Tulsi Gabbard 2020

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am nervous about her extremist conservative past.

She did not perform well at the "She the People" summit--she sounded canned, insincere, passionless about whatever her ill-projected mission was as a presidential candidate.

I liked what she had to say about Syria and the US's overindulgence in military action around the world.

She should stick with the race, get her message out, let the poeple decide. Even if she doesn't make it to the presidency, if she's got something important to say that resonates, it might influence the policies and platforms of the other candidates.

However, so far, I'm not as drawn to or impressed with her as I am with my personal "top three". I'd like to hear some specific policy agendas, even if it's just broad-brush.

YMMV.

What is her “extreme conservative past?” You mean because she’s against a regime change foreign policy?

Not PP but perhaps he/she meant her calling gay people wanting civil unions (not even marriage equality) “homosexual extremists.” Maybe read the whole thread?

Please- this whole gay-hoax with tulsi is nonsense peddled out of south bend- just like the pence the hoax. Churn the outrage machine!

Where’s the hoax? She actually said that. And we were discussing it in January way before Buttigieg was in the race.

Sure. Because Chasten and all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tulsi is rising in polls.

Going to need a cite for that.

Jumped six spots- more than anyone- in rolling stone power ranking

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/2020-democrat-candidates-771735/amp/

That’s, um, not a poll.

+1 This thread is not making Tulsi supporters look particularly smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am nervous about her extremist conservative past.

She did not perform well at the "She the People" summit--she sounded canned, insincere, passionless about whatever her ill-projected mission was as a presidential candidate.

I liked what she had to say about Syria and the US's overindulgence in military action around the world.

She should stick with the race, get her message out, let the poeple decide. Even if she doesn't make it to the presidency, if she's got something important to say that resonates, it might influence the policies and platforms of the other candidates.

However, so far, I'm not as drawn to or impressed with her as I am with my personal "top three". I'd like to hear some specific policy agendas, even if it's just broad-brush.

YMMV.

What is her “extreme conservative past?” You mean because she’s against a regime change foreign policy?

Not PP but perhaps he/she meant her calling gay people wanting civil unions (not even marriage equality) “homosexual extremists.” Maybe read the whole thread?

Please- this whole gay-hoax with tulsi is nonsense peddled out of south bend- just like the pence the hoax. Churn the outrage machine!

Where’s the hoax? She actually said that. And we were discussing it in January way before Buttigieg was in the race.

Sure. Because Chasten and all.

I don’t know what you’re talking about but if you read this whole thread her disgusting quote is reported on page 1 in January.

[Anonymous]

So what is it, Tulsi is up to about 11 or 12 percent at this point? You go girl!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am nervous about her extremist conservative past.

She did not perform well at the "She the People" summit--she sounded canned, insincere, passionless about whatever her ill-projected mission was as a presidential candidate.

I liked what she had to say about Syria and the US's overindulgence in military action around the world.

She should stick with the race, get her message out, let the poeple decide. Even if she doesn't make it to the presidency, if she's got something important to say that resonates, it might influence the policies and platforms of the other candidates.

However, so far, I'm not as drawn to or impressed with her as I am with my personal "top three". I'd like to hear some specific policy agendas, even if it's just broad-brush.

YMMV.

What is her “extreme conservative past?” You mean because she’s against a regime change foreign policy?

Not PP but perhaps he/she meant her calling gay people wanting civil unions (not even marriage equality) “homosexual extremists.” Maybe read the whole thread?

Please- this whole gay-hoax with tulsi is nonsense peddled out of south bend- just like the pence the hoax. Churn the outrage machine!

Where’s the hoax? She actually said that. And we were discussing it in January way before Buttigieg was in the race.

Sure. Because Chasten and all.

I don’t know what you’re talking about but if you read this whole thread her disgusting quote is reported on page 1 in January.

She's got a lot less to apologize for than Biden, that's for sure. Tulsi's a great candidate -- probably not ready for POTUS but I think she's energize any ticket in VP slot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what is it, Tulsi is up to about 11 or 12 percent at this point? You go girl!

Going to need a cite for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is it, Tulsi is up to about 11 or 12 percent at this point? You go girl!

Going to need a cite for that.

It's 100% factually true from the mind of the Tulsi-bot posting on this forum. Stop trying to make "Tulsi" happen. It's not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is it, Tulsi is up to about 11 or 12 percent at this point? You go girl!

Going to need a cite for that.

It's 100% factually true from the mind of the Tulsi-bot posting on this forum. Stop trying to make "Tulsi" happen. It's not going to happen.

Were you a super delegate last time around? We need people deciding the nomination; and we don't need to be told what we are allowed to think. Would have though you would have learned that from the fiasco imposed on us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is it, Tulsi is up to about 11 or 12 percent at this point? You go girl!

Going to need a cite for that.

It's 100% factually true from the mind of the Tulsi-bot posting on this forum. Stop trying to make "Tulsi" happen. It's not going to happen.

Were you a super delegate last time around? We need people deciding the nomination; and we don't need to be told what we are allowed to think. Would have though you would have learned that from the fiasco imposed on us.

You are delusional; superdelegates did not decide the nomination last time around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is it, Tulsi is up to about 11 or 12 percent at this point? You go girl!

Going to need a cite for that.

It's 100% factually true from the mind of the Tulsi-bot posting on this forum. Stop trying to make "Tulsi" happen. It's not going to happen.

Wow, your anti-Tulsi posts are so edgy. You are clearly woke and I salute you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is it, Tulsi is up to about 11 or 12 percent at this point? You go girl!

Going to need a cite for that.

It's 100% factually true from the mind of the Tulsi-bot posting on this forum. Stop trying to make "Tulsi" happen. It's not going to happen.

Wow, your anti-Tulsi posts are so edgy. You are clearly woke and I salute you.

Do you think only one person is responding to the Tulsi-bot posts? Many people are waiting for you to cite evidence for your Tulsi claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is it, Tulsi is up to about 11 or 12 percent at this point? You go girl!

Going to need a cite for that.

It's 100% factually true from the mind of the Tulsi-bot posting on this forum. Stop trying to make "Tulsi" happen. It's not going to happen.

Were you a super delegate last time around? We need people deciding the nomination; and we don't need to be told what we are allowed to think. Would have though you would have learned that from the fiasco imposed on us.

You are delusional; superdelegates did not decide the nomination last time around.

I guess I am; I recall Hillary trumpeting Bernie could never win because of her superdelegates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is it, Tulsi is up to about 11 or 12 percent at this point? You go girl!

Going to need a cite for that.

It's 100% factually true from the mind of the Tulsi-bot posting on this forum. Stop trying to make "Tulsi" happen. It's not going to happen.

Were you a super delegate last time around? We need people deciding the nomination; and we don't need to be told what we are allowed to think. Would have though you would have learned that from the fiasco imposed on us.

You are delusional; superdelegates did not decide the nomination last time around.

I guess I am; I recall Hillary trumpeting Bernie could never win because of her superdelegates.

Check her margin in regular delegates resulting from her 3.7 million more votes than he had. She didn’t need superdelegates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is it, Tulsi is up to about 11 or 12 percent at this point? You go girl!

Going to need a cite for that.

It's 100% factually true from the mind of the Tulsi-bot posting on this forum. Stop trying to make "Tulsi" happen. It's not going to happen.

Were you a super delegate last time around? We need people deciding the nomination; and we don't need to be told what we are allowed to think. Would have though you would have learned that from the fiasco imposed on us.

You are delusional; superdelegates did not decide the nomination last time around.

I guess I am; I recall Hillary trumpeting Bernie could never win because of her superdelegates.

Check her margin in regular delegates resulting from her 3.7 million more votes than he had. She didn’t need superdelegates.

Yeah, she never said that. Sure

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is it, Tulsi is up to about 11 or 12 percent at this point? You go girl!

Going to need a cite for that.

It's 100% factually true from the mind of the Tulsi-bot posting on this forum. Stop trying to make "Tulsi" happen. It's not going to happen.

Were you a super delegate last time around? We need people deciding the nomination; and we don't need to be told what we are allowed to think. Would have though you would have learned that from the fiasco imposed on us.

You are delusional; superdelegates did not decide the nomination last time around.

I guess I am; I recall Hillary trumpeting Bernie could never win because of her superdelegates.

Check her margin in regular delegates resulting from her 3.7 million more votes than he had. She didn’t need superdelegates.

Yeah, she never said that. Sure

It doesn’t matter what she said, it matters what she did: beat Bernie like a drum. Sorry you still can’t accept that.