So running for President is pandering? When she is back on the campaign trail, she's pandering too right? Hate stupid article like this. But I did learn something new. I didn't know you can serve in the military and as member of Congress at the same time. Seems like room for potential conflict and of course, it's not possible to perform both duties simultaneously.
It's merely a lack of imagination to consider solutions beyond "forever war". "Doing nothing" has consequences as we have seen with the recent rise of right wing nationalism in Europe due to an unwanted refugee crisis.
Gabbard misses requirements on debates. This is probably the end of the line for her, sadly. Klobuchar and Castro making the debates over Tulsi feel odd.
Keep in mind the polls to qualify are based off of Registered Dem voters. Honestly if I didn’t come to this site with so many Trumpers pumping her up I probably would have no idea who she was. I think the little they did know of her is based on what I just mentioned and how she’s been weird about her partaking in pro Assad propaganda. It’s a shame because as a war veteran, being from Hawaii, being very attractive, having otherwise good policy positions on climate/healthcare, war, etc. she should have a promising career and be viewed as a rising star. Her red flags are all pretty much self Inflicted and an obvious pandering to FoxNews viewers as well by going on Tucker among others and refusing to criticize Trump to pander. Also I don’t think this is the last we’ve heard of Tulsi in 2020. I know I’ll get sh$& for this but it feels like she was only running to serve Trump by saying she’s a victim of the corrupt and fixed DNC, and split the party up like Bernie did in 2016 a bit. Wouldn’t shock me if she is a vocal anti endorser of Biden or Warren and we hear her out there a ton trying to sew discord. Would shock me to my core if she endorsed the general election candidate.
Yep. This fits all the data with the Russian bots, sad to say. It's actually Sir Occam's best model for her whole candidacy at this point.
Tulsi is a moderate and dem suporters freak out and call her a russian and trump agent basically. Wow how original. And with such strong evidence. Surprised people around here don't call me a Russian agent more often. Moderates are calling. They want their options back.
No, the polls can be national polls or early state polls (Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina, New Hampshire). It however must be from different sponsors, or if same sponsors, in different geographies (such as the early states). These rules on the polling (2% in 4 or more polls must be met out of 21 qualifying polls) and unique donors (130k+ donors needed) for the Sept debate were in place early on for months and the candidates know what they are, although some of them obviously were confused about them. They seem quite fair, frankly, and if you can't hit 2% in 4 out of the 21 qualifying polls, with over 130k donors, the national and early state regional public isn't that interested in you. I can understand that some candidate is frustrated with not understanding the rules (even Yang campaign was confused) or doesn't agree with it (Bennet wanted the DNC to include past performance), but what I dislike is the altitude that they miss it because of some conspiracy, which Tulsi has implied (by saying the DNC process here isn't transparent). This is just not true. They have clearly stated for months on what polls qualify and what doesn't. This is yet again a pattern of her (Google purposefully going after her was another one). This conspiracy theory altitude of her is what give me strong doubt about her ability to process information correctly and clearly and thus, my lack of support for her. Her position are perfectly fine and even aligned strongly with me, but not her processing of information - it has been a red line for me, and I bet many others. The requirements for the Sept debate was announced on 5/29/19. Tulsi didn't officially complain until 8/23/19, 5 days before the deadline. If they had raised their concerns in said July, it's fair game and does give the DNC opportunity to consider revising the rules. But 5 days before the deadline, they wanted the rules changed so she can make the debate stage... nope.
I thought universal healthcare is socialism? Actually her policy views are more in Bernie than Biden. I wouldn’t call her a moderate at all. I’ve said it many times before that I actually like her and wish I could support her but if you don’t see the red flags (like going on Tucker to b**** about the Democratic Party as Exhibit A), I don’t know what to tell you. I’ll be ecstatic if she decides not to sew discord during the general. I’m merely stating the red flags that concern me about how she seems to be setup as a pawn to damage the party instead of helping get Trump and McConnell our of DC. Sorry that gets your panties all tied up in knots. If you actually care to understand why Democrat voters wouldn’t support her in the primary, I’m trying to give you that insight as you are obviously are not of the mindset of a likely Dem voter. If you don’t want to hear the concerns, don’t listen and stop whining.
One of the aspects I like about Tulsi is the country before party mentality. She is running to solve problems, not to prop up a corrupt party system or to simply get rid of a politician because he triggers her.
You have expressed this view for awhile now, the view that the dnc is about party over country. Since tulsi is one of the few that criticize the dnc, she must be country over party. And those that doesn’t go after the dnc, must then be party over country. The dnc have done their share of dirty deeds, have shown favoritism in past and many have criticized them, me included for these behaviors, but there hasn’t been an event I can think of where they put the party over the nation. What is striking is while you openly express this view, you rarely do so toward trump and the gop. Trump team readily accepted Russian help, has repeatedly attack our intel into the Russian election meddling while accepting Putin’s words, and has openly stated they would consider using foreign gov hacking data, while the gop sit back quietly about this, continue to support him and blocked legislation aimed at protecting our election. That’s to me are concrete examples of party above country. I can only guess that you have a very different definition of party over country. Party’s positions or mannerism that do not gel with your views of what this country should be or how it should behave, then they are party over country? If you care to, throw me a bone so I can understand your position better.
I have expressed many times of my displeasure with the Republicans. I frequently state the RNC is no different than the DNC. I have a disgust for the Republicans because they sit back and do nothing to advance the betterment of this country. So when I say the RNC is no different than the DNC, I mean the both are about their party. Thus why the Republicans will do nothing about Trump. Rarely do I throw my support behind a candidate. [/quote] Im not getting into the Russia nonsense. Anyone with a touch of reality knows Russia's only motive is to disrupt the USA. There is no unholy evil diabolical union between Russia and Trump. Russia hated Hillary and Trump played the card well. While the frenzied masses scream "Russia Russia Russia", it completely distracts from the problems that are being created and problems that need to be solved. What most of you miss is Trump is not a party guy. He does not need to be a party guy. He came in with more wealth than most of the previous president combined. The corrupt shitturds in Washington need to be owned by their respective parties, else they wont be able to cash in on the tens of millions of dollars owned to them from the shady deals that screw this country. Im not praising Trump. What I am reminding you is that the massive turd Trump is creating will start stinking much sooner than later. The Republicans know this too well. The party that has to clean this one up will pay a huge price. And electing a hard progressive democrat will only make it worse. That said, sheeple, keep your eyes focused on Russia. Keep ignoring the real problems with Trump.
Im not getting into the Russia nonsense. Anyone with a touch of reality knows Russia's only motive is to disrupt the USA. There is no unholy evil diabolical union between Russia and Trump. Russia hated Hillary and Trump played the card well. While the frenzied masses scream "Russia Russia Russia", it completely distracts from the problems that are being created and problems that need to be solved. What most of you miss is Trump is not a party guy. He does not need to be a party guy. He came in with more wealth than most of the previous president combined. The corrupt shitturds in Washington need to be owned by their respective parties, else they wont be able to cash in on the tens of millions of dollars owned to them from the shady deals that screw this country. Im not praising Trump. What I am reminding you is that the massive turd Trump is creating will start stinking much sooner than later. The Republicans know this too well. The party that has to clean this one up will pay a huge price. And electing a hard progressive democrat will only make it worse. That said, sheeple, keep your eyes focused on Russia. Keep ignoring the real problems with Trump.[/QUOTE] You seem very confused. You say that electing a progressive will only make it worse yet you support Tulsi and I’m sure you likely despise Biden or Kamala. Tulsi’s policy platform is very comparable to Bernie’s and she often aligns with him on many initiatives. If you love Tulsi that much you really don’t mean what you are saying about electing a progressive. The DNC’s biggest complaint they get is that they ice out the progressives to prop up candidates who are more moderate like Biden. With so many people complaining out both sides of their mouth about the DNC I really don’t know what people want them to do anymore.
Party above country is the topic and I bring in foreign power to provide an example of what that is for me. I think your criteria of party over country is very lax. It’s simply anyone that toe the party line and doesn’t go outside of it. That’s fine, at least I understand where you are coming from. Side note - Yes, trump wasn’t a party guy but now the gop is the party of trump. Which makes it even worse, as the lax criteria of party over country can now be called trump over country.
She has specifically said Donald Trump is a problem and the focus should be making sure he isn't re-elected.
Their influence in the Middle East is a huge reason for most of the problems in that region. If it wasn’t for oil, they’d be our enemies.
