Lets not forget she checks marks the veteran box.
That too. She's litterally the perfect democrat candidate but her enemies in the party won't let her run. Like they are contemplating Elizabeth Warren to run against Trump, he will spend his campaign calling her Pocahontas and making puns.
Uh I was referring to Tulsi Gabbard not Trump.
TDS bro, let her rage it out real quick
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Yes he did.
Tbh, this mud slinging bullshit doesn't ever paint politics in a good light. They need to grow up and fight on policy.
The problem is MSM can't fight Tulsi on policy, they'd get KO just like Ryan and Harris.
What alternate dimension is it that Conservatives didn't spend 8 long years being hysterically reactionary to every little thing Barack Obama did, from nit-picking meaningless things to being flat out racist?And a better question: how did you get to this dimension? Will you use your advanced technology for good or evil?
@HungLikeAHorsefly Obama committed multiple crimes that he never got punished for. And Republicans did not spend 8 years wasting our tax money on creating hoaxes and investigations. I don't understand the second part of your reply. What dimension? What advanced technology? News? That has been around for a long time. Good or evil? What?
Then I guess spending two years investigating the 2013 IRS targeting scandal, four years investigating Benghazi, six years investigating Fast & Furious, issuing over a hundred subpoenas in just 3 years, spending a year investigating the 2014 Obamacare website launch, calls for impeachment over the 2015 prisoner swap, about a dozen other calls for impeachment, challenging his birth certificate, a two year probe on Solyndra, the Tan Suit controversy, the Dijon Mustard controversy, the Flag Pin controversy, the Umbrella controversy, the Fist Bump controversy, the Resolute Desk controversy, the Paper Clip controversy, the MLK Bust controversy, the White Dog controversy and the Coffee Cup controversy...... never happened?
@HungLikeAHorsefly What are you talking about? Only a couple of those happened.
@HungLikeAHorsefly "the 2013 IRS targeting scandal"Did you notice that Trump's administration managed to quietly turn that into a multi-million taxpayer payday for right-wing groups? www.nytimes.com/.../...rty-lawsuit-settlement.html
@goaded Thank you for giving an example of when Obama went wrong. I remember this but it was barely covered by the news because it goes against liberals. And this did not go on for 8 or even 3 years. And the tea party is a far right group if I'm not mistaking. No surprise there. Comparing this to the entire democratic party is not strong enough. All extremist groups push extreme scandals. Far right just do it a lot less. And comparing a hoax to a terror attack is not a fair comparison. Looks like the house oversight thing was a cover-up and released after Obama left the house. Okay, the Solyndra thing was pretty stupid even though I never heard about it. I will give you credit for that. And looks like that's pretty much it. At least none of those were hoaxes that resulted in nothing at the end. The Mueller thing and eventually this Ukraine thing will result in nothing because it's another hoax. Can't they find something that they don't create themselves?
I did what, now?The IRS used keywords to identify potenially overtly political organisations looking for tax-exempt status. They'd been doing do since 2004 (year before Obama came in), and the "scandal" only broke when nearly three hundred applications had the words "tea party", "patriot", or "9/12" in their names. They also looked for "Israel", "progressive" and "Occupy".Considering "tea party" is literally the name of a political movement, it doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
@goaded I am not very familiar with taxes other than personal so I can only speak from limited knowledge on this. It depends on what their goals were. Just to reduce taxes like everyone else or something political? Do we know? I'm sure they are not the first group to do this. I know a liberal group with the name "Occupy" also participated. The irs made some mistakes about denying exemptions from conservative groups and targeting them directly. Investigations were later taken from both sides. And based on what I read, Trump administration dropped the whole thing. But that whole scandal doesn't seem like some kind of attack or investigation into the irs or obama. And it was not a hoax either.
It depends whose goals you're talking about. The IRS was trying to ensure that the organisations were "operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare" (with a very lax interpretation allowing anything other than mostly political). The organisations were trying not to pay federal income tax on donations, and not to have to name their donors.Like I said, the IRS was doing it from 2004 onwards (during four years of Bush's presidency). Basically, the final findings were that it wasn't politically biased, and then Trump's DoJ gave money to the right-wing groups that sued.
@WalterBlack Well a good example is that the same channels that helped to interfere in the 2016 election has once again come to life and part of them are pushing Tulsi Gabbard now.
I have yet to see any hard evidence what you speak of. But I acknowledge that bias does exist in mainstream media as well as the blogosphere and social media. Please remember that just because someone likes what Tulsi has to say and chooses to repeat the message, that is NOT evidence that Tulsi is working for that person or entity.
If you look at Tulsi Gabbard's resume, especially her military service, you would quickly learn that she has done more to protect and defend the United States than any other presidential candidate in recent memory. She is a shining star. And she's not afraid to think for herself. Clearly, there is a lot to be gained by the candidates who support the status quo, if Tulsi was discredited.
@WalterBlack No no no you mistook what I said. These sources are the organized and deliberate tools used by Russia to manipulate the election. It is not just some fanciful bias of some media but a cold calculated attack on your democracy by a foreign power.That is not to say there are not other connections between Tulsi and Russia but thats honestly not as important. In my opinion Tulsi is not Russias puppet because she conspires with them, in fact its even possible she considers herself completely independent of Russia but that is not how Russia sees things.Russia looked at their options and found that supporting Tulsi achieves their goals. She is doing exactly what Russia wants regardless if she wants to or not. That is why she is a puppet, because Russia is pulling the strings.
Unless you think that the Russians have somehow brainwashed her, you completely misunderstand the meaning of being a puppet.
@WalterBlack No this is also how many puppets have been used in history. Be it powerful people putting unqualified kings on the throne to suit their own goals and other examples. It is a very common tune in history.
He was talking about Tulsi Gabbard
@gazza_of_cyzicus Oh my bad. I don't know so much about Tulsi. I would say she is just weird. Kind of like a military style Marianne Williamson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63GC6z1RsQQ
Main Stream Medai.
... And what is that supposed to mean. Define it.
@Thatsamazing - News networks that have the greatest impact on what info people receive and what people think. The most popular news networks that everyone has heard of.
Main = Primary Stream = Flow/RiverMedia = Information and/or visualsPrimary flow of information and visuals.
Mmm, yes that's very interesting but I'm seeking @llorando's definition of what he thinks that means.
doesn't need to be made one if it is one.
Interesting. This man stated Tulsi was a Russian asset before Clintons comments meaning she may have seen that there was no outrage for what was said and simply added her name recognition to further inflame the topic
That would be awesome along side her google lawsuit.
Which it don't. She went through extensive background checks and security clearances and has access to top level security Intel. So if she really is a Russian (which she isn't), than the one's doing the background checks and security clearances need to be fired.
Did you know until very recently we had a spy in the Kremlin that reported to Putin and helped influence policy? They had to be pulled out because of the massive security risks that this president and know associates in and around the Whitehouse brought to our agent in the field under deep deep deep cover. That should tell you everything you need to know.
Which people believe, especially people 50+.
You are fake news.