The Tulsi Disgrace

[Fanatical Meat]

That puts her in the Yang, Booker and Castro tier. I don’t hear many people questioning the legitimacy of their candidacies.

Who?
People question them all the time.
I’m sort of serious with this question I’ve forgotten who this Castro person is.

 

[zinfamous]

It’s not how we elect Presidents. It’s a meaningless metric.

I guess it doesn't mean anything regarding how much support you expect of generally unpopularly-elected presidents, right?

totally meaningless. There is no meaning to be derived here. No meaning whatsoever.

Hey everybody! --Let's stop talking about this, Starbucks has declared the votes of a national plurality of 66 million people meaningless. Meaningless, everybody.

It's basically why threads like this don't exist, because it's meaningless, because we obviously aren't posting in them.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I guess it doesn't mean anything regarding how much support you expect of generally unpopularly-elected presidents, right?

totally meaningless. There is no meaning to be derived here. No meaning whatsoever.

Hey everybody! --Let's stop talking about this, Starbucks has declared the votes of a national plurality of 66 million people meaningless. Meaningless, everybody.

It's basically why threads like this don't exist, because it's meaningless, because we obviously aren't posting in them.

pretty much, nothing to see here folks, move along, cuz reasons.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Who?
People question them all the time.
I’m sort of serious with this question I’ve forgotten who this Castro person is.

That may very well be true, but Castro and the others I mentioned don’t face near the irrational vitriol directed at Gabbard.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I guess it doesn't mean anything regarding how much support you expect of generally unpopularly-elected presidents, right?

totally meaningless. There is no meaning to be derived here. No meaning whatsoever.

Hey everybody! --Let's stop talking about this, Starbucks has declared the votes of a national plurality of 66 million people meaningless. Meaningless, everybody.

It's basically why threads like this don't exist, because it's meaningless, because we obviously aren't posting in them.

By all means, continue spin your wheels. I thought this thread was about Tulsi Gabbard.

 

[ch33zw1z]

By all means, continue spin your wheels. I thought this thread was about Tulsi Gabbard.

haha, all of a sudden starbuck cares about the OP again. shocking.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

That may very well be true, but Castro and the others I mentioned don’t face near the irrational vitriol directed at Gabbard.

Sort of like the EC College and life in general just not being fair.
Her “Present” vote is disgraceful. Subject of this importance demands a decision. No playing middle ground on this topic.
The President either did it or didn’t do it/you don’t think it’s impeachable.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Sort of like the EC College and life in general just not being fair.
Her “Present” vote is disgraceful. Subject of this importance demands a decision. No playing middle ground on this topic.
The President either did it or didn’t do it/you don’t think it’s impeachable.

Her official public statement about is inadequate as well. Right up the #bothsides alley though, obviously.

 

[fskimospy]

That puts her in the Yang, Booker and Castro tier. I don’t hear many people questioning the legitimacy of their candidacies.

Probably because their support doesn’t come mostly from Republicans, haha.

 

[fskimospy]

That may very well be true, but Castro and the others I mentioned don’t face near the irrational vitriol directed at Gabbard.

This thread says exactly why people dislike her, she had a chance to stand up for the constitution and the rule of law and she disgraced herself.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

This thread says exactly why people dislike her, she had a chance to stand up for the constitution and the rule of law and she disgraced herself.

More like make a tough decision and explain why.
If she wanted to vote no (which technically she did) stand up an explain it that’s fine. That is what leaders do.

 

[fskimospy]

More like make a tough decision and explain why.
If she wanted to vote no (which technically she did) stand up an explain it that’s fine. That is what leaders do.

I think a no vote is also disgraceful as it is contemptuous of the Constitution and the rule of law but you are right that it would at least show personal courage instead of this pathetic, mealy mouthed attempt to #bothsides the situation.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I think a no vote is also disgraceful as it is contemptuous of the Constitution and the rule of law but you are right that it would at least show personal courage instead of this pathetic, mealy mouthed attempt to #bothsides the situation.

Yeah *to me* the whole thing is very similar to how many would not do a war vote for Afghanistan or Iraq years ago when Obama was asking for one. Them saying it’s cool do what you want no vote needed is basically saying the whole thing is on the President. If you pull out I’ll bitch about you being weak, if you stay and shit goes wrong I’ll bitch about you acting alone, in the unlikely event all works as planned I’ll say I stood by this plan and enabled it to be successful.

Leaders don’t act like this, weasely middle managers do stuff like this. Nobody aspires to be a weasely middle manager.

 

[Starbuck1975]

This thread says exactly why people dislike her, she had a chance to stand up for the constitution and the rule of law and she disgraced herself.

This thread certainly sheds light on the irrational vitriol directed at her.

 

[fskimospy]

This thread certainly sheds light on the irrational vitriol directed at her.

Can you explain why it is irrational to dislike someone for not standing up for the constitution and the rule of law?

 

[VRAMdemon]

The notion that Gabbard is against military interventionism and the military industrial complex is hogwash. Gabbard has been pretty clear from day one that, when it came to terrorism, she is a hawk. She has tweeted in support Vladimir Putin's military campaign in Syria while criticizing Obama for not taking military action in Syria; insisting that Obama use the phrase "Islamic extremism"; traveling with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) to meet with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi; and - traveling to Syria with Syrian Social Nationalist Party escorts to meet with Bashar al-Assad. Her vote against condemning violence against Muslims in Gujarat.

There's on ongoing battle royal behind the scenes at Wikipedia, because Gabbard partisan editors are exploiting Wikipedia's rule that you're not allowed to say the emperor has no clothes on unless the emperor publicly says in a reliable source, "I'm totally not wearing any clothes." They're fighting tooth and nail to exclude any mention of Butler and his fake hate cult from any article concerning Gabbard. Every new item of news about her further goes to show that you just can't trust her. She's a phony and a political opportunist. She is obviously hiding something behind that disingenuous façade. What we do know she's hiding is her substantial ties with the Science of Identity homophobic, Islamophobic authoritarian hate cult.

She doesn't have anything at all to contribute besides attacks on other Democrats and making Republicans happy. Again - The ongoing stream of reporting of her very questionable background has convinced her that her cover story is ultimately not going to work, that her campaign cannot much longer survive all the investigative work by journalists, especially in Hawaii. In retrospect, it seems terribly naive that Gabbard thought her façade would hold up through the electoral year when it's already crumbling now.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

The flip of it is that she openly says 'he did it and should be removed'' and that she feels 'he is unfit for office', yet still whiffed on the vote and continues to defend her cowardice.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Tulsi is a Russian asset.

Hillary called out Trump and she was right about it.

Of course she's an asset. The notion of being an "asset" does not mean Gabbard is knowingly working for the Russians. She's not. She is not an "agent". Of course Gabbard is not meeting with Sergei the Spy in a smoky cafe somewhere.

It means simply that Russian money and social media assets are pumping her campaign up in an effort to cause division.There is no question that Russia has been engaged in an ongoing campaign to subvert our election process and to influence our governance by supporting and influencing (via bots and a variety of other means, including agents) a variety of political figures who would be to their advantage to greater prominence and to do and say things to their advantage. Those so supported and so influenced are assets to Russia's goals. Trump is a Russian asset in that sense whether or not their was any collusion. The NRA was influenced to becoming a Russian asset by Maria Butina.

Gabbard says many things the Russians like having said. Gabbard is apparently being supported by the Russian influencing machine.

This is also pretty factual.

That is them perceiving her having as large of a voice on the stage and being as disruptive to the Democratic nomination process as possible is an asset to them and doing what they can to increase the value of that asset. That is also pretty clear. It does not mean or imply she is an "agent", or is colluding with them in any way. Just an "asset".

Their interference machine is also well served by doing what it can to be sure that a third party who appeals to some D leaners more than R leaners is active in the general. That also is pretty clear. To believe they will not try to influence someone to be that person - by bot accounts and other means of created "support" - is naive.

By Gabbards words and actions as an asset - Is Gabbard someone they have in mind to try to do that with? It looks like it.

I'd still vote for her over Trump.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Of course she's an asset. The notion of being an "asset" does not mean Gabbard is knowingly working for the Russians. She's not. She is not an "agent". Of course Gabbard is not meeting with Sergei the Spy in a smoky cafe somewhere.

It means simply that Russian money and social media assets are pumping her campaign up in an effort to cause division.There is no question that Russia has been engaged in an ongoing campaign to subvert our election process and to influence our governance by supporting and influencing (via bots and a variety of other means, including agents) a variety of political figures who would be to their advantage to greater prominence and to do and say things to their advantage. Those so supported and so influenced are assets to Russia's goals. Trump is a Russian asset in that sense whether or not their was any collusion. The NRA was influenced to becoming a Russian asset by Maria Butina.

Gabbard says many things the Russians like having said. Gabbard is apparently being supported by the Russian influencing machine.

This is also pretty factual.

That is them perceiving her having as large of a voice on the stage and being as disruptive to the Democratic nomination process as possible is an asset to them and doing what they can to increase the value of that asset. That is also pretty clear. It does not mean or imply she is an "agent", or is colluding with them in any way. Just an "asset".

Their interference machine is also well served by doing what it can to be sure that a third party who appeals to some D leaners more than R leaners is active in the general. That also is pretty clear. To believe they will not try to influence someone to be that person - by bot accounts and other means of created "support" - is naive.

By Gabbards words and actions as an asset - Is Gabbard someone they have in mind to try to do that with? It looks like it.

I'd still vote for her over Trump.

I cannot believe how quickly we have gotten to a place where this is considered normal. I am amazed nobody thinks it is worth a response or some type of regulation where foreign interests are supporting candidates in US media designed to be seen by US voters.
simply amazing we cannot agree on this being a bad thing and some sort of response to it.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

I'd still vote for her over Trump.

And she might even have a better go of it on the (R) ticket.

 

[Vic]

Can you explain why it is irrational to dislike someone for not standing up for the constitution and the rule of law?

Starbuck's concern has found him yet another hill to die on.

 

[JEDIYoda]

That puts her in the Yang, Booker and Castro tier. I don’t hear many people questioning the legitimacy of their candidacies.

Nice try....

 

[Victorian Gray]

Starbuck's concern has found him yet another hill to die on.

So very many hills. Should we be concerned?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Can you explain why it is irrational to dislike someone for not standing up for the constitution and the rule of law?

Because that is not the reason for the vitriol

 

[Starbuck1975]

Starbuck's concern has found him yet another hill to die on.

You lemmings have fortified it with your concern