Tucker Carlson has a guest host for Friday...

[brooklynite]

Link to tweet

I wonder how many Tulsi 2020 supporters would admit that today?

[EnergizedLib]

1. Why did I have a feeling

This was who was going to guest host?

What kinds of left wing positions does she still have?

[Wounded Bear]

3. How many "left wing" positions did she ever have?

It would appear that any LW things she claimed to support were part of the grift.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. For a while she did well at getting over

Before she was a rising left wing voice she was a rising mainstream Democrat, picked to be one of the Vice Chairs of the National Democratic Party at a relatively young age. She has literally been all over the map, politically residing wherever she thinks momentum is heading.

[Caliman73]

28. The only real "left wing" view she really espoused was "anti-imperialism".

That one however, was also just a sham. She claimed to be anti military but then it was just a cover for her to support Assad, Syria, and by extension, Russia.

She is a total fraud and some people on the left are way to eager to have anyone espouse some of their beliefs, that they sucked in by frauds like her.

[hlthe2b]

2. I guess they will be recruiting Andrew Yang next...

[robodruid1]

4. I was a Tulsi supporter

still am.

I do not like the US getting involved in "foreign adventures" while we still have homelessness.
A carbon based energy system.
polluted drinking water.
sexism
ageism
discrimination based on skin color.

[hlthe2b]

5. She sold out those positions/issues

If she ever actually believed in any of that (which I doubt)…

[robodruid1]

8. She supporting the supply of weapons to Ukraine?

That's news to me.

I thought she was against it.

[hlthe2b]

9. Not mentioned in the post to which I replied, so why do you try to cover for her now with new

issues? Nowhere in your post to which I replied is the issue of supplying Ukrainians with arms even mentioned. Disingenuous much? Still trying to support her? Really?

As to arming the Ukrainians, Tulsi has continually ducked the question even to the point of exasperating even Hannity.


https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/hannity-presses-tulsi-gabbard-on-her-opposition-to-ukraine-aid-youre-ducking-072522088.html
Hannity presses Tulsi Gabbard on her opposition to Ukraine aid: 'You're ducking'
Stephen Proctor
March 25, 2022·2 min read

Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) appeared Thursday on Hannity where she and Sean Hannity got into it over whether or not the U.S. and NATO allies should continue to give military aid to Ukraine in its fight against the unprovoked Russian invasion.

When Hannity asked if it would be wise for the world to stop the “megalomaniac murdering thug” Vladimir Putin, Gabbard answered, “We have to look at the world as it exists in reality, not the world that we wish existed.” “You’re ducking,” Hannity said. “Tulsi, I’m asking a real question here.”

Despite Ukraine pushing back the Russian offensive in parts of the country, and the Russian military suffering heavy losses, Gabbard, who has repeatedly pushed Russian propaganda, argued that the real cruelty is giving Ukrainians hope by supporting them militarily.

It is not strategically possible to think that Ukraine is going to beat Russia.Tulsi Gabbard

“Give them nothing because Russia has nukes and they might use them,” Hannity said. “That’s your answer?” “We’ve provided a tremendous amount of support to Ukraine,” Gabbard said, “not only now, but over the years so that they have the ability to defend themselves. And the Ukrainian military…” “But should we give them the weapons so they can — you’re not answering,” Hannity cut in. “Should we give them the weapons to win the war? They’re doing a great job. Everyone acknowledges that. Should we give them — and Europe — give them the weapons if they’re willing to fight for their country?” “They can’t win this war, Sean,” Gabbard answered. “This is the real world that we live in. It is not strategically possible to think that Ukraine is going to beat Russia.”

Hannity once again pressed Gabbard for a straight answer to his question, but didn’t get it.

[robodruid1]

12. Sorry if i did not explain myself better.

My fault for poor writing skills....

When you said that she changed her views, i though that was in reference to "foreign adventures"

If you believe that "was is a racket", then "was is a racket". And i believe that includes our involvement in Ukraine. Undoubtedly we have some sort of footprint there.

And i think that's immoral. There is no justification for us to be involved there until we have solved our problems first. We shouldn't be in the business of any country because that supports the racket.


I don't know how big the "non-intervention" wing is (maybe a feather) but its important to me. That's why i supported her.

[hlthe2b]

16. I believe her whole personna and appearances are a "racket." DO NOT PUT WORDS TO MY

posts that are not there nor intent that clearly is not the case--especially on an issue as important as Ukraine. Maybe it is your difficulty expressing yourself, but I'm not having it.

I'm so sad that there are not more living WWII vets and generation members. We have lost sight of what happens when we ignore or decide it noble to be isolationists when there are deadly geopolitical risks. The rise of fascism repeats a well-known historical pattern and we already know the outcomes from ignoring/appeasing the Hitlers, Mussolinis, and yes, Putins of the world.

[panader0]

22. So you have been against being mean to that Hitler guy too?

Which is more immoral, supplying weapons to Ukraine, or the unbelievable brutality of Putin, whose
army is killing innocent civilians, blowing up hospitals and churches and schools? Would you be upset
if you lived there, or if was happening on your street? Sometimes fighting such evil is necessary.
Do you think what is happening over there is a "foreign adventure"? Or is not causing massive homelessness?

[robodruid1]

24. Yes I would have been against Hitler as well.

War was/is still a racket no matter who the "enemy" is.

What is immoral is not taking care of the poor, the homeless, the disadvantaged, the non-abled, the unjustly persecuted, the uneducated, the unfed here before spending one dime to anybody else.

Having our soldiers there is the textbook example of "foreign adventure".
Do we really need to have the military in 160+ countries?
Its a racket.

[mcar]

29. Can you clarify?

You say you would have been against Hitler as well, then you say

War was/is still a racket no matter who the "enemy" is.

Are you saying that going to war to defeat Hitler and stop the slaughter of innocents was a "racket?"

[Carlitos Brigante]

13. Now that's one flavorless word salad right there. At least now she seems to be dropping any

pretense.

[Carlitos Brigante]

10. Where do we start? I noticed you missed "discrimination based on

sexual orientation". Would that be because her creepy ass family have always been obsessed with gay people? If you're claiming she's against discrimination based on skin color. Why would she host a white supremacist TV show?

I remember her having zero problems when the Obama administration was bombing Muslim countries. In fact, she criticized them for not bombing them enough. And not saying "Islamic" enough times. Because somehow that was "the trick" to defeating all these Muslims. Shit, no wonder she's such a Modi fan. GTFO with this silly shit.

The truth is, she's an opportunist and a total poser, with seemingly no moral compass. And she's now gone full Dave Rubin/Tim Pool. She found a new, more profitable grift is all.

[robodruid1]

15. You are correct of course

sexual orientation as well. And skin color.

And I agree that we should not be selling weapons to anyone.
Obama should not have bombed Muslim Countries
Trump should not have bombed Muslim Countries
Bush should not have bombed Muslim Countries
Clinton should not have bombed Muslim Countries
Bush Sr. should not have bombed Muslim Countries
Regan? Lets not go there.


War seems to be very much a racket.
Can we not fix our problems first?

[Carlitos Brigante]

19. But let's be clear. The person in question, doesn't check those boxes. And if

you read the post above with the transcript. She doesn't even seem capable of articulating her own position when it comes to Ukraine.

[robodruid1]

20. Not sure what you mean by "check those boxes"

Just that my preference for a presidential candidate is a democrat that has a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Last primary, she was the closest one. And i contributed to her campaign.
Every dollar we waste on the military is a dollar we can use for clean water.

This was in response to the idea that no one would ever admit to supporting her.
Well I did.

As far as supporting Ukraine, I don't think a position on that is in the terms of service..... But i think its a bad idea. Now Lockheed Martin/ GE/ and all of those war profiteer's are going to make more money that should be used domestically on replacing war stocks....

[Carlitos Brigante]

21. She doesn't stand for any of those things you mentioned. Which is why your posts

are not making sense to me. Hopefully that's clear now.

Ukraine being a "bad or good idea" isn't the point. She was asked very straight forward questions by a guy whose ass she's been kissing lately. Who in turn has always opposed all those things you claim she stood for. You clearly can articulate your opposition to assisting Ukraine. Why couldn't she. It's what she always does. Spew a bunch of garbled nonsense. To the point where one can't even remember what the question was.

[robodruid1]

23. I am pretty sure she was anti war

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Anti-war-presidential-hopeful-Tulsi-Gabbard-13695807.php

[Carlitos Brigante]

25. I love how you so conveniently ignored the part where she never seemed to have an issue bombing

"the right people". She's pro grifting. That I'm sure of. Oh lookie here. I got links too:

https://medium.com/arc-digital/tulsi-gabbard-is-not-anti-war-660e7d1e4ce1

I an claim to be a Buddhist monk. That doesn't make me one.

[mcar]

30. She's also anti-LGBTQ

That means she is pro-discrimate against LGBTQ people.

You still support her despite that?

[JohnSJ]

17. Anyone who believes she left her anti-gay and anti-Muslim views in the past, I have some swamp land

to sell you in Arizona

She refused to vote for the impeachment of trump

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/tulsi-gabbard-votes-present-trump-impeachment-articles-n1104301

https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/529811-rep-tulsi-gabbard-sponsors-anti-transgender-bill/

https://zora.medium.com/tulsi-gabbard-isnt-as-progressive-as-she-claims-to-be-9fe32d447b63

and frankly, her association with trumpers, her refusal to vote for the impeachment of trump, and being part of the scum at fox, should question any credibility of her suppossed progressive positions.

She is NOT an honest broker, and the reason she is on fox news is to push the right wing agenda.

I suspect she is very similar to Kari Lake, who was once a registered Democrat. So was trump.

It is easy to stop those carefully throwing out populist verbage, to coverup from who they really are

[obamanut2012]

27. lol

[OneGrassRoot]

7. wowwwwwww

I REALLY loathe her.

[Javaman]

11. stealth palin.

but she wasn't all that stealthy really.

actually she was kind of obvious.

nevermind.

LOL

[niyad]

14. ahhh, the russian asset. colour me sooooo not surprised.

Belated congratulations on your 80,000 posting milestone.

[spanone]

18. I was expecting Viktor Orban.

[Initech]

26. It's seriously a cult.

How many times can you hear Tucker Carlson or Marjorie Greene barf their brains out before you want to destroy the nearest TV?