Marianne, Yang and imploding Beto.

Candidates above zero percent territory have something to lose by getting involved in these arguments.
Your Yang is safe no matter what.

were doing something different. Which they're not, so.

Dont need bad publicity right now. And why defend somone who lost - that doesnt help your candidacy.

Part XXXVII

She's got this.

Hope you're doing well too!

I haven’t heard any who have done so.

Because Hillary doesn't need defending
She's not running for anything, she didn't get burned and she doesn't need anyone to pull her charred butt out of the fire.

In other words, she doesn't give a fork so she doesn't need defending.

Sure is a lot of defending happening here lately.

Curious.

Orange Hitler cult followers still attack Hillary Clinton. I oppose them on everything.

Bless your heart.

There you don't go, again.

I don’t answer to you, dear.

Have a lovely day now.

gives two fucks about Tulsi? She won't be the president...and if folks in Hawaii dislike her, she will lose the next election.

And you're right - Tulsi won't be president. Her campaign was 300k in the red. Now people are donating out of sympathy and she may end up qualifying for another debate.

Yet still some claim this was a great move by Hillary.

I don't get it.

attack...his favorite nemesis.

but in an unserious way. Seems an odd response to what so many are treating as a serious issue.

Respect to Beto for bucking the baseless allegations.

There is a reason she's the only candidate being defended by Russia Today and Russian bots.

Tusi is in on it. That being said I wish all this tulsi stuff would just go away. It's taken way too much of the news cycle.

attacked on DU based on baseless smears and untrue stories. He is a good guy.

Although I'm not a Tulsi supporter, IMO she was unfairly maligned.

etc, etc

Poooooor Tulsi

How do you characterize calling a fellow Democrat "the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption,
personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long," accusing her of being behind a "concerted effort" to destroy Gabbard's reputation, and claiming the primary is now between Gabbard and Clinton?

Last edited Sun Oct 20, 2019, 12:48 AM - Edit history (1)

I am not a fan of Tulsi, (or Stein or Twitter) but if attacked in such a manner I see no reason to keep the gloves on.

As I understand this was in response to a Twitter post by HRC doing a call out of Gabbard and Stein? I thought that was pretty classless of Clinton and really what was the point of doing so?

Frankly this whole public Twitter Feud Thing no matter who is involved (Politicians, Celebrities, etc) really lacks any form of Class, Civility or Decorum in my opinion.

Thank you.

Then all the silly gifs going back and forth.

Politics has become middle school.

And "middle school" might be charitable......

which NNadir posted recently.

Thanks!

not on Twitter. It appears that your assessment of Secretary Clinton as "classless" may be based on misinformation. Secretary Clinton never mentioned Tulsi by name, and she certainly didn't tweet this out to her.

It was a comment in an interview on a podcast that most people wouldn't even have known about if Tulsi hadn't completely freaked out.

And Tulsi has been attacking Clinton for years. Are you saying Clinton should have taken the gloves off when Tulsi first started going after her? Or are you among the "Hillary needs to always keep her mouth shut while other people say whatever they damned well please" contingent?

You are saying that Gabbard should not defend herself?

As for HRC, I voted for her in the last election. As to your attempt to put words in my mouth.... Nice try there.....

of being "the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long."

Even if Hillary were all of those things, Tulsi could still be a Russian favorite whom they hope will run as a third-party candidate.

If Tulsi thinks she needs to defend herself, she should actually defend herself instead of continuing to attack Clinton - something she's been doing for years and started long before she thought Clinton had referred to her on a podcast on Friday.

of the other party in this discussion?

And, true to form, she hasn't stopped to respond to Tulsi's yet unhinged diatribe. All of the "responding" is being done by Tulsi and not very effectively.

be that "unhinged" or not, something needed to first be said. It's really, hard to respond to anything if there was no originating statement?

Had there been no original statement by the one party, Gabbard simply could not have responded.

is about her without her firing off angry tweets accusing them of being warmongering personifications of the Democratic Party's rot?

She's been trashing Clinton for years, without Clinton taking the bait. Maybe she should learn something from Clinton rather than adopting the Trump playbook.

However it does seem to have ignited renewed interest in her campaign, so her advisers are more media savvy than I am

Thanks for the correction.

what Hillary says, people pay attention to. There was no ambiguity as to who Hillary was talking about. I don't like Tulsi but I'm not going to fault her for responding in kind.

Probably not. Had Tulsi not reacted the way she did, Hillary's comments would have been lost on the internet after a day or two, like many other of her comments are. It became a big deal, not because of what Hillary said, but because of the way Tulsi responded.

And, considering this was not the first time that Tulsi has attacked Hillary - she's been attacking her for years, even though Hillary never said a word about or to her, so claiming that Tulsi was just "responding in kind," is baseless. What was Tulsi supposedly responding to in all those previous times she attacked Hillary?

Besides, Tulsi didn't "respond in kind." Hillary did NOT attack her, call her a "warmonger," accuse her of being responsible for the "rot" in the Democratic Party, or anything close.

Tulsi reacted like an unhinged, guilty, out-of-control person incapable of a measured or rational response. You can defend her and blame Hillary all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that Tulsi not only demonstrated that Hillary was probably 100% correct, but also how utterly unfit she is for any position of trust.

Maybe, instead of Tulsi "responding in kind" to Hillary, it was Hillary who responded to Tulsi. It certainly would be perfectly reasonable, after years of being viciously attacked by her, yet holding her tongue, for Hillary to finally call her out.

But true to form, people can say whatever they like about Hillary and that's fine. But if Hillary says anything, SHE'S out of line.

But you criticized Hillary for speaking her mind and, not only defended Tulsi for "responding," but blamed her response on Hillary.

And you completely ignore the fact that Tulsi has been trashing Hillary for years, without Hillary saying a word. And when Hillary DOES say something, you don't treat that as a "response," but instead act as if that was a completely out of the blue trigger that caused Tulsi to say something inappropriate - even though Tulsi has been making inappropriate comments about Hillary for years.

In other words, like many still tend to do, you're holding Hillary to an entirely different standard than anyone else AND blaming HER for other people's inappropriate behavior.

I should be used to it by now but it still maddening, especially when done by fellow Democrats. But many families have a scapegoat. I guess Hillary is ours.

But you did apply a false equivalence that I think is unfair, suggesting that Hillary just said something about Tulsi out of the blue and Tulsi "responded in kind" - as if there was no history of Tulsi attacking Hillary and that most recent attack was provoked by Hillary saying something about her (even though she never mentioned her name). In reality, as I said, Tulsi has been trashing Hillary long before last week without any prompting from Hillary and no doubt was and is going to continue going after her, no matter what Hillary says or doesn't say. And her nasty, personal and hyperbolic screed against Hillary was nothing even close - in word, tone or implication - to what Hillary. So arguing that Tulsi was just "responding in kind" to Hillary isn't based on fact.

The truth is that Tulsi was just being Tulsi and she doesn't need any provocation from Hillary or anyone else to do that.

And blaming Hillary for it is blatantly unfair.

in the day for her to get anything done. People are commenting on what Hillary said. I'm commenting on Hillary, I'm not interested enough to look and see if Tulsi said something that caused Hillary to choose to respond to her. You want to post a timeline go for it, I just don't see it as important enough. I don't see anyone blaming Hillary for anything.

My point is that accusing "a fellow Democrat" (or anyone else) of being a "Russian asset" (read: traitor) amounts to slander if not accompanied by solid evidence.

And slapping the Russian asset label on Jill Stein -- how do you characterize that?

the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long," behind a "concerted effort" to destroy her so-called fellow "Democrat."

Your angst about the one in contrast to your silence about the other is both interesting and noted.

that Clinton's initial accusations of Gabbard & Stein were uncalled for & over the top, I will admit that Gabbard's response falls in the same category. Agreed?

Your angst about the one in contrast to your silence about the other is also both interesting and noted.

Either you'll engage in hypocrisy or you don't - integrity isn't negotiated.

I will call out any Democrat (including Elizabeth Warren) who engages in slander, libel, or who makes demonstrably false statements of any kind about anyone or anything.

You, on the other hand, apparently have a champion whom you will unequivocally support, regardless of the veracity of her accusations.

How about this: Clinton was wrong; Gabbard was wrong. Basta!

with V. Putin.

It takes courage to stand up for what's right.

Wow.

Let's review...

My post: Good for him (him obviously referring to Beto). It takes courage to stand up for what's right (this clearly means Beto is the one standing up)


Your post: What's right, aligning with Russia? Got it.

---


How else to read that? I don't know.

My post is what you responded to. Not the subject line. The posts are what they are.

That doesn't sound familiar in the least. I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

Why would I know what "RiGhIiIiGhT" is supposed to mean?


What the fuck is "RiGhIiIiGhT"?

The member asked if Beto defended Tulsi's alignment with Russia. Not that Beto is a puppet himself.

But thanks for your input.

But he's overlooking that Tulsi is. She just can't say anything bad about Russia.

Nevermind....

Ok, got it ....

Got it and the deflection.

Maybe you should complain to the DNC.

By the next debate. Also, Beto spoke for what, 7 minutes of a three hour debate? Maybe the DNC got it figured out now, to come and think of it.

I dig how you take exception to things no one says... except you.

just like the GOP

Nothing to mourn about.

We have lots of wonderful candidates. He simply wasn’t ready.

Interesting.

I spent much time and money in Beto's senate bid. We almost got it.

Now, when he is no way in hell going to win the nomination, he refuses to run for senate against trump's buddy cornyn. He says that if he can't be the top guy, he won't play any more. He could do well for the country from the Senate. Hell, he could do good things from the House. But he seems to think that is beneath him. I was very disappointed when I read that.

Now he backs this year's jill stein over Hillary.

I can't say he has completely lost it, but I can say he has lost me.

Really sad.

He's not supporting Tulsi over Clinton. He simply said he supports Tulsi as a person and doesn't think she is influenced by Russia. Why speak ill of a fellow Democrat during a primary? That's all he's saying. Hillary ran a terrible campaign and we have Trump. We don't have to take sides but as Democrats we don't have to bow at the alter of a Clinton either.

repeating of the rw drumbeat.

Yes, Gabbard is being used by the Russians. Hillary did a noble thing to take the heat from all of you who are too quick to blame her for everything she does. She kept the candidates from having to do it. She made it much harder for Gabbard to run third party without media looking into who financed her campaign. They should have done that for stein.

Why is it okay to speak ill of Hillary but not other Democrats? How about how Gabbard speaks of "fellow Democrats?" Is she exempt from your rule?

Yes. Beto screwed up. He needs to keep up with what is going on if he wants to run in the big show.

I followed him to rallies in eight different counties here in Texas. I gave him time and money for his campaign. I would do it again if he climbed down off his ego train and ran against cornyn where he could do some good. Again. I was so sad to see him fall so far. I had three of his signs ripped from my yard. I convinced at least a half dozen of my neighbors in a red district to vote for him. I have a right to be disappointed.

Beto will help the Senate nominee over the line.

That would get us over the line better.

So Beto also somehow deduced that HRC was referring to Gabbard in her statement, this despite the fact that no names were mentioned? Based on the airtight reasoning we've already utilized to determine Tulsi's guilt, this can mean only one thing: Beto must be a Russian asset as well.

OMG! They're everywhere!!!!

Gabbard doesn't need your help.

Much better than the crap Turner and some others have put forward.

This is respectable.

Our candidates have been out in a position where they are forced to comment on the insignificant.

This is exactly the kind of "head in the sand" behavior by Democrats that got us into this mess.

Beto probably doesn't think it's worth impeaching Trump either.

I’ve never been a fan of his, but I think his statement shows class.

It’s probably going to confuse his supporters though.

It's naive, uninformed, and self-righteous.

For example:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/22/beto-orourke-begin-impeachment-proceedings-against-trump/3762825002/
Beto O'Rourke says he'll risk consequences on 2020 campaign if Trump impeached
Rebecca Morin, USA TODAY Published 12:02 a.m. ET May 22, 2019 | Updated 12:02 p.m. ET May 22, 2019

Beto O'Rourke on Tuesday again called for President Donald Trump's impeachment — even if it means risking political consequences for his party and even risking his presidential bid, a stance that adds to the number of key Democrats pressuring House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to move forward with proceedings. ...

"I understand the political implications of this, but I think this moment calls for us to look beyond the politics and the polling, and even the next election," he said. "It's the very sanctity of the ballot box and the very future of the world's greatest democracy."

Again, Beto was just being courteous to a fellow contestant (whom I detest, incidentally)

Was just on Jake Tapper, who asked directly if Pete thought Tulsi was a Russian asset. Pete first tried to steer back to discussing policy, saying this is what’s important. Then when pressed, said “I have not seen any evidence of this at this time so cannot say”. This is a better answer than Beto, who dove into Twitter saying, “No she isn’t”.
When one has not seen evidence to convince that she is an asset, or evidence that exonerates her, then it’s best not to give a definitive answer. Tapper concluded his interview saying “an adept pivot by Mayor Pete.”

Go Pete! Too smart to be cornered.