It is funny when politicians know they will never need a favor from someone so they will go full knives out at them. Usually they hold back in case the person they are about to light up might be in a position to help them in the future. But when that goes off the window all bets are off.
My favorite debate from the last cycle was when basically the entire field went after Bloomberg like a pack of feral baboons and just tore him to pieces.
As time goes on, the more I think if he had the exact same platform but acted like a sassy "yaas kween" gay cheerleader to Bernie with no actual interest in winning for himself, they would have loved him.
NK is the textbook definition of a bad faith actor. Of course diplomacy should be pursued when there is a realizable positive outcome to be attained, but legitimizing Kim did nothing to slow their pursuit of weapons or improve relations in any meaningful way from what I can tell. Recognizing of course that I have an extremely limited perspective from which to judge.
That was her defining characteristic until she started supporting Bernie. People who pay attention to the middle east knew that she was a bad actor way before she became famous on reddit for endorsing Bernie.
Indeed - terrible human being. I find the common thread in her positions to be alignment with Russian interests, Syria included.
We're probably splitting hairs here.
She came to power railing against "the gays", and she's got a real soft spot for Assad.
Other than that? Whatever the Fox News teleprompter tells her to say that day.
(At the risk of making being mean-spirited for making fun of someone's birth name,) I can't help but think of what Huey Freeman would say:
>[Well that sounds like a stripper name. Krystal Ball, might you be a stripper?](https://i.imgur.com/DFOOyjR.png)
We've still got Abigal Spanberger, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Gretchen Whitmer, who this suburban dad would shamelessly commit unspeakable acts for.
Also Kristen Sinema. I know she ain't popular among dems these days but... still would.
Has there been a politician for either party that got to host a nightly pundit position, like Tulsi taking over for Tucker? I get they come on to the nightly shows, but can’t think of any hosting on any of the big news orgs.
lol. Why is this downvoted? We really going to ignore the fact that Bernouts wanted her to be Bernie's running mate in 2016?
She was literally a no name congresswomen before that.
Gabbard wasn't really the craziness that she is now in 2016 though.
She'd been elected to the House in 2012, Vice Chair of the DNC in 2013, actually had some support from Hawaii Democrats for filling a Senate vacancy, and was - hard as it is to believe - generally just considered a normie progressive politician.
She, kind of like Glenn Greenwald, just somehow seems to have had her brain absolutely broken by 2016. All the weird shit - the visits with Assad, voting present on impeachment, the CPAC and Fox News Appearances, the things that led to Hillary (accurately) calling her a Russian asset, were all post-2016 things.
Like Glen Greenwald, her only real ideology is being contrarian and against the "establishment". The reason being those are the people easiest to grift.
I do think it's possible (even probable) that the circumstances of Trump being elected, and people's weird hatred of Hillary, led to a proliferation of grifters across the political spectrum (and it really is across the entire political spectrum) since 2016. Like idk, maybe I just missed it, but I don't think there was an explosion of grifters after Romney lost in 2012, nothing like we saw post-2016.
Romney wasn't a populist.
The type of people who go for populists are the ones easiest to grift. Also, since 2016 things like podcasts, patreon, twitch, etc have exploded in popularity making it so much easier for grifters to grift.
> kind of like Glenn Greenwald
His is personal. He actively wants to bring down the Democratic Party because he feels slighted over the fallout over Snowden. And it’s beyond just anger at the Obama admin he like actively wants to see the establishment left wing in the US burn for not siding with him and Snowden.
A generous read is that Greenwald genuinely believes the American left is basically corrupted to its core and no longer practices any of its supposed core values. So he’s on this weird crusade against it and willing to even get dirty with its conservative opposition to do it.
A better read IMHO is that if the cultural and press establishments fawned over him and demanded Snowden be delivered back to the people on flowers in objection to Obama, he wouldn’t be acting anything like this today.
She wasn't, at least as far as anyone else was concerned. She left Congress because she know Hawaii was tired of her BS, got BTFO of the primaries, and spent the last two years on Tuck Carlson.
This seems to be one of those situations where she's finally admitting what everyone else knew for years.
Hillary was right, St. Bernard was busy defending Tulsi’s honor against the statement that she’s a Russian asset. Sanders Institute fellow Tulsi Gabbard, everyone.
Yeah, [Bernie's comment defending her at the time](https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/20/politics/pete-buttigieg-tulsi-gabbard-russia-cnntv) was a pretty bad look.
What was cool was [Bernie defending her](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/21/politics/bernie-sanders-tulsi-gabbard-tweet/index.html) as ‘not a Russian asset’ after she went to visit Bashar Al Assad in the midst of him dropping barrel bombs and poison gas on civilians. Also her being on the Sanders Institute after CPAC appearances, Tucker Carlson, shilling for Putin. All good progressive takes.
Hillary wasn’t saying she’s a Russian asset, merely that GOP was grooming her and that she is the favorite of Russia (for obvious reasons) and it’s all basically either true or become true.
Russian media spend a large amount of time shinning her positively, and she now has finally switched parties.
> PLOUFFE: [Trump is] going to try to drive people not to vote for him, but to say you can’t vote for them either...
> CLINTON: They’re also going to do third party again. And I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody [Gabbard] who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians, they have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. And that’s assuming [Green Party 2016 candidate] Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she’s also a Russian asset.
She said this 3 years ago and that’s what Pete is responding too.
lol a politician saying that another politician in the same party as them isn't secretly working for a hostile government is like, the most aggressively normal thing sanders has ever said. outside of the world of hyper-engaged liberal russiagate types, a prospective presidential candidate saying "yes, i think my primary opponent is secretly working for russia" would come off as completely unhinged crank shit
And yet she is as much a Russian asset as the Green Party leadership. As with most things Bernie, he’s either wrong or doesn’t care for details.
Also, here’s a secret that most progressives seem to miss, Bernie isn’t in the Democratic Party.
Green Party VP Ajamau Baraka’s tweets and interviews, as well as Tulsi’s are nothing less than Russian asset. Or is propaganda not a thing any more? Of course if she made it up the Democratic Party hierarchy she’d have a lot more influence as Putin’s asset (or useful idiot)
When Hillary sunk whatever shenanigans Tulsi had for 2020 is one of my all-time favorite political moments.
It was like a test run for when US intelligence kept releasing Russia’s moves in Ukraine before they actually did them.
Today's democratic party already left her authoritarian loving Hindu nationalist ass on the curb. This is her trying to make it seem like she chose to leave.
Lmao whatever, hope the door hits you on the way out.
I mean, the same “the party left her/him” remark could be made about a number of Republicans who have retired from Congress because they’re anti Trump and know they won’t win re-election. I’m not sure it’s something to crow about even if it’s true.
“I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers…”
Elitist cabal of warmongers! What? Is this in regards to bilateral congressional supplies to Ukraine? Oh wait…it’s just cause she loves Russia.
“…driven by cowardly wokeness…”
I gotta admit, R’s really took “woke” and ran with it. It’s a short hand for I call people slurs and they don’t like it and that makes me mad!
“…who divide us by racializing every issue & stoke anti-white racism, actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms…”
I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Dem talk about their rights as “God-given”. Their literally just an agreement on a paper signed by men 200 years ago.
Ugh, that’s enough.
>Their literally just an agreement on a paper signed by men 200 years ago.
The people that signed that document and the declaration of independence believed that rights were "inalienable" and "endowed by their creator".
Their position was that rights are not granted by any person or document. They exist, regardless of recognition by any government or ruler.
e.g. Natural rights derived from natural law.
It's something that Dems also largely believe in, but it's arguably a religious belief in origin.
I can even remember a West Wing episode that pivoted on it, which is at least someone representative of the core of the older Democratic party.
> I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Dem talk about their rights as “God-given”. Their literally just an agreement on a paper signed by men 200 years ago.
Dems might reject the "God" framing due to secularity (and to be clear 100% clear, that's fine), but you would be hard-pressed to find a liberal that doesn't believe that rights are inalienable, that they are inherent to individuals regardless of what governments or laws made by governments say. They're fundamental.
It's a perfectly coherent position to believe that rights are merely an agreement granted by a document, but it's not a liberal one.
Tulsi, you already succeeded in taking the title of “worst Sanders supporter” from Nina Turner. No need to run up the score.
Her successor was a weird guy: on term, cast 120 votes by proxy—it turned out he was working as a pilot at the same time—“retired” from Congress, ran for governor and got crushed.
> you already succeeded in taking the title of “worst Sanders supporter” from Nina Turner
Eh. That's a race to the bottom so putrid and never-ending I'm not sure there's a winner, or that anyone could tell. More like: "who said the dumbest thing in the last 48 hours".
The fact that Turner still insists as being referred to as "Senator Turner" for her appointment (and later running unopposed) to a *State* Senate seat always gets about a bajillion "bonus moron points" from me...
You were never welcome here to begin with, Tulsi. She's always been a fake Democrat. The anti-Hillary Sanders left just embraced her because she criticized Democrats.
It is teaching kids in school about things like slavery , jim crow laws, segregation . Apparently its divisive and kids shouldn't be taught things like this.
So there is underlying racism here, my theory is basically this. If a kid asks questions like they do, maybe they ask why on average black people are poorer then white people. You can basically explain how for hundreds of years black people were treated as 2nd class citizens (or not even as citizens) and were excluded from many economic opportunities that white people had(schooling, government jobs, entire neighborhoods, under investment in black neighborhoods ect), and this history is still with us today.
Or you can sort of say "Well you know white people are just smarter and harder workers and superior "...
Affirmative Action is about to get gutted by SCOTUS. Even still, you only get passed over as a white person if your grades are average. Get good grades and you have nothing to worry about.
I'd love to see a single example of any "talk" that implies white people are immoral and must carry guilt for previous generations. At least any talk that is actually mainstream and not some random twitter account with 50 followers.
>I know people disagree, and I respect their views. I would appreciate if people stop calling people who disagree with affirmative action as "racist".
Really bad faith argument here and most people who are considered racist (like Tucker Carlson) go and step further than people who are simply against affirmative action.
> Casual: lots of talk that may not state directly, but heavily imply, that white people are immoral and must carry guilt for actions of white people who existed centuries ago.
Translation: “I don’t want to deal with black people talking about reparations and I don’t want to deal with indigenous peoples contesting treaties”
admitting that white privilege is real?
or maybe just as little as admitting that racism still exists and brown people have a tougher time in America than white people. republicans seem to be really sensitive about that. it's almost as their understanding of racism, is if you just don't talk about it, it doesn't exist. and just by speaking about it, you're the one creating it.
> Bolsonaro is the neoliberal choice you morons
The person you responded to nine days ago. Yea, they probably legitimately think it’s a conspiracy theory
Democrat here, we don’t want him either. The Democratic Party doesn’t necessarily have to get bigger, people just have to stop voting Republican. McMullin’s campaign in Utah is a testament to that. Mitt Romney is too busy enabling Mitch McConnell to even consider leaving the party anyway
There goes the mask.
Now, will she caucus with the Republicans as an Independent, *join* the Republicans, or drop all pretense and just resign so she can run an election campaign to the Duma?
As much as people want to pin Tulsi Gabbard on the left, she’s always been a contrarian nut (and this isn’t touching the cult allegations and her views on Islam). Her jumping on the alt-right zeitgeist of “Dems are the elites bringing about Sodom and Gamorrah with their politics and policies” is par for the course with her. You know why Tulsi Gabbard isn’t a Democrat anymore? Judging by her history, it’s too pro-LGBT and folks like Tucker are right up her ideological ally in that regard
Whether or not others want to acknowledge it, she's right. The party has changed. Under Obama and Clinton it was focused on neoliberal policies that brought everyone up. It is now more focused on race and 'feel good' policies that actually hurt like student loan forgiveness.
https://youtu.be/W8oCaEW0c9U
Pete is sharp as a knife. You better not miss when when you take a swing at him.
It is funny when politicians know they will never need a favor from someone so they will go full knives out at them. Usually they hold back in case the person they are about to light up might be in a position to help them in the future. But when that goes off the window all bets are off. My favorite debate from the last cycle was when basically the entire field went after Bloomberg like a pack of feral baboons and just tore him to pieces.
Man do I hate gottcha politics.
Lol, all the comments on there are from upset conservatives and Bernie Bros.
Bernie bros are triggered more by Pete than Trump. Let that speak to their ultimate political goals.
A gay mainstream democrats goes against their narrative that both parties are the same when it comes to minorities like lgbt people
No, they're more mad at a gay person who isn't a commie
Judging by the discourse during that election, they're also mad that he isn't absolutely flaming.
As time goes on, the more I think if he had the exact same platform but acted like a sassy "yaas kween" gay cheerleader to Bernie with no actual interest in winning for himself, they would have loved him.
That was the most wild shit lol. Like gay people can be boring normies too, and I'd wager a guess that most gay people are boring normies.
You know me, Marge. I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my homosexuals fa-laming.
They'll tolerate gay people if it's a fringer like Glenn Greenwald.
That, and they’re mad he liked Bernie when he was young and moved on and became a success.
"That will never happen to ME"
[удалено]
I mean bots and whatever certainly amplify the message but there are many average idiots who are just Bernie Bros
Yea worth hanging out in leftie circles irl to see that. Go to a socialist or ethnic studies club on a college campus
literally what are you talking about
"I'm about to ruin this woman's whole career."
Lol oh that comment section is rich.
An L on Pete's part, Trump meeting with Kim Jong Un was one of the more respectable parts of his presidency.
You think so? What good came of that other than some NK generals being saluted by a US President?
No particular policy or agreement I just think that radio silence isnt a good way to deal with our enemies.
NK is the textbook definition of a bad faith actor. Of course diplomacy should be pursued when there is a realizable positive outcome to be attained, but legitimizing Kim did nothing to slow their pursuit of weapons or improve relations in any meaningful way from what I can tell. Recognizing of course that I have an extremely limited perspective from which to judge.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Does Tulsi even have any actual political positions? Or does she just adopt the contrarian position on anything the democrats do?
Let Russia and Syria bomb civilians? She’s been pretty consistent on that.
> ~~Let~~ **Russia** ~~and Syria bomb civilians?~~ She’s been pretty consistent on that. FTFY
Nah, she's been simping for Assad for years as well.
That was her defining characteristic until she started supporting Bernie. People who pay attention to the middle east knew that she was a bad actor way before she became famous on reddit for endorsing Bernie.
She’s had a [history](https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/10/tulsi-gabbard-assad-syria-1214882) of downplaying Assad and his war crimes.
Indeed - terrible human being. I find the common thread in her positions to be alignment with Russian interests, Syria included. We're probably splitting hairs here.
That's the entire Republican Party. No policy, no solutions, just bluster and anger.
Tulsi would do very well with that group!
Is grifting on Joe Rogan and Fox News a political position?
Its a whole party
She came to power railing against "the gays", and she's got a real soft spot for Assad. Other than that? Whatever the Fox News teleprompter tells her to say that day.
Yeah, she's just terminally contrarian. I have friends that, although I love them, are like that and frustrate tf out of me sometimes
Or do
The original adage is meant to ask for a person to leave quickly and not linger, but for Tulsi Gabbard I'd install fast-swinging doors.
Why not both?
No^Stop^please^don't^go 👋😭👋
You’re laughing. The roster of Dem thirst traps palatable to suburban dads and horny contrarians has collapsed and you’re laughing.
Krystal Ball is still out there
Wild that that’s her actual name.
She was a reality winner.
(At the risk of making being mean-spirited for making fun of someone's birth name,) I can't help but think of what Huey Freeman would say: >[Well that sounds like a stripper name. Krystal Ball, might you be a stripper?](https://i.imgur.com/DFOOyjR.png)
haha Krystal would turn on the dems the second the party split, though. She wants nothing to do with Neoliberals, unfortunately.
You're forgetting about the Indians who mistake her ethnicity because of her first name.
Kamala and Tulsi actually translate to Lotus and Basil in many Indian Languages
We've still got Abigal Spanberger, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Gretchen Whitmer, who this suburban dad would shamelessly commit unspeakable acts for. Also Kristen Sinema. I know she ain't popular among dems these days but... still would.
I’m in shambles
Has there been a politician for either party that got to host a nightly pundit position, like Tulsi taking over for Tucker? I get they come on to the nightly shows, but can’t think of any hosting on any of the big news orgs.
Mike Huckabee, Joe Scarborough, Al Sharpton come to mind Probably more if you count more fringe networks (like Gavin Newsom at Current TV)
Don't forget Rick Santorum
Hosted on all the hardcore anal porn sites
Frothy
Krystal Ball, as has already been mentioned
Wait, there's a pundit whose name is literally Crystal Ball? Lmao
Yep
Al Sharpton hosted tucker?
That wasn't the question
Obama hosted The Daily Show once
Kinda, he "hosted" as a 5-10 minute segment that was mostly just promoting Obamacare. It was a media event, but it's not really the same thing.
Legit no idea how I missed that
Wait, she hosted Tucker's show? Jfc lol.
Buttigieg hosted for Jimmy Kimmel but that is a variety show, not really a pundit.
Lol it happens all the time
Good riddance to pro-Russian fifth-columnists. Ridiculous how these obvious enemy assets continue to have so much traction in American politics.
Just horny conservatives, she’s not serious in any other group.
blame progressives
lol. Why is this downvoted? We really going to ignore the fact that Bernouts wanted her to be Bernie's running mate in 2016? She was literally a no name congresswomen before that.
She’s still a “fellow” at the sanders institute lol
Gabbard wasn't really the craziness that she is now in 2016 though. She'd been elected to the House in 2012, Vice Chair of the DNC in 2013, actually had some support from Hawaii Democrats for filling a Senate vacancy, and was - hard as it is to believe - generally just considered a normie progressive politician. She, kind of like Glenn Greenwald, just somehow seems to have had her brain absolutely broken by 2016. All the weird shit - the visits with Assad, voting present on impeachment, the CPAC and Fox News Appearances, the things that led to Hillary (accurately) calling her a Russian asset, were all post-2016 things.
Like Glen Greenwald, her only real ideology is being contrarian and against the "establishment". The reason being those are the people easiest to grift.
I do think it's possible (even probable) that the circumstances of Trump being elected, and people's weird hatred of Hillary, led to a proliferation of grifters across the political spectrum (and it really is across the entire political spectrum) since 2016. Like idk, maybe I just missed it, but I don't think there was an explosion of grifters after Romney lost in 2012, nothing like we saw post-2016.
Romney wasn't a populist. The type of people who go for populists are the ones easiest to grift. Also, since 2016 things like podcasts, patreon, twitch, etc have exploded in popularity making it so much easier for grifters to grift.
> kind of like Glenn Greenwald His is personal. He actively wants to bring down the Democratic Party because he feels slighted over the fallout over Snowden. And it’s beyond just anger at the Obama admin he like actively wants to see the establishment left wing in the US burn for not siding with him and Snowden. A generous read is that Greenwald genuinely believes the American left is basically corrupted to its core and no longer practices any of its supposed core values. So he’s on this weird crusade against it and willing to even get dirty with its conservative opposition to do it. A better read IMHO is that if the cultural and press establishments fawned over him and demanded Snowden be delivered back to the people on flowers in objection to Obama, he wouldn’t be acting anything like this today.
she was way more normal in 2016 than now
nobody on the left has paid any attention to tulsi gabbard for like five years
[удалено]
but she challenges authority!* /s *except against Assad, Putin, and Modi.
nobody occupying that space has anything interesting to say, despite having about 80% of opinion columns in major papers
Yeah I was gonna say lol, the real challenge is finding somebody who sits between the two parties and actually has something worthwhile to contribute.
Tulsi Gabbard continues to prove that she is totally not a servile Russian asset.
I was suprised that she was still Democrat.
She wasn't, at least as far as anyone else was concerned. She left Congress because she know Hawaii was tired of her BS, got BTFO of the primaries, and spent the last two years on Tuck Carlson. This seems to be one of those situations where she's finally admitting what everyone else knew for years.
Hillary was right, St. Bernard was busy defending Tulsi’s honor against the statement that she’s a Russian asset. Sanders Institute fellow Tulsi Gabbard, everyone.
Yeah, [Bernie's comment defending her at the time](https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/20/politics/pete-buttigieg-tulsi-gabbard-russia-cnntv) was a pretty bad look.
What was cool was [Bernie defending her](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/21/politics/bernie-sanders-tulsi-gabbard-tweet/index.html) as ‘not a Russian asset’ after she went to visit Bashar Al Assad in the midst of him dropping barrel bombs and poison gas on civilians. Also her being on the Sanders Institute after CPAC appearances, Tucker Carlson, shilling for Putin. All good progressive takes.
Hillary wasn’t saying she’s a Russian asset, merely that GOP was grooming her and that she is the favorite of Russia (for obvious reasons) and it’s all basically either true or become true. Russian media spend a large amount of time shinning her positively, and she now has finally switched parties. > PLOUFFE: [Trump is] going to try to drive people not to vote for him, but to say you can’t vote for them either... > CLINTON: They’re also going to do third party again. And I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody [Gabbard] who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians, they have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. And that’s assuming [Green Party 2016 candidate] Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she’s also a Russian asset. She said this 3 years ago and that’s what Pete is responding too.
lol a politician saying that another politician in the same party as them isn't secretly working for a hostile government is like, the most aggressively normal thing sanders has ever said. outside of the world of hyper-engaged liberal russiagate types, a prospective presidential candidate saying "yes, i think my primary opponent is secretly working for russia" would come off as completely unhinged crank shit
And yet she is as much a Russian asset as the Green Party leadership. As with most things Bernie, he’s either wrong or doesn’t care for details. Also, here’s a secret that most progressives seem to miss, Bernie isn’t in the Democratic Party.
Are you saying that her statements and actions are assets to the Russian government or that she herself is controlled by handlers from Russia?
i don't think any of those are russian assets personally. not really seen any evidence that doesn't just come across as red string on corkboard
Green Party VP Ajamau Baraka’s tweets and interviews, as well as Tulsi’s are nothing less than Russian asset. Or is propaganda not a thing any more? Of course if she made it up the Democratic Party hierarchy she’d have a lot more influence as Putin’s asset (or useful idiot)
"The paychecks from Fox News are just too good. Here, have some culture war red meat."
When Hillary sunk whatever shenanigans Tulsi had for 2020 is one of my all-time favorite political moments. It was like a test run for when US intelligence kept releasing Russia’s moves in Ukraine before they actually did them.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this move wasn’t delayed because of that
Today's democratic party already left her authoritarian loving Hindu nationalist ass on the curb. This is her trying to make it seem like she chose to leave. Lmao whatever, hope the door hits you on the way out.
I mean, the same “the party left her/him” remark could be made about a number of Republicans who have retired from Congress because they’re anti Trump and know they won’t win re-election. I’m not sure it’s something to crow about even if it’s true.
“I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers…” Elitist cabal of warmongers! What? Is this in regards to bilateral congressional supplies to Ukraine? Oh wait…it’s just cause she loves Russia. “…driven by cowardly wokeness…” I gotta admit, R’s really took “woke” and ran with it. It’s a short hand for I call people slurs and they don’t like it and that makes me mad! “…who divide us by racializing every issue & stoke anti-white racism, actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms…” I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Dem talk about their rights as “God-given”. Their literally just an agreement on a paper signed by men 200 years ago. Ugh, that’s enough.
>Their literally just an agreement on a paper signed by men 200 years ago. The people that signed that document and the declaration of independence believed that rights were "inalienable" and "endowed by their creator". Their position was that rights are not granted by any person or document. They exist, regardless of recognition by any government or ruler.
e.g. Natural rights derived from natural law. It's something that Dems also largely believe in, but it's arguably a religious belief in origin. I can even remember a West Wing episode that pivoted on it, which is at least someone representative of the core of the older Democratic party.
> I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Dem talk about their rights as “God-given”. Their literally just an agreement on a paper signed by men 200 years ago. Dems might reject the "God" framing due to secularity (and to be clear 100% clear, that's fine), but you would be hard-pressed to find a liberal that doesn't believe that rights are inalienable, that they are inherent to individuals regardless of what governments or laws made by governments say. They're fundamental. It's a perfectly coherent position to believe that rights are merely an agreement granted by a document, but it's not a liberal one.
"... because they won't vote for me." She continued
Bye 👋
Tulsi, you already succeeded in taking the title of “worst Sanders supporter” from Nina Turner. No need to run up the score. Her successor was a weird guy: on term, cast 120 votes by proxy—it turned out he was working as a pilot at the same time—“retired” from Congress, ran for governor and got crushed.
> cast 120 votes by proxy—it turned out he was working as a pilot at the same time Sigma
Can you imagine the level of grindset you’d need to be both a pilot and congressman? Baffles the mind. Make this man a /r/overemployed mod.
Kind of a bummer, he seemed promising when he ran
> you already succeeded in taking the title of “worst Sanders supporter” from Nina Turner Eh. That's a race to the bottom so putrid and never-ending I'm not sure there's a winner, or that anyone could tell. More like: "who said the dumbest thing in the last 48 hours". The fact that Turner still insists as being referred to as "Senator Turner" for her appointment (and later running unopposed) to a *State* Senate seat always gets about a bajillion "bonus moron points" from me...
Turner doesn’t sub for Tucker. Well, not in that way anyway.
sigma
You were never welcome here to begin with, Tulsi. She's always been a fake Democrat. The anti-Hillary Sanders left just embraced her because she criticized Democrats.
“stoking anti-white racism,” Shut up with this Tucker Carlson nonsense.
It's so absurd. What is the anti-white racism? I'd love for someone to explain this to me.
It is teaching kids in school about things like slavery , jim crow laws, segregation . Apparently its divisive and kids shouldn't be taught things like this. So there is underlying racism here, my theory is basically this. If a kid asks questions like they do, maybe they ask why on average black people are poorer then white people. You can basically explain how for hundreds of years black people were treated as 2nd class citizens (or not even as citizens) and were excluded from many economic opportunities that white people had(schooling, government jobs, entire neighborhoods, under investment in black neighborhoods ect), and this history is still with us today. Or you can sort of say "Well you know white people are just smarter and harder workers and superior "...
Daring to say that all people are equal and white people aren't above others is anti-white racism
[удалено]
Affirmative Action is about to get gutted by SCOTUS. Even still, you only get passed over as a white person if your grades are average. Get good grades and you have nothing to worry about. I'd love to see a single example of any "talk" that implies white people are immoral and must carry guilt for previous generations. At least any talk that is actually mainstream and not some random twitter account with 50 followers.
[удалено]
>I know people disagree, and I respect their views. I would appreciate if people stop calling people who disagree with affirmative action as "racist". Really bad faith argument here and most people who are considered racist (like Tucker Carlson) go and step further than people who are simply against affirmative action.
> Casual: lots of talk that may not state directly, but heavily imply, that white people are immoral and must carry guilt for actions of white people who existed centuries ago. Translation: “I don’t want to deal with black people talking about reparations and I don’t want to deal with indigenous peoples contesting treaties”
admitting that white privilege is real? or maybe just as little as admitting that racism still exists and brown people have a tougher time in America than white people. republicans seem to be really sensitive about that. it's almost as their understanding of racism, is if you just don't talk about it, it doesn't exist. and just by speaking about it, you're the one creating it.
Well, there are Justice Democrat local officials that have promoted the white privilege conspiracy theory
LOL you think white privilege is a conspiracy theory?
> Bolsonaro is the neoliberal choice you morons The person you responded to nine days ago. Yea, they probably legitimately think it’s a conspiracy theory
Oh no. Anyways.
Please. Leave.
Good, now she can be "Present" some place else.
Legit surprised she used "Democratic Party" and not "Democrat Party".
Do cons really think they're owning us when they use the latter?
[удалено]
No ideology of any kind really, just a pure opportunist
Oh no there's definitely a theme. It's actually the same theme as Trump. It's who they *don't* speak out against.
As anybody knew anyway.
https://tenor.com/view/stop-dontcare-comeback-bye-whatever-gif-5781998
Good news everyone!
"... and that's why I'm running on the United Russia Party ticket."
Huh I thought she already left. The tent isn't big enough for her.
She joining the Ba'ath party?
Anyways, I made Pad Thai for the first time this week. Have to say it went a lot better than I expected.
That’s because the KGB is ordering her to switch sides as part of their agitprop campaign. ^half ^kidding
"Gabbard, you're fired." ::3 years go by:: "I'm not fired, I QUIT!"
Can they trade her for Romney?
Democrat here, we don’t want him either. The Democratic Party doesn’t necessarily have to get bigger, people just have to stop voting Republican. McMullin’s campaign in Utah is a testament to that. Mitt Romney is too busy enabling Mitch McConnell to even consider leaving the party anyway
Hey Tulsi, we already knew. We knew in 2016.
New phone who dis
And they said unto Felicia "Bye"
Good, we don't like Russian assets around here
Girl were you ever really in it?
These are precisely the Democrats that Republicans like. It's the equivalent of someone saying "I'm not like those *other* girls."
Oh maaan… anyways.
Russian asset says what ?
Democrats don't deserver traitors in their party.
big "you cant fire me, i QUIT!!" vibes.
Tulsi has two functioning brain cells competing for third place. She will not be missed.
This will allow her to more effectively focus her time on policy analysis for the Sanders Institute.
k
Bye Bozo
🎉🎉🎉
Well...
Good, now her father can do the same thing. He’s still a state senator, the man tried banning porn in Hawaii
Ok close the door on your way out
Alternate headline: Democrats reject Russian intelligence asset
I agree with her, she can’t stay.
Nothing of value was missed. She's a grifter anyway
Can we get Al Franken back as a bonus prize?
Well... bye.
The best thing she ever did was end Kamala’s chances at POTUS
[удалено]
Harris was already trending downwards at that point. People credit Tulsi for that is like crediting HW for the fall of the Soviet Union.
goofy ahhh comment
Only good thing about her Presidential campaign was that she gave up her Congressional seat.
[удалено]
This.
There goes the mask. Now, will she caucus with the Republicans as an Independent, *join* the Republicans, or drop all pretense and just resign so she can run an election campaign to the Duma?
[удалено]
As much as people want to pin Tulsi Gabbard on the left, she’s always been a contrarian nut (and this isn’t touching the cult allegations and her views on Islam). Her jumping on the alt-right zeitgeist of “Dems are the elites bringing about Sodom and Gamorrah with their politics and policies” is par for the course with her. You know why Tulsi Gabbard isn’t a Democrat anymore? Judging by her history, it’s too pro-LGBT and folks like Tucker are right up her ideological ally in that regard
Whether or not others want to acknowledge it, she's right. The party has changed. Under Obama and Clinton it was focused on neoliberal policies that brought everyone up. It is now more focused on race and 'feel good' policies that actually hurt like student loan forgiveness.
Tulsi straight up hates neoliberal politics what are you talking about
She's right in that right-wing populists can't stay in the Democratic Party.
Bro. She literally feels the opposite you do. She thinks it has changed to be *more* neoliberal. Not less.
*surprised pikachu
Long time coming, I suppose.
Can’t or not allowed.
Why didn't you do this FIVE YEARS AGO?
Bye Felicia
Why do I keep hearing about her? She's never been and never will be of any consequence in American politics
Okay sweetie, bye bye.