are in effect saying that Klobuchar can reach out intentionally to Republican voters but Gabbard is condemned for doing so less intentionally, for happening to have Republican support.

In my politics I defend the marginalized and disrespected of any stripe. I just recently changed my support to Gabbard for this reason, and to keep the Dem tent as big as possible. I will very likely switch to some other candidate when the attacks stop.

[MFM008]

151. WE cant bad mouth a

Fellow real democrat like HRC.
Why should she.
Shes made it personel and not policy.

[femmedem]

154. I agree with you completely and I admire your willingness to go against popular opinion.

Like you, I disagree with Tulsi on many issues and think her response showed her to be too volatile to be president. But name any other candidate who wouldn't be angry if accused of being a Russian asset.

And Clinton made a statement about one of our candidates that would have been removed on DU if she'd made it anonymously here. I admire Clinton, I campaigned for Clinton, but I find her statement as problematic as Tulsi's response.

Ordinarily I wouldn't have bothered weighing in on it, but I can see you're getting a lot of pushback so I wanted you to know that you're not alone.

[Hortensis]

71. NO, LovingA. No one has any duty to explain to you, and

you have no right to demand explanation, no matter how shockingly despicable Gabbard's Hill-hate statement is. We're all free citizens and members of the electorate.

Go, Kai Kahele!

[Zambero]

143. Made my second donation to Kai Kahele today

Hope HRC goes out to campaign for him!

[cwydro]

147. Thank you.

This.

[Voltaire2]

157. Not a supporter but Clinton attacked her

more or less out of the blue. Gabbard simply responded in kind.

That and Clinton did her a huge favor. She is now in the news.

[dewsgirl]

8. There is at least one, I saw them a little bit ago in one of

the Hillary threads. They were complaining about all the dem bashing of her. They have been a member since 2008.

[TwilightZone]

11. There are a couple of pretty vocal ones still around.

They tend to show up in most Tulsi threads, so they might stop by.

Personally, I'm sincerely curious what they think of this and if they consider it accurate and/or defensible.

[Tarc]

49. Do any even exist?

Gabbard 2020 - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1302

1 thread.

In April.

I've sen more DU'ers with Williamson in their "committed-to-voting-for" banner than Gabbard ones.

[vsrazdem]

64. I don't know, but she has 1% in the forum list. She is not on my favorite list, but I find myself

in the odd position of defending her right to continue on DU, because she is still a candidate and a democrat and unless that changes, she has the same right as every other candidate does, whether I like her or not, and I will abide by the rules of DU.

[apcalc]

104. Imo she is a DINO, whose sole purpose is to muck up the works.

[MyOwnPeace]

177. You got that right........

she IS a Democrat - unlike others (but notice I'm not naming names!).

[vsrazdem]

179. You don' t have to name names, just like Hillary didn't, but your message came through

loud and clear.

[Hekate]

65. Uh, yeah. I was just in a thread with a bunch of them

[herding cats]

90. They should.

If they believe in her they should defend her, right?

[LisaM]

6. Since December 2015 when the DNC had a data breach

and she coincidentally started showing up everywhere trashing the DNC, she's gotten on my nerves. Now I wonder who was behind that.

[LiberalFighter]

176. Yep! I remember that. That behavior is unacceptable as a DNC member.

[NurseJackie]

7. I agree.

It is time to REMOVE HER as a "Option" on DU? Who Agrees?

She has disqualified herself. She needs to withdraw immediately. I think it would be entirely fitting for the admins to remove her name from the ongoing live-poll choices as well. Does she have a forum? That should be locked too.

Hillary really struck a nerve, didn't she? It didn't take much to bait her into showing us her true self.

[Wellstone ruled]

9. Gabbard's rant sounds similiar to one

posted back in 2016. JPS?

[ChubbyStar]

12. JPS? Will you explain

Thanks!

[Wellstone ruled]

53. Sorry JPR

[ChubbyStar]

54. I know that one!

I thought it might be a different splinter group. Thanks

[Wellstone ruled]

56. Bunch of nasties.

Understand they bit the dust. One major positive for Wisconsin.

[Trueblue Texan]

168. Some of us don't know...

...what JPR or JPS mean. 'splain?

[pintobean]

169. JPR is a small message board

mostly made up of former DUers.

https://jackpineradicals.com/

[Maven]

13. Agreed.

She should be removed as an option on DU but moreover, she should be ejected from the party. There can be no doubt that the purpose of her candidacy is to harm, not help, our chances in 2020.

[George II]

14. Believe it or not, she's ahead of these candidates on DU:

AMY KLOBUCHAR
ANDREW YANG
CORY BOOKER
MARIANNE WILLIAMSON
JULIAN CASTRO
MICHAEL BENNET
TOM STEYER
STEVE BULLOCK
JOE SESTAK
JOHN DELANEY
WAYNE MESSAM
TIM RYAN

[Horizens]

23. Bots

Bots

[philly_bob]

15. You support shutting down dissenting views.

No way Gabbard is getting my vote, but I'd like to see an open discussion of what Gabbard calls "regime change" wars.

Sometime in the last two decades, American foreign policy began to call for "regime change", specifically in Syria.

Is a foreign policy calling for "regime change" against international law? Who was behind that? When did that happen? Was Hillary part of it?

I'm not supporting Gabbard, but I'd like to see some answers to those questions.

[Horizens]

22. "regime change"

The term "Regime Change" was coined in Russia and is jargon repeatedly employed by russian propagandists such as RT (Russia Today), Sputnik and Tulsi Gabbard.

[pangaia]

37. Regime change is a term used all over the world..

Just a few excerpts from WIKI, the "Readers" Digest of the internet nevertheless--

The term has been popularized by recent US presidents. Ronald Reagan had previously called for regime change in Libya, directing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to work towards that goal.[3] Bill Clinton and George W. Bush regularly used the term in reference to Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq."

"The deposition of a regime by a foreign state. This deposition can be achieved through covert means such as in the 1989 United States invasion of Panama or by direct military action."

"The United States has been involved in and assisted in the overthrow of foreign governments (more recently termed "regime change" ) without the overt use of U.S. military force. Often, such operations are tasked to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)."

[philly_bob]

106. Thanks for useful research, Pangaia.

I'd like to see a history of "regime change."

I'd like to see a discussion of whether "regime change" as a goal of American foreign policy is compatible with international law or democratic principles. Personally, I'd like to see national leaders referred to international courts. Like Korea's Kim or Saudi Arabia's Mister Bone Saw.

Meantime, I watch sadly as Trump does his madness and certain folks in the Democratic Party try to shout down opposing views.

[PatrickforO]

38. Sorry, W made a big speech about 'regime change' back in 2001.

The gist of it was that any country in the mid-east that supported terrorists would be subject to 'regime change.'

[Bernardo de La Paz]

202. No. "regime change" had currency before RT, Sputnik & Gabbard.

(for accuracy, not for support of Gabbard)

[msongs]

27. she has been and is a willing participant in many of those wars she "opposes" nt

[Maven]

30. "Regime change war" with regard to Syria is Russian propaganda framing

Tulsi's promotion of it speaks volumes.

We don't need to be giving that noise any bandwidth here.

Thanks

[vsrazdem]

36. I don't like Gabbard, but this pile on and getting her kicked out of DU is pretty disgusting.

[pangaia]

40. I can't stand her either, but I agree, people here openly BAITING

her supporters to show their faces..

WOW !!!

Maybe they are right to do so, but.... eh....

[AnotherMother4Peace]

75. Gabbard's responses/actions break DU rules of not using rightwing talking points & supporting Dems.

[Demsrule86]

79. I agree ...disgusting behavior and does their candidates little credit.

[Celerity]

85. [phone]

[Land Shark]

181. +1

[EX500rider]

199. "Is a foreign policy calling for "regime change" against international law?"

"UN Duty to Protect" pretty much calls for it in some cases:
The Responsibility to Protect doctrine is the enabling principle that first obligates individual states and then the international community to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
And it has certainly been warranted in some past cases like Japan/Germany WWII or Pol Pot in Cambodia or the Hutu in Rwanda.

[Newest Reality]

16. I have wondered...

why she is still an option here.

It is really time to discuss it and consider her behaviors and stance.

My critique is that she has given me a cognitive dissonance and I doubt her integrity as a democrat. She presents some glaring contradictions and seems rather suspect.

[cwydro]

17. I don't believe in telling others who they should or should not support.

None of my business.

[FrankBooth]

18. Where oh Where is my Ivy League Friend?

Last edited Fri Oct 18, 2019, 08:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Who claimed to be a Biden supporter but just couldn't believe that I would call poor, mistreated Tulsi a troll. He's probably too busy agitating for a no-deal Brexit somewhere out there on the interwebs.

[lapucelle]

39. ...

[yaesu]

19. As long as she is a Democratic candidate I will not say anything offensive about her

nor any other candidate. That is my answer & I believe a DU rule. Now, divide and conquer is something the russians are very good.

[LovingA2andMI]

24. Umm....

Trying to figure out THEIR Support for Someone who attacked our Democratic Nominee in 2016, like Tulsi Gabbard did as noted in the Twitter Thread, above...

[LiberalLovinLug]

73. What is an "attack" and what is "criticism"?

What is defending yourself? Hillary called her a Russian asset. After months and months of Tulsi being ostrizized and belittled by those that don't want to hear that the Democratic party could actually improve in areas (such as supporting regime change wars).

Is Hillary's comment an "attack" or a "criticism"? Is Tulsi's? Its in the eye of the beholder. Hillary was known to spar with Obama on military intervention, especially in regards to Syria. Clinton was regarded as more of a hawk. Gabbard had a problem with that. Its only natural that these two would come to a head.

I think Tulsi has some very good points that don't get discussed enough. But at the same time she may have painted herself into a corner here. She won't win the popularity contest with Hillary, at least with Democrats.

I think Gabbard's whole strategy going in was that she made a note of how much Sanders was popular, last time, with a lot of independents that had a problem with both parties. She saw that Sanders could have gone further to cement that independent vote, but Sanders, despite what some here try to portray him as, is loyal to the Democratic Party and even though, like Gabbard, he is not afraid to speak truth to power....against either party...he knows when to pull back. She gambled that many Democratic voters are frustrated at feeling like they are not being heard, especially on the left, and that IF she had managed to win the primary, she would be set up to, perhaps lose some of the more purist Democratic voters, but more than make up for that with independents and new voters. That is who her campaign is catering to.

Not that I agree with that strategy, but I think that's what her angle has been. But I think it has backfired. She gambled that Donnie would remain high 40's with Republicans, that voters, independents, younger voters, would not want the expected winner, ...at the time when she signed up...who was Biden. Whom she lumps in with the old interventionist guard that voted to invade Iraq. But as more and more damming evidence comes in on Trump, left leaning Independents and Democrats are now more warm to the idea of voting Democratic....just to get Trump out. And the left in the party have two popular options still very much in the race.

I still think it was a good idea for Democrats to have such a big tent of ideas and candidates. I welcomed her criticisms. Some of them were long overdue. But she has overplayed her hand. I wish her the best, but I hope she realizes she has made her point and drops out now.

[applegrove]

127. Assad and Syria is not a regime change war. 1) arab spring 2) civil war

3) isis. Not a regime change war.

[Celerity]

153. .....

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303812104576439713197868294

July 12, 2011

The Obama administration for the first time Monday said it supported regime change in Syria, capping a day in which mobs attacked the U.S. Embassy in Damascus and tensions between the two nations escalated.

Obama's Regime-Change Policy in Syria

When you’re a superpower, you can do anything you want to, it seems.

https://www.thenation.com/article/obamas-regime-change-policy-syria/

AUGUST 13, 2012

The Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA are making war plans for Syria. And they’re pretty much announcing them.

Over the weekend, on a visit to Turkey, a NATO member, to meet with Syrian opposition leaders and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish foreign minister, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explicitly declared that Washington’s policy toward Syria is now in what she called the “operational” phase. “We have been closely coordinating over the course of this conflict, but now we need to get into the real details of such operational planning,” she said, adding: “Our intelligence services, our military have very important responsibilities and roles to play, so we are going to be setting up a working group to do exactly that.”

Make no mistake: this is regime change by force. It’s not exactly like Iraq, and it’s not exactly like Libya (yet)—but it’s regime change by force anyway.

In her statement with Davutoglu, Clinton said that the United States is doing the following:

First, supporting the opposition and their efforts to end the violence and begin the transition to a free and democratic Syria without Assad. The United States continues to provide the opposition with communications equipment and other forms of non-lethal assistance and direct financial assistance. We are coordinating our efforts with others who are also providing various forms of support.

snip

[ms liberty]

161. Well said. n/t

[solara]

21. Is there any way to verify that either of these posts actually

came from the person they are attributed to?

Sure seems like it could be a set up.. like what the russians have been doing to divide us, make us suspicious of each other and all that bad stuff.

Just asking.. Maybe we should all take the time to verify stuff like this before posting.. I am NOT assuming that wasn't done here, but if it was, notice should have been posted.

Just saying'

[LovingA2andMI]

25. This is from Tulsi Gabbard's Verified Account

If she deputes writing this on her Verified Twitter Account, we would be happy to remove. She has not done this, yet....

[solara]

144. I often keep my opinion to myself on DU about

some of this stuff as well as a few of the 'contenders'. That said, I hope we can always be accurate & real, which the other side is mostly... not. There is quite enough poison going around (thanks to trump's mendacious & delusional influence) to last 500 lifetimes. I often speak out a lot more on twitter, but I don't follow Ms. Tulsi Gabbard so I didn't get a look at either tweet.

Just checkin'

Thanks so much for your reply

[CaliforniaPeggy]

26. In the Gabbard 2020 Group, there are 3 members listed on DU. One has been tombstoned.

One has 500 + posts; the other joined yesterday.

[JenniferJuniper]

28. In other words, there is only 1.

At most.

[bluewater]

29. maybe that is Tulsi herself incognito?

[TwilightZone]

46. The one I've seen sounds like a staffer.

Which wouldn't be surprising. We've had staff members on DU on a lot of occasions previously, some of them rather prominent.

[LAS14]

62. I've seen two in the threads today. And...

.... they aren't the same ones that show up in Gabbard 2020, either in replies or the 5 recs. So there are at least 7. Obviously more, since she comes out ahead of all those others. I wonder how many are responding because, like me, I was surprised at her articulateness, etc., in the debates. Beyond that I knew nothing and wondered why she engendered so much animosity. Now I know!!!!!

[intheflow]

42. That's a hellova catch, Peggy!

Funny someone should join the Gabbard train just as Clinton comes out suggesting she's a Russian operative.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

45. Ah, not really! Anyone can look into any group...

even if you can't post there. It's simple to look.

Still, Thank You, intheflow!

[bearsfootball516]

95. The one that joined yesterday was just tombstoned.

[orangecrush]

114. Great catch!

[blueinredohio]

32. As far as I'm concerned you can remove her as she was NEVER an option for me.

[4139]

33. No. She was reacting to what Hillary Clinton Said about her.

Hillary criticized tulsi and tulsi criticized Hillary right back.

[rzemanfl]

44. Hillary didn't name her. n/t

[LovingA2andMI]

51. This...

Thank You.

[BigmanPigman]

43. I wanted to remove her weeks ago.

She is NOT a Dem in my book.

[Mike Nelson]

47. It's amazing...

... the super-powers people ascribe to Hillary. "It was always you!" asserts Tulsi, trying to destroy her... honestly, how does Hillary has the time to wage these "deep state" campaigns - and still run her sex slave pizza parlor?

[ChubbyStar]

183. She puts pepperoni on EVERYTHING!

She is very busy....

[question everything]

50. On DU, she is still ahead of Klobuchar, Booker, Castro, Bennet and Bullock

all established office holders each would make a good president.

Also, ahead of the businessmen - Yang and Steyer - who have never held office but, hey, as does Trump.

[Loge23]

52. She's an obvious violation of DU rules

No bashing other Dems. Guilty.

[msongs]

57. bashing is an opinion...

commenting on her statements and observed behavior is not bashing IMO. I do not like anything about her but if she wants to spend her $$ staying in the race that's ok with me at this point. I am more interested in supporting her primary opponent

[LovingA2andMI]

58. Agree...

She should be gone from DU.

[Voltaire2]

159. Huh? Almost all the candidates have bashed other candidates.

The rule is about us not the candidates.

[George II]

55. This was just posted on twitter:

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

66. Of course she runs to Fox News.

Where she promotes herself as the only anti-war Democrat.

[jcgoldie]

72. Glad to see she gets along so well with Tucker Carlson

...I'd hate to think Trey Gowdy was her only friend...

[sheshe2]

110. Back on Faux Snooze?

Tucker?

[Beakybird]

59. Gabbard and Jill Stein are two peas in the same pod. Please remove her, DU!

[Demsrule86]

81. Tulsi Gabbard is a Democrat and Stein is not...thus you are wrong...this is disturbing...you don't

get to decide who is a 'real' Democrat. I am not a Gabbard fan but this is beyond the pale.

[Frances]

60. Is Tulsi a native English speaker

The tweet is grammatically correct, but some phrases don’t sound like the way a native speaker talks
For example, Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies
I think most native speakers would say don’t be a coward and hide behind your proxies
If Tulsi is a native speaker, I think she had some help from someone who isn’t a native speaker
I say this as someone who worked with a lot of ESOL students

[IronLionZion]

70. She is a native English speaker

If you listen to her debates and speeches, she has a different style of speaking than many other Americans. She was born in American Samoa and spent most of her life in Hawaii so that might be their style of speaking.

[Frances]

74. The native Hawaiians I have known

Wouldn’t write this way

[Mr.Bill]

61. I'm also seeing a lot of her ads rught now on this website.

Could be coincidence, but never seen them before today.

[sheshe2]

115. Buy a star for a dollar.

No more ads.

[Mr.Bill]

116. Actually, it's not that annoying.

In fact, it's interesting to see the timing of it.

[sheshe2]

124. Irrates the heck out of me.

Only for a moment until I sign on and they are gone.

[Mr.Bill]

125. Having spent most of my career in the printing and advertising business,

advertising interests me. Even junk mail. Sounds funny, I know, but it does.

[mercuryblues]

156. The ads appear because we are talking about tulsi

I remember way back I had a Krispy Cream ad on a thread about Chris Christy. LOL

On gun threads I used to see NRA ads. I reported that to the Admins.

[Mr.Bill]

178. Bottom line is she is paying for ads here.

They don't run them for free. But don't get me wrong, I don't care, I just find it interesting. I haven't seen as many ads for any of the other candidates, and we talk about them all the time.

[ms liberty]

162. The ads we see are triggered mostly by subject matter & keywords

All it really tells us is that a candidate is running ads on the web and we're talking about that candidate.

[LAS14]

63. No, I don't think she should be removed, not if she makes it to the Dem debates. nt

[Demsrule86]

78. IMHO we need to mind our own business...support your candidate and forget about all this nonsense.

What difference does it make?

[Celerity]

80. [phone]

[Demsrule86]

82. Thank you. I dislike this sort of thing.People should support the candidate they choose to support

and not be attacked.

[ms liberty]

164. So much this. She's not going to be the nominee

And never was. This is a distraction. We need to leave her alone and let her sink like the failed potus candidate she is, and perhaps her house seat as well. Time and her constituents will make that decision.

[Demsrule86]

192. Exactly right. It is my opinion she get elected in Hawaii because of her family...well known.

[Devil Child]

83. My primary vote my choice

I don’t justify my primary vote to others. I will vote for Rep. Gabbard if she is on the ballot for my states primary. If not I will vote for the next candidate of my choosing either Sen. Sanders or Sen. Warren.

Haters gonna hate and that’s fine by me.

[pintobean]

87. Good for You!

I'll second that.

[Devil Child]

108. Thanks pintobean

Stay strong and don't get poked or singed from the collective pitchforks and torches!

[NRaleighLiberal]

98. loving those tucker carlson appearances, then, it seems. whose side are you on, again?

[LovingA2andMI]

107. Think They Are Going To Have To Soul Search That (What Side Folks Are On)...

As Tulsi's Side is growing more and more obvious by the hour, minute, section...

Link to tweet

[sheshe2]

123. Interesting comment.

Democratic Party: “It is a party that has become a warmongering party, a party that defends these corporate special interests and the establishment rather than being the party that is truly of, by and for the people.”

This comment from her as Democrats are furiously fighting the Oval Orifice (misspell intended) and Don the Con over Syria, Turkey and mass genocide of the Kurds. They are being slaughtered and children are dying. They are the warmongeries'? Get a grip and open your eyes and start fighting the GOP that have every intention of bringing America to her knees. Who's side are you on here?

Hey Tulsi? Try going after the corporate special interests of the trumpsters for a change. Don is fleecing America. He and his spawn are lining their pockets and businesses with cash. His hand is in the national reserve. Guess what, when all is said and done it will be empty.

[chillfactor]

84. never had any respect for tulsi

and never EVER supported her. Hope she gets beat in the next election.

[pintobean]

86. No one owes you an explanation for anything

and I doubt Admin removes her from DU's options, unless real evidence materializes and the party takes action. All of these hair on fire posts will fade away.

I find it quite disturbing how easily we can be manipulated into turning on each other like this. We won't win shit if we're fragmented.

I've been here at DU for almost 16 years. Primaries really take their toll on this place. We eat our own. Looks like this year won't be any different.

[LovingA2andMI]

88. She wrote what she WROTE....

Regardless of what the Moderators do, Tulsi has exposed herself for what she is.

[pintobean]

89. A candidate who will defend herself against

unsubstantiated accusations. She has every right to do so.

[LovingA2andMI]

92. Where Did Hillary Clinton Mentioned...

Tulsi Gabbard's Name? Please link exactly in the Podcast this was done? Waiting....

[pintobean]

94. Lol.

[LovingA2andMI]

105. So that's funny -- as in asking for you to provide Proof...

We have more proof of Gabbard's thoughts --- this time towards the ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY -- as that is what she said here (you might want to re-read the two first lines of the transcript when she starts speaking to the NBC reporter -- four times for it can sink in)....

Link to tweet

So...any thoughts? Also, there's nothing funny here so an "LOL" response is not warranted in the least.

[pintobean]

109. Now you're telling me how to post?

[LovingA2andMI]

112. Let's Be Specific...

Do you believe like the Candidate you are supporting does (since she has SAID IT) that the entire Democratic Party is a Warmongering Party? Also, before you say the candidate YOU SUPPORT did not say this, here you go, again....

Link to tweet

This is a YES or NO answer. Waiting....

[pintobean]

118. See post #86

[LovingA2andMI]

119. So you cannot answer the question....

And with such, folks can read the thread, and in PARTICULAR this exchange -- and determine for themselves the answer. Post #86 not necessary to re-read.

Have a Lovely Evening...

[LovingA2andMI]

121. Oh and there's this....

Link to tweet

WOW....Speechless!

[herding cats]

91. You honestly support her?

Can you tell me why, please?

I've not been a fan since her pro Assad Syria trip. It left an extremely bad taste in my mouth I couldn't brush away. He's literally one of the worst war criminals in recent history and then there's Russia, his ally bombing hospitals for him. All documented and verifiable.

[pintobean]

93. Maybe you missed my subject line.

[herding cats]

97. No, I didn't.

My question stands.

[herding cats]

128. *tap tap* Hello?

Come back and answer my question, please?

[LiberalLovinLug]

185. Its pretty obvious that her trip to Syria and Assad was to announce her direction in foriegn policy

And it is worth debating if her approach is wrong or right? Or more accurately, do the pros outweigh the cons.

Treating (or pretending to) other despots with a kind of respect by making room to hear them out, to give these rulers at the very least, the minimal respect of an audience to hear their side. And not simply believe "regime change" hawks in the MIC in the US. All those ex-generals opinions as guests that now have heavy investments in that MIC that you see fomenting war on the MSM news networks.

I also think there is an association with Trump coddling dictators. That its the same thing. The difference is that I can't trust Trump as far as I could throw him. I always suspect there is some kind of quid pro quo with him. But why do we have to mirror traditional Republican war hawk policies where its "bomb bomb bomb Iran" if they so much as blink. Bolton is the epitome of that neo-con element. Shoot first and sit down and talk later type of Republican who still dominate that party.

There is a clear choice in not intervening in other countries civil wars. Usually we do because American corporations see $ if their heavily supported politicians can manage a regime change who's new rulers can be bought off and help suppress labor and human rights to help American industries. Like they did in central and south american countries last century. It helps when members in the administration have heavy investments in that foreign countries resources, like the oil industries and reconstruction which happened in Iraq.

Cheney's Halliburton was almost bankrupt and is now a multi-billion dollar success. Condi, Bush, Pearl, Rumsfeld all had business in the oil industry. No doubt of course that if Trump was an oil man, he'd be much more open to using the army to open more markets for him. He obviously sees that TrumpCo. and the types of products and buildings he makes could be more successful expanding into countries we are NOT at war with.

Now the other choice of just leaving them to fight it out...including not selling weapons to one or both sides...means that the "bad guy" might win. Or keep on ruling. Tusli just supports the idea of spending all those billions at home...healthcare, education, infrastructure etc... even IF we have to watch horror stories on the news how some poor minority revolutionaries get slaughtered, and we could have probably prevented that.

Its a tough choice. But I think its important to have a candidate like Tulsi to stand up for that position.

[herding cats]

188. This was intervention due to terrorist and Russia.

I notice there no mention of either in your post.

We're in the ME mess up to our eyeballs and despised for out meddling. I agree it was wrong, but that's irrelevant at this point. Tell me, do we sell out allies (read: people we used for our purposes) to die and walk away whistling Yankee Doodle Dandy dusting our hands off and pretending we've not just been complacent in war crimes?

Tulsi is fine with that. Think about that for a moment, please? Who does that benefit and who loses? Geo politics aren't really all that complicated if you're paying attention to what's actually at stake.

Yes, I agree some extremely nefarious people helped create the current situation. I'd never deny that, but leaving a war criminal to commit atrocities against people who appose him still isn't right. Hell, there are other places I'd like to have seen us intervene than Syria, too. Our hand was forced there due to Putin. That's just a reality.

All roads here do lead back to Putin. Who is going to stop him from breaking our modern world? Are we supposed to turn a blind eye and isolate ourselves as the Trump doctrine says? Do you honestly think that will save us from retribution and global fallout?

The ship has sailed and we're currently navigating rudderless.

[Horizens]

140. Manipulated?

No one has been manipulated. Gabbard said what she said and people have responded. Re: "turning on each other" and "eat{ing} our own". Gabbard has a well documented history of criticizing the Democratic party and individuals within the party. President Obama has been one of her favorite targets.

One has to do a bit of research to find an instance where she has criticized Putin or Russia. More of ten than not she's silent or outright supports Putin positions. I have considered her a Russian tool long before this election cycle.

That being said, I don't think it proper for her to be removed from DU's presidential forum. But I am suspicious of the motives of anyone who defends or supports her.

[jcmaine72]

99. Now that we all have our pitchforks and torches out....

Are there any....I dunno....Republicans we'd like to chase into the woods?

[pintobean]

100. Lol

[herding cats]

129. Hey, hi!

I'm still waiting for an answer above.

[pintobean]

134. I know.

[herding cats]

135. Oh, ok.

I get it. Not answering is like choosing to not testify in the impeachment hearings. Noted.

Bye!.

ETA: Timing is not your friend.

[MrsCoffee]

136. I hear authoritarian types love her.

Especially right wing ones.

[herding cats]

138. I've heard the same.

It seems to be a thing? Who knew?!

[herding cats]

141. So, I'm just guessing you're not going to give an answer here?

You're not even going to show up to plead the 5th, right?

Which puts you in the "if I don't make a statement, maybe I'll be ok" column. Hey, Rick Perry approves!

Y'all May want to rethink this strategy. The optics kind of suck., you know?

[herding cats]

101. I can assure you the Republicans don't like seeing this either.

[LovingA2andMI]

103. Defend This....

Link to tweet

Speaking of Pitchforks and Torches, it seems Ms. Gabbard has both out for the entire Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton.

Any thoughts about that?

[jcmaine72]

120. Keep your shirt on.

No one is defending anything. I just figured since we're all here and lathered up.....

[LovingA2andMI]

122. Okay...

Whatever...that...means...

[herding cats]

131. Right?

I didn't understand it either.

[herding cats]

132. I'm not meaning to pick nits, but I didn't get a single coherent answer.

Did you?

[LovingA2andMI]

189. Nope....

None. Thanks for asking.

[IronLionZion]

130. Yes

as many as we can in the general election. We're in the party primaries now.

[aeromanKC]

102. If she were you or me

She'd be banned.

[LovingA2andMI]

111. Most Definitely...

And considering Tulsi Gabbard has CLEARLY BROKEN one (really like three) of the DU Rules of Engagement in this statement, here below -- is the hope the MODERATORS will DELETE all things Tulsi Gabbard as a choice on this site, since Tulsi says the ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY is a WARMONGERING PARTY....Her Words...in LIVE and LIVING COLOR...

Link to tweet

[Mr.Bill]

126. So would most of the debate participants. n/t

[Cha]

133. Excellent point!

[gopiscrap]

117. I never supported her

[nini]

137. I get the old 'I told you so' about her

Not sure why so many refuse to see this whole Putin thing includes our own party being infiltrated.

She's not the only one either. Put on your street smarts hats kids.. this is no time to be naive.

[YOHABLO]

142. Considering I've never been a supporter of TG, in fairness, some of her points are valid.

Her back forth with Hillary is irrelevant to me. Tulsi Gabbard has insignificant amount of support for POTUS.

[W_HAMILTON]

160. The only points she has is that the Democrats are warmongers.

And, no, those points most certainly are not valid. They don't even jive with her previous comments, where she was all too happy to criticize Obama for not bombing in Syria -- of course, she wanted us to bomb those attacking her buddy Assad in order to prevent """regime change""" there.

[gopiscrap]

145. I agree

[Gothmog]

146. I never considered supporting Gabbard

[Hortensis]

148. :) God no. How about that? Turns out she despises Democrats

even more than I've always distrusted her.

Hopefully the constituents in her Democratic district will deal with this localized rot and hostile infiltration by cutting her out.

[Gothmog]

200. I am the father of LGBT child

There is no way that I could support Gabbard

[Hortensis]

203. Imagine not! I hadn't known she'd been an anti-gay activist

until recently, touting onversion therapy! She apparently started in the late 1990s, so before she ran for congress in a Democrat-dominated district. There are actually a lot of these situations out there. It's so important to check candidates' backgrounds against their campaign claims. The average congressman is in for 4-5 terms.

Our DIL was just on a float in our Pride parade here. They're not LGBT but have friends who are and invite them to party. Unfortunately our son woke up sick and missed a lot of fun this year.

[rampartc]

152. +1

if there is some evidence that ms Clinton's accusations are fact based let us see them.

ms gabbard is a democrat and a candidate. many of her policies are attractive. she should remain an option.

her support on alt right sites is noted, but they are not serious people and will not vote for gabbard. and if they do? well, they have that right.

[jcmaine72]

170. But you're missing the whole point....

It feels good, and even validating, to be angry, especially when everyone else is angry.

Fact based accusations? Pft! The fact that she was even accused should be all the evidence we ever need. Besides, haven't you heard? When someone smears you but doesn't name you directly, but you're somehow able to deduce that person was actually smearing you, the smears must be automatically true.

Options schmoptions...

I've never met a right winger who ever voted for anyone other than a right winger. They must be laughing their asses off at this little cannibal ritual of ours.

[Trueblue Texan]

166. Ok, wtf-ing planet is she on?

The Democratic party has become corrupt? The Democratic party is war-mongering? REALLY???? She needs to do her homework. Look around yourself, lady. I think you're talkin' 'bout the 'other' party.

I never even considered supporting this nut job anyway, so no loss to me.

[Land Shark]

182. Gabbard represents more votes than Trump's margin in WI, PA and MI

If she is kicked out, nobody can blame Gabbard for a Trump victory, this would be excommunicating not just Gabbard, but her views and all of her supporters.

Dems can't afford to make the tent smaller unless they feel that it is better to lose to Trump than to co-exist with Gabbard.

On edit: obviously we need a tent bigger than just HRC to win....

[LovingA2andMI]

190. Ummm....

She gets neither NOTHING in Michigan. We live here and Tulsi "Go-Go" signs or supports are NOT in ANYWAY "running strong" or otherwise in the Great Lakes Blue. The Bots are not working here. Sorry.

[flying-skeleton]

184. #RemoveTulsi

[Virginia independent]

187. I support Tulsi

Because she is not afraid to tell the uncomfortable truth wether or not it's popular

[yardwork]

198. Tulsi Gabbard was elected on a vile homophobic platform.

It looks like she's going to lose her seat in Congress. She's polling near 0 in the Democratic presidential primary. Her campaign is a stunt.

[Beakybird]

201. Remove Tulsi

She is either getting paid by Russia or she is compromised by Russia.

[standingtall]

205. I don't like her and I know how this movie ends

after the primary she may or not run as a 3rd party candidate and after that she will switch to a republican at some point and that would have happened regardless of what Hilary said. However technically she is still technically a Democrat so she should not be removed until she leaves the party or pulls a Lieberman and speaks at the republican national convention. I just wish she would hurry up and do it already we don't need Democrats that parrot right wing talking points.

[Gothmog]

206. House seat challenger @kaikahele beating Tulsi Gabbard with Hawaii donors

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

207. Interesting article on Kahele

This is an interesting article https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/21/politics/tulsi-gabbard-2020-hawaii-hillary-clinton/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_term=image&utm_source=twCNNp&utm_content=2019-10-22T01%3A04%3A06

But local insiders say a primary challenge from state Sen. Kai Kahele is to be taken seriously, in part because he already has high-profile support among towering local officials.

That includes three former governors in the local Democratic establishment: Neil Abercrombie, Ben Cayetano and John Waihee, who don't often appear as a bloc.

"That gives a pretty good indication of how the mainstream Democratic Party here regards her," said Colin Moore, director of the Public Policy Center at the University of Hawaii.

Kahele told CNN on Monday that his campaign had its best day of fundraising when Gabbard and Clinton clashed.
Gabbard has not formally announced a reelection bid for her House seat. Candidates have until June 2, 2020, to file for that November's election.