Tulsi Gabbard says Kamala's entire Campaign is based on a Lie

[JI7]

Last edited Wed Aug 7, 2019, 12:56 AM - Edit history (2)

there is something seriously wrong going on here. at a time when most candidates are focused on the issue of gun violence, hatred , and Trump who is responsible for it all you have this one person who is going full on attack against a democratic candidate .

Link to tweet

?s=20

[ucrdem]

1. These claims have not been proven false.

Just the opposite in fact: Harris's claims have gotten scrutiny from many quarters, including the left and the neutral middle. I don't like that Dems are going after each other but Harris did after all lead the way, guns blazing, so to speak.

Were Tulsi Gabbard’s attacks on Kamala Harris’ record as a California prosecutor on target?

By Chris Nichols on Thursday, August 1st, 2019 at 4:13 p.m.

https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2019/aug/01/were-tulsi-gabbards-attacks-kamala-harris-record-c/

[hedda_foil]

24. Your Politifact link does the opposite end of what you say. It provides facts backing Harris.

Is there a grain of fact in Gabbard's right wing lies? Sure. Does the context of those facts challenge her interpretation? Absolutely.

[ucrdem]

35. The claims have not been proven false.

I didn't say they weren't lacking context etc etc. But that's what debate is all about: making claims based on the facts. If they need to be unskewed, Harris had her 30 seconds. Yes, that's a tall order. But that's what Harris herself was counting on in the first debate when she pulled a similar attack on Biden. Well, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And Harris was given plenty of advance warning which Biden was not, a point the Harris campaign boasted of after the debate.

By the way the original fact check of Harris claims is here, and the conclusion is that her claims are -- like Tulsi's -- spun:

https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2019/jan/29/kamala-harris-criminal-justice-reformer-or-defende/

[Princetonian]

84. Please read articles in Reply 44, 72, 85. There is more than a grain of truth in what Gabbard says.

Read also Replies 159, 165, 181 for articles from well-known respected news organiztions which back up Tulsi Gabbard's claims.

Still waiting for Senator Harris to address these issues... and more from her past history as DA & AG.

[hedda_foil]

249. You want us to read the comments??? Sorry, doesn't work that way.

[TeamPooka]

413. You're reading and replying to a comment right now. So I guess it does work that way.

[Demsrule86]

168. That is not true...Sen. Harris will have a tough time with some of her stuff in the DA/AG

years. I did much research after the first debate as I was angry about her treatment of a good Democrat ...Biden. She needs to stop attacking the messenger and address this issue...all of you said 'why this is politics' and you have to be vetted when she went after Biden etc...

[Princetonian]

72. This is a well-annotated New York Times article by a law professor which backs up Tulsi Gabbard.

Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor’
The senator was often on the wrong side of history when she served as California’s attorney general.

By Lara Bazelon

Ms. Bazelon is a law professor and the former director of the Loyola Law School Project for the Innocent in Los Angeles.

SAN FRANCISCO — With the growing recognition that prosecutors hold the keys to a fairer criminal justice system, the term “progressive prosecutor” has almost become trendy. This is how Senator Kamala Harris of California, a likely presidential candidate and a former prosecutor, describes herself.

But she’s not.

Time after time, when progressives urged her to embrace criminal justice reforms as a district attorney and then the state’s attorney general, Ms. Harris opposed them or stayed silent. Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors.

Consider her record as San Francisco’s district attorney from 2004 to 2011. Ms. Harris was criticized in 2010 for withholding information about a police laboratory technician who had been accused of “intentionally sabotaging” her work and stealing drugs from the lab. After a memo surfaced showing that Ms. Harris’s deputies knew about the technician’s wrongdoing and recent conviction, but failed to alert defense lawyers, a judge condemned Ms. Harris’s indifference to the systemic violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights.

Ms. Harris contested the ruling by arguing that the judge, whose husband was a defense attorney and had spoken publicly about the importance of disclosing evidence, had a conflict of interest. Ms. Harris lost. More than 600 cases handled by the corrupt technician were dismissed.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

289. Wow, that was eye-opening! And Kamala has no response...

She better start responding soon... where are her advisors?


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Princetonian]

349. "Kill The Messenger" is her advisors' strategy according to a reporter who is in a position to know.

“It just shows,” says Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, “that launching a smear campaign is the only response to the truth.”... The “smear campaign” refers to the bizarre avalanche of negative press that ensued, as reporters seemed to circle wagons around a Harris, a party favorite... Having wounded a presumptive frontrunner backed by nearly $25 million in campaign funds, Gabbard instantly became the subject of a slew of negative leaks, tweets, and press reports... Harris national press chair Ian Sams tweeted, “Yo, you love Assad!”, a reference to Gabbard’s controversial visit with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in 2017. He then tweeted a link to an insidious February 2 NBC News story, which asserted that Gabbard’s campaign was the beneficiary of Russian bots.

Harris herself meanwhile gave a sneering interview to Anderson Cooper. “This is going to sound immodest,” she said, but as a “top-tier candidate,” she could “only take what [Gabbard] says and her opinion so seriously.” She added Gabbard was an “apologist for an individual, Assad, who has murdered the people of his country like cockroaches.”

The campaign against Gabbard is part of another remarkable shift in the Democratic Party. Barack Obama’s star began to rise as a presidential candidate 12 years ago, in 2007, when asked in a debate if he’d be willing to meet with Iran, Syria, Cuba... Obama said he would, that “it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.” He added: “The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of [the Bush] administration — is ridiculous.” He went on to cite, as Gabbard has done, the example of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, who both met with Soviet leaders... But the progressive position that meeting with dictators and/or adversaries is not only defensible but desirable no longer has any representation in major America media.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/podcast-tulsi-gabbard-kamala-harris-syria-iraq-870003/[div]

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

350. Bad strategy.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Princetonian]

352. The alternative is to admit the truth of what Gabbard said.

Harris, her advisors and her partisan proxies will never do that nor does it seem likely Harris will decide to address the issues Gabbard brought up in any substantive way. They probably will continue to play Kill The Messenger until Gabbard drops out of the race. Problem solved -- until the general election when Republicans take off the kid gloves if she is the nominee or on the ticket. I hope she never gets that far. The good news is we have a top tier of three candidates that are looking great in Iowa and NH.

[Princetonian]

88. The Mercury News Debate Factcheck backs Tulsi Gabbard up as well.

This is awful:

Death row appeals

Tulsi Gabbard: “She blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so. In the case of those who were on death row, innocent people, you actually blocked evidence from being revealed that would have freed them until you were forced to do so.”

The facts: Harris’s attorney general office did block DNA testing that some legal observers believe could have helped overturn the murder conviction of a death row inmate who has insisted he was framed.

Harris opposed efforts by lawyers for Kevin Cooper, a death row inmate from San Bernardino County, to get new DNA testing. In 2018, following a New York Times investigation into the case, Harris said she was wrong and called for further testing.

Gabbard was also correct that Harris "fought to keep a cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in the worst kind of way.”

Link to Mercury News: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/01/democratic-debate-kamala-harris-tulsi-gabbard-joe-biden-fact-check/

[ucrdem]

99. An inconvenient truth.

Normally I wouldn't be keen on Dems attacking Dems but if Harris is going to get a gold star for pulling an underhanded stunt then there's no reason she shouldn't get the same treatment in return. And there's nothing Gabbard could say that could do the damage Harris TRIED to inflict on Joe Biden. That was brutal, dishonest, and unworthy of a Democrat let alone a Democratic senator. I find Gabbard's attack perfectly honorable since she literally got on TV to announce it in advance. Harris on the other hand went for the ambush. And then turned the knife in the following weeks. I'm still aghast at low she stooped. And, as I've said, I've voted for her several times.

[Princetonian]

112. I feel the exact same way. It would seem we are in the minority.

Thank you for speaking up and standing your ground. You inspired me to do the same.

[ucrdem]

121. If Harris fades, it won't be Gabbard's fault

In fact Harris created the lane Gabbard stepped into: calling bullshit on bullshit. Well that's politics I guess. And we here gave Harris a lot of credence I didn't think she merited so I don't see why Gabbard shouldn't get the same level of respect.

[Demsrule86]

169. I agree with you...she opened the door to this sort of thing in the first debate now the sky is

falling because someone has come after her with information backed up by credible sources...hey it is a primary. Address the issues and move on Sen. Harris.

[brush]

401. Playing greatest hits now? This ran weeks ago but now it's back.

I guess enough damage wasn't done to a fellow Democrat the first time.

And has it occured to anyone else that the only African American woman in the race is getting pilloried over and over by Democrats on a Democratic board?

We don't do well without African American support.

[Andy823]

403. Seems like some here

this gets kicked back up everyday by the Harris haters, or trolls. You know the right wing nuts are scared when this kind of crap happens, and they also make the candidate they "claim" to support look bad also. Kind of a two for one bashing Job!

I just can't figure out how so many people here on DU get hooked by this kind of trash!

[dhill926]

2. this is nothing like she will face...

if running for Prez or VP...better to deal with it now...

[sharedvalues]

62. Still don't amplify Tulsis lies

Tulsi is boosted by Russians and the Daily Stormer bragged they got her into the debates with small donations.

Tulsi is bad for the Democratic Party and by extension for America.

[Princetonian]

66. So you think neo-nazi Daily Stormer is a trusted news source to smear Democrats?

Russians like anyone who is anti-interventionalist in Syria no matter what party they are from.

Tulsi is not lying:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

[sharedvalues]

91. I think Tulsi was raised in a Hindu cult and cozied up to Bashar Assad

I like some of the things that Tulsi said at the debate.

But I don't trust her farther than I can throw her.

There's a reason Dems are trying to primary her.
Daily Kos endorsed her primary opponent.

So you disagree with Daily Kos?
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/24/1828955/-Tulsi-Gabbard-s-values-are-out-of-step-but-we-have-a-much-better-progressive-choice-in-Kai-Kahele

[at140]

124. Many American politicians met with Assad in Syria!

That is a common practice, for politicians to visit heads of state everywhere.
Nancy Pelosi met with Assad, that does NOT make her a Russian agent, not even close.

[ucrdem]

133. John Kerry too. Meanwhile the UK is self-destructing over fear of Syrian refugees

and we conveniently get ourselves in a lather over Islamic immigrants around election time. So whether she fully followed protocol or not, I give Gabbard credit for taking positive action to put an end to that horror.

[StarfishSaver]

135. The Speaker of the House and the Secretary of State meeting with a foreign head of state i different

than a rank and file Member of Congress doing so.

Night and day.

[ucrdem]

136. Yes that's fair. But Syria is a humanitarian catastrophe and if Gabbard thought she could help

using her unique experience, political access and authority, then I am not going to condemn any effort to intervene. I don't think she's a Russian agent. I think that's a really lame idea in fact.

[Me.]

207. Yes I Was Just Coming To The Fact Theirs Are

Official Positions

[Princetonian]

209. "five congressional Democrats and Ohio Republican Dave Hobson met for three hours with Assad"

"Pelosi and a delegation of five congressional Democrats and Ohio Republican Dave Hobson met for three hours with Assad, including a lunch with him in Damascus' historic Old City."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pelosi-defies-bush-meets-syrian-leader/

Republicans were outraged that Pelosi and five Democratic rank-and-file Members of Congress (plus a Republican) visited Assad despite the Bush administration's objections.

Ironic.

[StarfishSaver]

211. There's a difference between high-level Members meeting with a foreign leader as part of an

official bipartisan Congressional delegation led by the Speaker of the House and a rank and file Member meeting with a head of state on her own private "fact-finding mission," without the approval or even the knowledge of Congressional leadership, after which she defended him and blasted American foreign policy

But your effort to equate the two situations in order to defend Gabbard's behavior is noted.

[Princetonian]

215. lol... you don't get to make those determinations. Pelosi went against the wishes of her President.

Pelosi didn't care that she was officially banned from the floor of the House for a day. Pelosi didn't care about the outrage, period. Gabbard is a Member of Congress and she can accept any invitation she wants from a foreign leader and is not concerned with the outrage of political partisans either. She learned from the best.

[StarfishSaver]

216. Your slip is showing.

[Princetonian]

217. Oh puhleeze... are you serious? That is a political fact for any Member of Congress.

It is also something that Republcans never respected about President Obama. I suppose some partisan Democrats miss the irony.

[karynnj]

366. Huge difference Kerry met with Assad a few times before the Syrian civil war

Both when Bush was President, when he and Dodd represented the SFRC to meet Assad. Before going, they requested and got a list of questions that Secretary Rice and the State Department wanted asked.

He then visited alone, and once with Teresa, as Chair of the SFRC in the early years of the Obama administration. The goal was to move Assad away from allowing material for Hezbollah to transit through Syria and to push Democratic reforms. He did this in support of Obama, but not as part of the administration to allow Obama to discretely pursue the possibility of diplomacy working with Syria.

He did NOT meet with him after he committed war crimes against his own people. He did, indirectly, work to get rid of a huge amount of Syrian chemical weapons that would otherwise have made the horrendous situation worse.

In addition, he worked to get the UN resolution that defined the process for going forward diplomatically, that never was used, but is still referenced by other countries. Russia represented Assad's interest.

Gabbad, on the other hand, met Assad in 2016, after he was clearly a war criminal and backed the Russian lies that suggested that neither the Russians or Syrians were responsible for the planes that used gas on people. As the rebels had no planes, this blames the US led coalition.

[sharedvalues]

134. What you're saying is a lie.

I’m not accusing you of lying, but you are repeating lies about Gabbard.
In truth, Gabbard is an Assad-apologist who allowed herself to be used as part of Assad’s propaganda effort to normalize chemical attacks against civilians. No other American politician did that.

High-quality Russsian dissident site Bellingcat:
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2019/08/04/tulsi-gabbards-reports-on-chemical-attacks-in-syria-a-self-contradictory-error-filled-mess/

Etc
https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/tulsi-gabbards-syria-record-shows-why-she-cant-be-president/2019/08/01/f804c790-b497-11e9-8949-5f36ff92706e_story.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/10/tulsi-gabbard-assad-syria-1214882

The remarks from Gabbard represent the latest entry in what lawmakers from both parties have criticized as a disconcerting posture toward Assad, which emerged when the Aloha State lawmaker made an unannounced visit to the Middle East strongman two years ago.

Gabbard previously said she was "skeptical" that Assad’s government perpetrated a chemical weapons attack in April 2017 that killed dozens of Syrians, although the Defense Department and the United Nations found that his regime was responsible for the slaughter.

Ditch Tulsi. She’s bad for Dems and bad for America.
That’s why Daily Kos endorsed her PRIMARY OPPONENT.

[ucrdem]

154. "High-quality Russsian dissident site Bellingcat"?

[Lulu KC]

184. I love Bellingcat

and do not quite understand that description. Wonderful investigative journalism, I believe, largely focused on events involving Russia.

https://www.bellingcat.com/about/

[at140]

226. My 1st preference is NOT Tulsi Gabbard

but I try to defend ALL democrats when attacked without sufficient evidence. I have not seen evidence Gabbard is a Russian agent.

[sharedvalues]

233. Great! If you dislike Gabbard then don't promote her.

Or defend her.
She’s bad for the country and bad for Democrats.

[at140]

236. Defending someone is same as promoting?

You will find me defending any democrat who has been unfairly attacked without solid evidence.

As for Gabbard, she will not last much longer in the nomination fight. So promoting her candidacy is meaningless at this point. But that should not mean attacks without evidence should go on. I am specifically referring to branding Gabbard as a tool of Russia.

[sharedvalues]

237. Cool. So feel free to criticize Gabbard for her problems.

[Princetonian]

359. Harris has history from her days as DA and AG that needs to be addressed not ignored.

Last edited Thu Aug 15, 2019, 08:25 AM - Edit history (1)

Gabbard's biggest problem right now is being targeted by a "smear campaign" because she dared speak inconvenient truths:

“It just shows,” says Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, “that launching a smear campaign is the only response to the truth.”

The “smear campaign” refers to the bizarre avalanche of negative press that ensued, as reporters seemed to circle wagons around a Harris, a party favorite... Having wounded a presumptive frontrunner backed by nearly $25 million in campaign funds, Gabbard instantly became the subject of a slew of negative leaks, tweets, and press reports... Harris national press chair Ian Sams tweeted, “Yo, you love Assad!”, a reference to Gabbard’s controversial visit with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in 2017. He then tweeted a link to an insidious February 2 NBC News story, which asserted that Gabbard’s campaign was the beneficiary of Russian bots.

Harris herself meanwhile gave a sneering interview to Anderson Cooper. “This is going to sound immodest,” she said, but as a “top-tier candidate,” she could “only take what [Gabbard] says and her opinion so seriously.” She added Gabbard was an “apologist for an individual, Assad, who has murdered the people of his country like cockroaches.”

The campaign against Gabbard is part of another remarkable shift in the Democratic Party. Barack Obama’s star began to rise as a presidential candidate 12 years ago, in 2007, when asked in a debate if he’d be willing to meet with Iran, Syria, Cuba... Obama said he would, that “it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.” He added: “The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of [the Bush] administration — is ridiculous.” He went on to cite, as Gabbard has done, the example of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, who both met with Soviet leaders... But the progressive position that meeting with dictators and/or adversaries is not only defensible but desirable no longer has any representation in major America media.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/podcast-tulsi-gabbard-kamala-harris-syria-iraq-870003/[div]

[sharedvalues]

360. We were talking about Gabbards problems

And you pivoted to exclusively attack Harris.

Why the focus on Harris while ignoring Gabbard’s huge problems?

Remember the rightwing strategy is to amplify Gabbard now and get her to run as a third party spoiler which will be a HUGE boost to get Trump re-elected and destroy the country.
Don’t help them.

[Princetonian]

369. Harris has yet to refute any of Gabbard's claims.

She was on CNN and MSNBC on August 1. CNN asked her about it, showed her a videoclip and she still did not refute Gabbard's claims. Why wouldn't she simply and categorically refute Gabbard's claims if they were not true?

Can you guess why?

I am not a fan of baseless conspiracy theories or smear campaigns. If you are interested in the facts, you can read what I and others have researched that verified Gabbard's claims in posts along this thread.

Then you will understand why I and others believe that Harris' past history as DA and AG makes her a flawed candidate in a general election. Fortunately, it doesn't appear that Harris will be the nominee. She is not even winning her home state.

We need the best candidate to face Trump in the general election. And no, Joe is not a racist.

Rhetoric 101. "I don't believe you're a racist, but..." means you're about to imply he's a racist.

to Skya Rhen

Another to thesquanderer

[sharedvalues]

370. The problem is Gabbards:

Raised in a strange cult she still hasn’t disavowed
Cozied up to Assad, a war criminal and ally of Putin
Boosted by the right and the Russians.


Feel free to discuss Gabbard’s problems.

[Princetonian]

371. Gabbard has no problems besides an ongoing smear campaign pushing baseless allegations.

Listen to Gabbard respond to what she calls "cheap smears":

Religious bigotry has no place on this forum or in the Democratic Party. Gabbard's religion is none of our affair. Some say the same about Mormonism. Romans used to say the same thing against Christians - remember the Coliseum days?

Denigrating a Democratic Presidential candidate's personal or family life is off-limits for me. You do know Gabbard was Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2013-2016 and was the first Hindu elected to Congress, right? Her religious practices didn't matter to Democrats then and it shouldn't matter now.

Gabbard is not responsible for social media campaigns outside of her own campaign. Bernie was boosted by the Russians in 2016. Did you blame him for it then too? Take note:

"Indictment: Russians also tried to help Bernie Sanders..." (USA Today, Feb. 17, 2018)

Do not blame the victims of politically motivated Russian interference. Neither Tulsi or Bernie are/were responsible for or complicit with the orders coming out of Moscow:

'Special counsel Robert Mueller’s office said on Friday that a federal grand jury has indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities accused of interfering with U.S. elections and political processes.

WASHINGTON – It turns out Donald Trump wasn’t the only candidate the Russians allegedly tried to help during the 2016 presidential campaign.

A 37-page indictment resulting from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation shows that Russian nationals and businesses also worked to boost the campaigns of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders... in an effort to damage Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The Russians “engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump,” according to the indictment, which was issued Friday.'

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/17/indictment-russians-also-tried-help-bernie-sanders-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/

----

Russians are equal opportunity shit-stirrers. They do not care about party labels which means it is wrong to assume that the candidates they "support" are bad or believe that the ones that they attack (see Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio) are good. Blaming Tulsi or Bernie is missing this point completely.

Instead of throwing shade at Gabbard, Harris needs to address point by point Gabbard's attack on her history as DA and AG. I have yet to see anything substantive out of the Harris campaign besides deflection and a Kill the Messenger defense which won't work.

Voters deserve to know the truth.

Unless you have research and sources that can override those of The New York Times, The Mercury Press, LA Times, SF Chronicle and Factcheck.org. Those are the sources which back up Tulsi's claims on this thread. Try reading them with an open mind instead of discounting them out of hand. These news outlets and their editorial staff do not publish Fake News.

It just shows,” says Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, “that launching a smear campaign is the only response to the truth.”

Gabbard, 38, burst into headlines after a July 31 Democratic Party presidential debate, when she went after California Senator Kamala Harris’s record as Attorney General of the State of California. The “smear campaign” refers to the bizarre avalanche of negative press that ensued, as reporters seemed to circle wagons around a Harris, a party favorite.

<snip>

Having wounded a presumptive frontrunner backed by nearly $25 million in campaign funds, Gabbard instantly became the subject of a slew of negative leaks, tweets, and press reports. Many of these continued the appalling recent Democratic Party tradition of denouncing anything it doesn’t like as treasonous aid to foreign enemies.

Harris national press chair Ian Sams tweeted, “Yo, you love Assad!”, a reference to Gabbard’s controversial visit with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in 2017. He then tweeted a link to an insidious February 2 NBC News story, which asserted that Gabbard’s campaign was the beneficiary of Russian bots.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/podcast-tulsi-gabbard-kamala-harris-syria-iraq-870003/

Stay classy, Ian Sams. Tulsi met with Trump and Assad because:

".... Gabbard agreed to meet with Trump to make her case for a noninterventionist foreign policy. A few months later, she flew to Syria and met with Bashar al-Assad, who is presiding over a brutal civil war; she and he seemed to agree that the United States should not intervene to stop it."

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe

Obama faced similar smears and attacks when he said he would speak to Syria without preconditions. BFD. So what?

[sharedvalues]

372. Princetonian, welcome to DU! Thanks for supporting Gabbard so strongly!

[Princetonian]

373. I support VP Joe Biden who is not a racist.

Rhetoric 101. "I don't believe you're a racist, but..." means you're about to imply he's a racist.



to thesquanderer

[Skya Rhen]

376. +1,000,000

[thesquanderer]

353. A counterpoint to the Bellingcat Syria article...

Do you think there are valid points here from the other side? Article titled:

"Obama, Biden, Mattis and Clapper Expressed Skepticism on Syria, so Why Is Gabbard Singled Out?"

https://www.mintpressnews.com/skepticism-syria-why-tulsi-gabbard-singled-out/261257/

It's an opinion piece with an obvious bias, but that doesn't mean its facts are off.

I'm not sure what to think, but it hardly looks like a black and white issue.

[sharedvalues]

221. I see you didn't read the article about Tulsi

Gabbard enabled Assad’s whitewashing of gassing civilians— by what she said and by when she said it.

[at140]

225. For the record, I am 100% against ALL WMD's...

Gabbard did not start the civil war in Syria. In most civil wars, many innocent civilians get killed.
And Gabbard has no power to control what Assad can and will do. Her words, whatever they were had little power to control Assad's behavior. That would be the job of United Nations.

[sharedvalues]

234. You're blaming the UN for Gabbard helping justify a war atrocity?

I blame Gabbard for Gabbard helping justify a war atrocity, really.

[at140]

235. You are entitled to your POV and I am to mine! nt

[sharedvalues]

238. You're not entitled to your own set of facts. Nm

[Eyeball_Kid]

303. Were Gabbard to condemn Syrian war crimes while NOT asserting that

Assad is somehow innocent of ordering or condoning them, I'd give her a longer listen.

While you're correct in stating that Gabbard does not have any authority over foreign policy toward Syria, she DOES have the power of the microphone and the power of public persuasion. She gets air time. All she has to do is use it.

But she hasn't. Why is that?

[thesquanderer]

311. Some of what Gabbard has said about Syria

From her web site:

There is evidence that both the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad as well as the armed opposition groups aligned against him have used chemical weapons (CW) during the Syrian war.

From video below (8 minutes in):

Anderson Cooper: "Just on a factual basis, Bashar al-Assad is a murderer and a torturer, do you not agree with that?"

Tulsi Gabbard: "I don't dispute that."

[Princetonian]

361. (Video) Tulsi agrees with Anderson Cooper that Assad is a murderer and torturer.

Link to post second-debate video: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=234576

to thesquanderer

[obamanut2012]

191. She is still part of the Hindu Nationalist cult

And, supports RW, hardliner Hindu Nationalists, akin to White Nationalism or White Supremacism, who want a country where followers of Muslims and Christians (and other faiths) are AT BEST second-class citizens, and at worst, purged.

And, for anyone wanting to alert on this post: this is 100% factual.

[Demsrule86]

255. Hinduism is a religion you know...and should not be attacked.

[JI7]

273. they have negative elements to it which should be attacked

and i come from a hindu family and so did Kamala Harris from her mother's side.

[Recursion]

291. Hinduism is a religion; Hindutva is a right-wing political movement

The BJP supports her; that should be enough for any liberal to say "no".

[Demsrule86]

308. I will not join in attacking Gabbard...people have gone overboard IMHO...

Harris should address her time as DA and AG...Gabbard is a Democrat and should be treated as such...on a military training mission...doubt very much she would be there is what some say is true.

[NastyRiffraff]

334. Why not?

What's so special about religion that it shouldn't ever be criticized? Many religions, including Hinduism and Christianity, have done things that aren't exactly moral. What's wrong with pointing that out. Religion enjoys way too much special treatment, and for what?

[Princetonian]

390. Gabbard's religion is none of our affair.

Listen to Gabbard respond to what she calls "cheap smears" by Harris:

Religious bigotry has no place on this forum or in the Democratic Party.

Denigrating a Democratic Presidential candidate's personal or family life is off-limits for me. You do know Gabbard was Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2013-2016 and was the first Hindu elected to Congress, right? Her religious practices didn't matter to Democrats then and it shouldn't matter now.

[SunsetDreams2]

391. Daily kick

We appreciate your due diligence in keeping this over 2 week thread kicked.

[Princetonian]

392. Thanks! Others have joined me to address points of contention. Truth is never out of date.

Last edited Thu Aug 22, 2019, 09:39 AM - Edit history (3)

Rhetoric 101. "I don't believe you're a racist, but..." means you're about to imply he's a racist.



to thesquanderer

[Eyeball_Kid]

301. That makes no sense.

What does the Hindu faith have to do with Assad, or even Gabbard, for that matter. Assad's faith, if you want to call it that, is Islam. If you think that Hindus and Muslims have some kind of secret pact that excludes, who, Christians, then you have paid no attention to history, recent or otherwise. Hindus and Muslims have been mutually antagonistic, not for years or decades, but for centuries.

Gabbard's foray into foreign policy toward Syria carries the extreme risk of having her perceived as pro-Russia and against conventional notions of human rights. My concern about her is that she has NOT separated herself from Russia's support of her actions. If she distances herself from any Russian or Syrian policies or alignments, I might listen. But so far, she's been silent. This is not good.

[sharedvalues]

306. I don't trust candidates in fundamentalist religious cults

I don’t trust Mike Pence who is still in a fundamentalist Christian cult
I don’t trust Gabbard who was raised in/still in a fundamentalist Hindu cult

I trust candidates who believe in rule of law and the American dream and who reject authoritarianism and fundamentalist religion.

Fundamentalists tend to be authoritarians. Haven’t we gotten enough proof of that over the last 3 years?

[Demsrule86]

170. They are not lies...credible papers like the New York Times have published much of this...and

you may not like it...but there it is...read about what project innocence has to say. I don't say it is disqualifying but it needs to be addressed and everyday she doesn't do so hurts her campaign.

[Eliot Rosewater]

242. Wow Tulsi defenders on DU and their posts are rampant...it is over here, no point to post

here anymore.

Saw this happen once before, it is already over.

wow

I am impressed

sigh

[ucrdem]

248. Harris has plenty of supporters and Gabbard is not going to steal her thunder.

Gabbard found a lane that Harris herself opened at the first debate. And she's doing it better than Harris so she's getting some attention. Well, she deserves it. If you have evidence showing that she's a Russian agent why not post it? No one else has. Anyway the sky is not falling.

[Eyeball_Kid]

302. A right wing organization that makes reference to the Hindu religion AND

expresses support for Gabbard's candidacy (assuming that reports are accurate) does not bring with it any notion that Gabbard supports that right wing organization or its politics. All kinds of political organizations throw their support to all kinds of candidates, whether they like it or not. IMO, Gabbard does have the option of directly addressing inferences in the press that she is a right wing candidate who is aligned with a far right faith based organization. I haven't seen or heard of her doing so. It would be helpful if she clarified her allegiances. Certainly, if she continues to be part of the debate process, and her status rises, someone will confront her with these allegations and she'll have to set the record straight. That she hasn't voluntarily done so already is somewhat troubling, but not yet a deal breaker.

[pangaia]

3. tulsi, you are not going to be president, OR vice president.. please go home..

[crazytown]

4. Home, in this case, may be FNC.

There's not a red cent in her Congressional re-election fund.

[thesquanderer]

9. I would not rule out Gabbard as VP if the top of our ticket is a white male. (n/t)

[happy feet]

13. I do

She's a tool of Russia - not to be trusted.

[Princetonian]

16. There is zero proof of that. Russia likes anyone from any party who is anti-interventionalist.

That's the way they roll.

[crazytown]

27. Gabbard wanted the US to intervene in Syria in 2015

to bomb ISIS.

Link to tweet

[Princetonian]

42. So? That was four years ago! She is now anti-interventionalist regarding Syria.

[crazytown]

43. OK. You're an apologist.

CU

[Princetonian]

46. lol... Apologist for what? Common sense timeline acknowledgement?

[betsuni]

48. Next time the Iraq War Resolution vote is brought up I'm going to say "So? That was 17 years ago!"

Just to see what will happen.

[Princetonian]

50. Apples and oranges.

[Cha]

68. NO it is NOT.

[Princetonian]

74. YES it is.

[Cha]

75. No it isn't.

[Princetonian]

79. Sigh. Do you really think IWR is the same as the opinion of a congresswoman on Twitter?

Really?

[sheshe2]

86. She is far from being just a "congresswoman on twitter".

She is on the national stage as a candidate for President of The United States.

What she says now and said then matters.

[Princetonian]

94. Context matters.

[sheshe2]

96. "Context Matters"

Please explain it to the rest of us....the context.

You said she was just a congresswoman on twitter. By your words you are telling me what she said then is irrelevant today. So why would her comments today be relevant?

Only some words matter?

[Cha]

93. omg.. ".. opinion of congresswoman on twitter.. "

What matters is her history of record even if it is in the past.. just like the IWR vote is important to voters.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

She has stated on numerous occasions that she supports expanding the use of drone strikes against military opponents, and, in 2014, refused to rule out the idea of using torture on suspected terrorists. Gabbard also spoke out vehemently against the Iran nuclear deal when it was first proposed by President Obama.

https://arcdigital.media/tulsi-gabbard-is-not-anti-war-660e7d1e4ce1

Link to tweet

Tulsi Gabbard: Trump indictment might have 'led to civil war'

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/435780-tulsi-gabbard-trump-indictment-might-have-led-to-civil-war

[Princetonian]

95. Killing the messenger will not work. Gabbard is telling the truth. My sources are quoted and listed.

Harris needs to address these issues not all of a sudden say after the second debate that she only wants to talk about Chump.

[Cha]

98. Gabbard's message is "killing" it for her.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

She has stated on numerous occasions that she supports expanding the use of drone strikes against military opponents, and, in 2014, refused to rule out the idea of using torture on suspected terrorists. Gabbard also spoke out vehemently against the Iran nuclear deal when it was first proposed by President Obama.

https://arcdigital.media/tulsi-gabbard-is-not-anti-war-660e7d1e4ce1

Link to tweet

Tulsi Gabbard: Trump indictment might have 'led to civil war'

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/435780-tulsi-gabbard-trump-indictment-might-have-led-to-civil-war

[SunsetDreams2]

107. Something sure..

Is rotten in “Denmark” eh?

[Cha]

111. omg..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Aloha, SunsetDreams

[SunsetDreams2]

122. Exactly Cha!

Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: President Trump Just Ended Obama Era CIA Program Which "Directly" Funded And Armed al-Qaeda In Syria
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/07/25/dem_rep_tulsi_gabbard_president_trump_ended_obama_era_program_which_funded_al-qaeda_in_syria.html


Dem Rep. Gabbard Rips Obama's Summit Speech: He's "Misidentifying The Enemy And Their Motivation"

"I think one of the things that is important to note is that the administration is misidentifying the enemy and their motivation by saying that they are motivated out of materialistic aspirations, that they're motivated out of poverty, of a lack of jobs or education or opportunity and as a result, the courses of action that the administration is proposing are also materialistic in nature, saying that if we just go in and alleviate poverty, if we go in and create jobs and increase opportunity and institute this Western style of democracy, that somehow this is going to solve the problem, when really, that's not the case," Rep. Gabbard said on Wednesday's broadcast of CNN's The Situation Room.

Gabbard has been critical of the president and the administration's approach to understanding what extremism is and how to eradicate it.

In January, Gabbard said President Obama "refuses to recognize" radical Islam is our enemy.

A few days later the Congresswoman said there is "bipartisan concern" over the fact that Obama won't use the term "Islamic extremism" to identify our enemy.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/18/dem_rep_gabbard_rips_obamas_summit_speech_hes_misidentifying_the_enemy_and_their_motivation.html

Mahalo Cha

[Cha]

127. Oh Wow! Mahalo for that, SunsetDreams..

Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: President Trump Just Ended Obama Era CIA Program Which "Directly" Funded And Armed al-Qaeda In Syria

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/07/25/dem_rep_tulsi_gabbard_president_trump_ended_obama_era_program_which_funded_al-qaeda_in_syria.html

Dem Rep. Gabbard Rips Obama's Summit Speech: He's "Misidentifying The Enemy And Their Motivation"

"I think one of the things that is important to note is that the administration is misidentifying the enemy and their motivation by saying that they are motivated out of materialistic aspirations, that they're motivated out of poverty, of a lack of jobs or education or opportunity and as a result, the courses of action that the administration is proposing are also materialistic in nature, saying that if we just go in and alleviate poverty, if we go in and create jobs and increase opportunity and institute this Western style of democracy, that somehow this is going to solve the problem, when really, that's not the case," Rep. Gabbard said on Wednesday's broadcast of CNN's The Situation Room.

Gabbard has been critical of the president and the administration's approach to understanding what extremism is and how to eradicate it.

In January, Gabbard said President Obama "refuses to recognize" radical Islam is our enemy.

A few days later the Congresswoman said there is "bipartisan concern" over the fact that Obama won't use the term "Islamic extremism" to identify our enemy.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/18/dem_rep_gabbard_rips_obamas_summit_speech_hes_misidentifying_the_enemy_and_their_motivation.html

I shall pass it on if needed. So glad she liked what trump was doing.

[SunsetDreams2]

131. You're welcome

I’ve been digging and let’s just say, it’s been interesting

[Eyeball_Kid]

304. Mueller did a great job, but some parts of his report are flawed.

He based his declination on a presumption that ignorance of the law exonerates unlawful actions. This presumption is not made in any other legal forum. He declared that Don Jr. was, essentially, too stupid to know that he was conspiring with Russian intelligence to interfere with the 2016 election. This was and still is utter nonsense. Mueller gave Junior, and by extension, Donny the fuckwit, a pass. No one else is immune from prosecution due to presumed "ignorance of the law." And ignorance is quite a stretch. Junior is a fully grown adult who is responsible for his behavior, which includes his ability to find out if his actions are illegal. He's got an army of lawyers at his beck and call and he doesn't use them? If he's getting calls from foreign sources, he MUST inform the FBI. Instead, he saw an opportunity and dismissed any legal considerations because he's a privileged asshole who thinks he's above the law. Mueller left THAT part out of his report, apparently.

Mueller's report is NOT the Holy Grail of Truth. Mueller made compromises to keep himself from being fired. If he threw the book at Junior, he would have been thrown out of the DOJ on his ear. Instead, he declared that Junior was a stupid fuck, and, you know, stupid fucks always get a break. Don't they?

[betsuni]

100. "So? That was four years ago!" "So? That was 17 years ago!"

Apples.

[SunsetDreams2]

113. Squirrel!

[betsuni]

120. ...

[SunsetDreams2]

126. !

Rumor has it...The squirrel was last seen riding side saddle on the beaten horse to Russia via Sarah Palins back yard and he took all the damn apples and oranges with him!

[Cha]

416. ..

not at you, crazytown!)

[flying_wahini]

356. TG is an apologist, if nothing else.

[MBS]

17. please no!

I do not trust her .

[snowybirdie]

29. No

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!🍴

[nini]

186. well, let's not nominate anyone that stupid to choose her

Holy shit.. she's a nutjob and probably a Putin plant.

People need to wake the fuck up and start using some street smarts with these 'candidates'

[thesquanderer]

187. I could see her appealing to Biden, for example...

...she's a woman of color, she's young, she's a veteran, she's a political fighter, she has good presence and could do well in a VP debate and on the campaign trail, and she's already shown how she could have his back, as I posted in another thread about Gabbard's attack on Harris:

Maybe she was auditioning to be Biden's VP? She did just was his VP should do... attack the biggest thorn in his side, so he doesn't have to do it himself. Harris zinged Biden first, and now Harris gets some comeuppance without Biden having to resort to doing it himself, he gets to stay out of the mud

[nini]

200. No .. just no.

[dawg day]

231. Why choose someone with so many question marks as VP?

Not to mention that she's from Hawaii, so she's not going to be any help electorally.

And as Joe Biden knows very well, the most important consideration for a Democratic VP candidate is that he or she can in a moment become a good president. He was that for Obama. I'm not sure Gabbard will be as good a choice for Biden as Biden was for Obama.

[Demsrule86]

256. Perhaps you could lay off of Biden...he is not going to choose Gabbard as VP...Harris should have

dealt with this immediately after the debate...so it is on her.

[thesquanderer]

259. Lay off? There was nothing critical of Biden there.

I don't think Gabbard would necessarily be a poor choice for his VP, for all the reasons I mentioned. I think she could help him win. Where did you see this as a knock?

[Thekaspervote]

296. Just IMHO Biden would never pick Gabbard. Too kooky, too critical of prez Obama

Criticism of Obama is a big hell no for joe!!

[thesquanderer]

299. Good point that she was critical of Obama's foreign policy. Still...

...I'm not sure you have to be a 100% Obama supporter to get on Biden's good side. IIRC, Biden has even said there were times he and Obama did not agree about something. For his own VP, I don't think he will necessarily require unquestioning fealty to the decisions of the Obama/Biden administration. The big decisions are never simple, and "people of good will can disagree..." etc.

Meanwhile, there are some indications that at least one of them is looking favorably on the other.

From https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/08/tulsi-gabbard-kamala-harris-2020-1452578

In the lead-up to the most recent debate, Gabbard hinted that she would criticize Harris but not Biden, unlike other Democrats. Gabbard also said that Harris’ criticism of Biden’s positions on busing for desegregation was really “a false accusation that Biden is a racist.”

Gabbard delivered a piercing, if inaccurate, appraisal of Kamala Harris’ law enforcement record — then turned it into a misleading, yet effective, online ad push. Adding to the intrigue, she had a hushed sideline conversation with Joe Biden — with whom she seems to have little in common politically — after the debate.

From https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/455800-gabbard-defends-biden-on-iraq-war-record-he-was-wrong-he-said-he-was-wrong

Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) defended fellow White House contender Joe Biden after he addressed his record on the Iraq War, an issue that the former vice president faced criticism for during Wednesday’s presidential primary debate.

“He was wrong — he said he was wrong and he has apologized for it more than once,” Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, told Hill.TV on Thursday in response to why she wasn't more critical of Biden over the issue.
...
Gabbard was one of the only candidates on the debate stage not to directly attack Biden.

As for her being kooky, I'm not sure. I guess there will be plenty of time to determine just how kooky she is between now and the Democratic convention. She's at least not the kookiest candidate we have.

[Recursion]

292. I do. We can't hit Trump on foreign influence with Gabbard on the ticket

Not when BJP regularly holds events for her.

[thesquanderer]

294. Two things. One, voters don't know or care about about BJP/India. Two...

Last edited Sat Aug 10, 2019, 07:41 AM - Edit history (1)

...Trump's Russian connections go SO much deeper, AND Russia is an actual adversarial threat to the U.S., and even THEN, voters don't much care.

Look, we have NO SHORTAGE of things to hit Trump on. But Trump's already shown he can win despite huge negatives (or, as he put it, even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue). Of course we'll hit him on stuff, but ultimately, we have to win on our positives, not his negatives.

There is no one with ZERO negatives. But looking at the white males currently in our top tier (Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg), if one of them were our nominee, I think Gabbard could possibly be a reasonable VP choice.

[womanofthehills]

333. I would rule her out

For God's sake, she took Trump's side on the Mueller Report.

[thesquanderer]

335. That statement was when Barr released the summary, she took the "side" that...

...all the mainstream media was taking. The accusation has been repeated often without that context, that she said it in March.

[brush]

30. It's so obvious Gabbard is jealous of Harris, so jealous that she parrots right wing spin...

that has been proven false. I don't even know how she's on the stage with actual Democrats when she's a right wing favorite and was on trump's cabinet short list.

[ucrdem]

102. The prison labor thing is 100% lefty left. Heard it many times on Pacifica

which is basically Radio Bernie. Like it or not Gabbard hit her from the left, just like Harris hit Biden. And did some damage to Harris's numbers, according to recent polls. Well, what goes around comes around. No tears for Harris here.

[brush]

139. You're uninformed about the Harris call out of Biden during the first debate.

Biden bought that on himself by seeming to fondly reminisce publicly about working with segregationists who called him son and black men boy.
Talk about an unforced error. He never should have said anything about that. It was another of his famous gaffes and if Harris didn't call him out Booker would've as African American voters, which no Dem candidate can win without, would've been all over Harris and Booker for not calling Biden on it.

He never should have said anything about that. Harris and Booker were obligated to call him out as African Americans are tired of being counted on for our votes but never rewarded with leadership roles.

Wake up. Biden bought that on himself.

[ucrdem]

141. Well, as it happens, "Kamala's attack on Biden was months in the making."

That means she planned the attack before the segregationist comments at the fund-raiser. By the way I watched it live and posted comments here as it unfolded. As to the segregationist remarks, the Harris campaign bragged the next day about the months of planning, meaning her claims about those remarks were opportunistic add-ons:

Kamala's attack on Biden was months in the making

She and her advisers assiduously plotted the attack — and how to capitalize on it afterward.

By CHRISTOPHER CADELAGO 06/28/2019 06:31 PM EDT

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/28/kamala-harris-joe-biden-debate-1390383

That's a little too cynical for my taste.

[brush]

142. And he conveniently repeated the gaffe a week before the first debate.

An unforced error whatever the timing. Are you trying to justify it? It certalnly wasn't a smart thing to say. No candidate can win without African American votes and Biden was going around repeating that story.

Please. He should've been called out on it. And I see he hasn't repeated it anymore.

[ucrdem]

144. Nevertheless, the claim that the attack was motivated by the remark is UNTRUE.

I don't like that kind of deception and I really don't like that kind of deception on matters of race. I want to win this thing.

[brush]

145. What's untrue? Did he say it or not? Unforced error nd actually it made him aware...

he had to tighten up his public statements. Good thing for him it happened early and hasn't hurt him with African Americans.

Do you think he was going to not be called on it?

[ucrdem]

146. It's untrue to claim, as Harris did, that the attack was motivated by the remark:

Transcript:

But I also believe, and it's personal — and I was actually very — it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/28/transcript-night-first-democratic-debate/

The View:

[brush]

148. I don't get what you're saying. Of course it was.

And like I said, lucky for him it was early and he knows now to stick to the present as much as possible because he's got a much longer history to be critiqued on than anyone else—Anita Hill for instance.

[ucrdem]

149. No, it was planned well before the remarks, per Harris' own campaign. nt

[brush]

150. You said yourself he made the remarks earlier, then repeated them before the debate...

The earlier version is why it was planned. Again, he's lucky it was early and he should stick to the present as he's got a long track record.

[ucrdem]

152. The fundraiser was on June 11, not months before the debate. And the attack was about busing. nt

[brush]

153. Whatever you say.

[ucrdem]

156. Look I think she's a great senator, I do. But I really want us to win the WH in 2020.

[R B Garr]

212. Re: a good senator, she's only been a senator for two years, so it's not clear

if she has earned the loyalty of Californians like other senators have. I voted for her based on Obama’s endorsement, so I’m a bit disillusioned to see the attacks on another of Obama’s close team, especially over a 40 year old issue like busing. Makes me wonder about her abilities on a national stage.

[ucrdem]

213. Yes I think she grossly miscalculated.

She tried to destroy Joe Biden on national TV in a really devious and disgraceful maneuver so now there's that to consider. If she thinks Biden is garbage to be made a fool of before the world what does she think of the rest of us? It's a side I wasn't aware of though I'd heard hints. So, yeah, now I know something I didn't know about her but she flaunted it so it's on her.

[R B Garr]

218. Amen. Perfect descriptions. I felt the same about her maneuver.

[brush]

258. It's not deception if you're African American and an ally says "...he called me son and you boy."

Do you know nothing of the loaded history of the term "boy" when referring to black men?

Did you grow up in this country or not? Of course it was about race. Biden thankfully has learned and doesn't tell that story anymore.

[Demsrule86]

257. It was planned...and I saw nothing wrong with his statements...but then I prefer truth over

white washed history...all Dems worked with segregationists back then...they were heads of committees. His point was is if he could work with folks like this- the ultimate deplorables...maybe something can be done with our current GOP bastard elected...get something positive for the country...don't know if it will work...but we have to try.

Harris had a pic already to go...and t-shirts...I found that disturbing as did others. Now we have an attack on her record as DA and AG...she has not answered this since the debate...why? And why hasn't the media kept asking as they do and have done with Biden over and over.

[Thekaspervote]

297. This!!

[Demsrule86]

307. There is a double standard where Biden is concerned...stopped watching most shows as it makes

me so mad.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

290. No question Joe did bring it on himself... but, to imply he's a racist was going to far.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[brush]

305. Please. Her first statement was she didn't believe he was a racist.

[thesquanderer]

312. Rhetoric 101. "I don't believe you're a racist, but..." means you're about to imply he's a racist.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

348. Bingo!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Princetonian]

358. SMACKDOWN!

Rhetoric 101. "I don't believe you're a racist, but..." means you're about to imply he's a racist.

[MacDombles]

105. That's what

Everyone said to our current prez too

[Demsrule86]

171. I could have said the same thing about Sen. Harris after the first debate...you can't go on the

attack and then cry 'STOP' when it comes back on you...most on this post defended her in the Biden attacks. She can address this why hasn't she...and attacking Gabbard is punching down and won't work.

[zackymilly]

5. Who?

[ucrdem]

6. The strategy might be questionable

but you have to admit she's good on TV.

[Quixote1818]

8. I was thinking that too.

I am not sure what to think of her yet. Not sure I trust her but she is good on TV for sure.

[EveHammond13]

7. Yeah, I'm a no on Tulsi, dawg.

[donkeypoofed]

10. No one cares, Gabbard.

Go. Away. Now.

You'll have a nice job at Breitbart once you're dropkicked out of the race and out of Congress.

And you're not even good enough to lick Kamala's shoes, so piss off.

[Skya Rhen]

11. The prevailing school of thought is that these attacks will make Kamala a stronger candidate for

the general election...

[Andy823]

21. Does the mean

It will also work for Biden!

[Skya Rhen]

32. This theory was espoused after he was attacked in the first debate... as if it were a good thing...

[Cha]

69. Biden was the one who was talked about

when Harris' attacked him in the first debate, Andy.

[Andy823]

108. Yes I know that

and now Harris is being attacked daily here on DU because of one comment she made that Joe was not prepared for. That makes no sense to me.

I don't see the Harris supporters going after Joe every day, they just keep posting things about their support for Harris.

I honestly think Harris can take care of herself, and get through anything the comes here way, she is tough and she can take it. But when people take Gabbards side on things it just makes me wonder what is going on. Very few people believe what Gabbard says, and her defense of trump, the Russian trolls supporting her on the internet, doesn't really show she is being honest. She got most of information from the free Bacon, which isn't reliable at all.

[Cha]

118. I haven't gone after Harris even though

I didn't appreciate her shot at Biden.. and no he was not prepared for that.

Biden is taking it from all sides since he's the front runner.

I pay no attention to what Gabbard says about anything except to expose her views.

[Andy823]

125. I know you haven't Cha

But others have, some who claim to be supporting Biden are trolls of one kind or another, just like some who claim to be supporting other candidates are. The trolls want us fighting, it's their goal.

I really have doubts about those who keep defending Gabbard.

Take care Cha.

[Cha]

130. They don't know her like

I do.. and some of the rest of us.

Gabbard is not to be trusted.. I don't know what her game is exactly.. I suppose as it gets nearer to the voting we'll know more.

You take care, too, Andy

[Thekaspervote]

298. Agree! And seems Harris is now paying the price for that. I don't see Biden supporters going after

Her as in taking cheap shots.

As far as Gabbard I agree with you Cha, I pay no attention to her.

[Demsrule86]

172. I don't think she makes it to the general unless she addresses these issues...

I saw polls the last couple of days showing her numbers are slipping.

[tymorial]

12. I don't trust Gabbard at all.

[pnwmom]

14. And meanwhile, Tulsi pretends that she's for truth, justice, and the American way.

While she has secret meetings with Assad and supports the nationalists in India.

[Princetonian]

18. Tulsi is anti-interventionalist and served honorably in Iraq. Are you implying she is a traitor?

Pelosi defied Bush and visited Assad in 2007. Was she anti-American as well?

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged the White House on Mideast policy, meeting with Syria's leader Wednesday and insisting "the road to Damascus is a road to peace." The Bush administration criticized the visit, saying she was following a road lined with victims of terror.
Vice President Dick Cheney said Pelosi was rewarding a "bad actor" in the Mideast. The tough White House response highlighted the clash between the administration and congressional Democrats, who have stepped up their push for change in U.S. policy in the Mideast and the Iraq war.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pelosi-defies-bush-meets-syrian-leader/

[pnwmom]

31. Your support for both Biden and Gabbard seems odd. They have very little in common.

Her time in Iraq and Kuwait, while laudable, doesn't make Gabbard an expert in foreign affairs, and her position on Syria should be disqualifying.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/tulsi-gabbards-syria-record-shows-why-she-cant-be-president/2019/08/01/f804c790-b497-11e9-8949-5f36ff92706e_story.html

“The Syrian people are constantly targeted by Russian and Assad regime propaganda and when there is a U.S. presidential candidate like Tulsi spewing these same lines, they feel only more disheartened and abandoned,” Moustafa said. Gabbard “is a reminder to them how inhumane the world has been about Syria.”

When opposing congressional legislation calling for humanitarian aid for the Syrian people and protection of civilians, Gabbard called it a thinly veiled regime-change effort using the “rationale of humanitarianism.” That’s an atrocious response to what State Department officials have called the worst machinery of death since the Nazis.

Other Democratic candidates have promised to end U.S. military adventurism without making excuses for a mass murderer. It’s neither progressive nor liberal to defend Assad, a fascist, totalitarian psychopath who can never peacefully preside over Syria after what he has done.

Gabbard’s plan to overtly side with Assad and Russia while they commit crimes against humanity would be a strategic disaster, a gift to the extremists and a betrayal of decades of U.S. commitments to stand up to mass atrocities. Democratic voters who believe in liberalism and truth must reject not only her candidacy but also her attempt to disguise moral bankruptcy as a progressive value.

[Princetonian]

40. Once you mentioned Nazis, you lost me. nt

[pnwmom]

41. Obama himself compared the Syrian gassings to the Nazis. But you probably don't like Obama either.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/10/remarks-president-address-nation-syria

The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits -- a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war.

This was not always the case. In World War I, American GIs were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of Europe. In World War II, the Nazis used gas to inflict the horror of the Holocaust. Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity.

On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity. No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack, and humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas.

Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gasmasks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded. We know senior figures in Assad’s military machine reviewed the results of the attack, and the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed. We’ve also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin.

[Princetonian]

47. Your comments are now on the same level as Obama? lol

You are moving the goalpost. I repeat: are you saying Gabbard is a traitor?

[pnwmom]

49. Stop trying to put words into my mouth. I think Gabbard's position on Syria is disqualifying.

And she is one of the least qualified candidates in the group.

[Princetonian]

51. Why didn't you say that in the first place? nt

[pnwmom]

65. I said that in my first response to you, post 31. Apparently you responded without reading it. n/t

[Princetonian]

71. I saw "nazis" and stopped. I was referring to your opening salvo Reply #14.

[pnwmom]

73. That was a response to someone else, not to you. And the quote about the Nazis

came AFTER my comment, not before. It was from the WA Post article I linked to. So it isn't true that you stopped reading my post after you got to the word "Nazis." My own words all preceded the WA Post article.

What I said in my first response to you was:

Your support for both Biden and Gabbard seems odd. They have very little in common.

Her time in Iraq and Kuwait, while laudable, doesn't make Gabbard an expert in foreign affairs, and her position on Syria should be disqualifying.

[Princetonian]

80. I simply asked whether you thought she was a traitor given your rhetoric in Reply #14.

It doesn't matter whether you directed it at me.

[pnwmom]

87. And then you ignored my reply, and said I should have said it in the first place.

Even though I did.

It's silly to suggest that her position on Assad makes her a traitor, and I refused to get involved in that silly discussion. What I did say, and you ignored, was that her position on Syria disqualifies her for the Presidency.

[Princetonian]

90. Did we not go over this already?

[Cha]

106. Just admit you were wrong.. and move on if you

aren't going to apologize to her.

[Princetonian]

160. lol

[lapucelle]

229. It was our ambassador-at-large for War Crimes / director of the Office of Global Criminal Justice

during the Obama-Biden administration who referenced Nazis.

Stephen Rapp, the State Department’s ambassador-at-large for War Crimes and director of the Office of Global Criminal Justice, has reviewed large sections of a huge collection of photos and written records of Syrian government atrocities smuggled out of the country by a former military photographer known as “Caesar.” Rapp spoke about the evidence at a July 3 event at the Atlantic Council in Washington.

“This is solid evidence of the kind of machinery of cruel death that we haven’t seen frankly since the Nazis,” he said. “If it is as it appears thus far, we’re talking about more than 10,000 individuals being killed in custody over the period from 2011 to 2013, including largely men but also some very, very young men and boys and women… It’s shocking to me, as a prosecutor—I’m used to evidence not being so strong.”

*****************************************************************************************************

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Rapp

https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-assads-machinery-of-death-worst-since-the-nazis

[qazplm135]

55. yes but Gabbard attacked Harris

so, some folks are big fans now.

[pnwmom]

202. You're right. Maybe that is her special appeal. nt

[Demsrule86]

173. Syria is a mess and I don't know how you deal with it...I think you are attacking Gabbard in

defense of Sen. Harris...but you see the two have nothing in common. Gabbard's action in regards to Syria has nothing to do with Sen. Harris conduct as DA and AG... what Sen. Harris supposedly did or didn't do...Why doesn't Sen. Harris address the issues (reported by reputable sources not just Gabbard) and give her side?

[pnwmom]

203. The worst thing that can be said about Harris, it seems, is that she was an Attorney General

who oversaw the work of prosecutors who prosecuted about 250 marijuana cases a year in a state of 40 million people.

Meh.

Another prosecutor some people thought was too "mean" was Robert F. Kennedy. But most Democrats thought he'd have made a great President. And for a lot of centrists and moderates, the idea of someone who had been an attorney general could make her more appealing, not less.

Especially after a completely lawless President.

(In alphabetical order )Bennett, Biden, Booker, Bullock, Gillibrand, Harris, Inslee, Klobuchar, Sanders, Warren and others all have MUCH MUCH MUCH more to offer than woman who chatted with the murderous dictator Assad and came back home saying she believed him when he said he hadn't gassed his own people -- despite what the UN inspectors and US intelligence said.

And who is the Democratic darling of such far-right people and groups as Steve Bannon and Breitbart.

And who actively fought against gay rights and abortion till she made the convenient decision to change her position right when before she first ran for Congress -- but who said, in an Ozy interview published in 2016, that she hadn't changed her personal views. She just didn't think she should impose her views on others.That doesn't make her strong on either abortion or LGBT, despite what some of her apologists say.

[Demsrule86]

222. No that is not the worst thing...at all. She kept people in jail even though the forensics were

compromised. The priest thing bothers me too...and the other stuff which I won't discuss here...you have been on the posts and know about most of it and there is google after all. I looked it up myself. As for weed, prosecuting for weed destroys people's lives and she had discretion...sorry she needs to address the issues that Gabbard brought up and there is more as you know.

[pnwmom]

224. She released 1000 people -- more than the judge's ruling required her to -- when it was proven

that the lab results were tainted. And she wasn't, as Attorney General, in charge of that lab. It was her job to accept the results provided to her by the Police Department -- until a judge told her otherwise. And then she not only fully complied -- she went further than the judge required.

She did use her discretion on weed prosecutions -- that's why there were so few. They were almost all limited to SELLERS, not ordinary users.

[Demsrule86]

245. The judge required her to release them. She fought it...and she damn well should have known

the lab results were tainted...it is her office. She still prosecuted some weed cases...what was her criteria I wonder....

[pnwmom]

247. No, it wasn't her office. The Police lab was NOT under her authority as Attorney General.

The lab is under the authority of the Police Department, and she had no authority over the PD.

The weed cases her prosecutors prosecuted were for sellers.

[Demsrule86]

254. Look I read the same stuff you did...when she went to court and asked that folks not be released,

she knew about the problems...She needs to address this. I was frankly shocked at some of the stuff I read...the Catholic stuff, you were on that post, the jailing parents if their kids won't go to school,the police shooting stuff...the death penalty....don't want to post any really negative stuff so you will have to look for it or I will private message you with links if you like.

[pnwmom]

262. I strongly disagree with you that that previous post resolved all these issues in a way

that reflected badly on her.

Specifically with regard to the Catholic Church, she absolutely took the correct position -- that she should NOT release confidential case records on people who they had decided would NOT be prosecuted.

It is NOT accepted practice for prosecutors to hand over files on people they decided not to prosecute. Across the country in similar cases, the attorneys for the plaintiffs have been getting information released by Grand Juries (post indictment) and from the Dioceses themselves.

James Comey was the exception, the heavily criticized exception, when he released information about Hillary even though they'd decided not to prosecute her. What Kamala Harris did is standard procedure.

If prosecutors could release their files on uncharged people, then every time a prosecutor felt he couldn't get a conviction of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he'd simply hand the case over to a civil attorney, who could litigate a case developed with all the resources of the state and win it by the civil standard: only a preponderance of the evidence -- 51%. Anyone who thinks we should do THAT is advocating that our government should act as a police state, not a Democracy.


I'm not saying she had a perfect record. But I can't think of a single prosecutor who would pass DU muster as a great progressive.

[Demsrule86]

400. I do not agree about the Catholic church...and this was a new policy...and was politically

motivated if you google the articles...I won't even serve on a jury because of the corruption in our justice system...so this matters to me. I was called for jury duty...said I would never find anyone guilty until the system is reformed and I mean it...judge thought I was just trying to get out of serving and threatened contempt. I am sincere about this...offered to file, word process...any service at all to help in the office but don't ask me to sit in judgement when I know the system is shit. I read the articles and saw the things she did and didn't do, and I won't support her in a primary...you can google the stuff if you want...you were on a couple of posts but I won't post it here...she is a Democrat and could win the nomination in which case I will work for the campaign and vote for her...anybody but Trump.

[W_HAMILTON]

60. She is absolutely NOT an anti-interventionist:

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Princetonian]

77. That was 4-5 years ago.

[W_HAMILTON]

89. Your point?

Some of the decisions that other candidates have made that lead to them being called a "hawk" were made even longer ago than that and they have actually since apologized for their mistakes, UNLIKE Gabbard.

[Princetonian]

92. Clinton has never apologized for her IWR vote. I guess she and Gabbard have something in common.

Clinton clearly did not feel the need to apologize nor does Gabbard.

My candidate Joe Biden has apologized and said he regretted voting that way repeatedly. His deceased son also fought in the Iraq war.

[betsuni]

97. Clinton of course has apologized for her vote.

"I think the decision to go to war in Iraq was a mistake. And I have said that my vote to give President Bush that authority was, in my perspective, my mistake."

[Princetonian]

101. Ah, in her 2014 book which I did not read. That took awhile, didn't it?

Link:
https://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/06/time-hillary-clinton-admits-wrong-vote-iraq-war.html

Good for her! Better late than never.

[betsuni]

103. So? That was five years ago!

[Princetonian]

110. Yes. And unimportant now.

[ismnotwasm]

206. And what did Hillary say about her vote?

C’mon, it’s just a google away, you can do it. I have two kids that fought in those wars.

[Cha]

109. Thank you for these Gabbard "..interventionist.." tweets!

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Princetonian]

381. Gabbard has been anti-interventionist since at least 2017 according to The New Yorker.

Representative Tulsi Gabbard was featured in a 2017 profile for The New Yorker magazine, who won The Pulitzer Prize for Journalism the same year. As you might imagine, it is a good read with a lot of details about Gabbard that might be enlightening, four year old Twitter feeds notwithstanding.

Here is a small but pertinent excerpt:

".... Gabbard agreed to meet with Trump to make her case for a noninterventionist foreign policy. A few months later, she flew to Syria and met with Bashar al-Assad, who is presiding over a brutal civil war; she and he seemed to agree that the United States should not intervene to stop it."

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe

Gabbard explains how her rationale for running for President is tied into her anti-interventionalist perspective in her interview on The View:

Gabbard stands her ground and defends herself against "cheap smears" in her post-second debate CNN interview with Anderson Cooper, where he repeatedly grills her on her exchange with Harris:

Still waiting for Harris to refute Gabbard's claims...

[W_HAMILTON]

382. "Anti-regime change wars" does not equal anti-interventionist.

As she has shown many times in the past, she is all for military intervention throughout the Middle East -- she just wants our military to be used to prop up her dictator friends like Assad by bombing their enemies rather than be used to remove them from power. A true anti-interventionist would not be for ANY military intervention overseas and instead would advocate for a diplomatic approach.

[Princetonian]

383. Technically, "anti-regime change wars" is a subcategory of noninterventionist foreign policy.

"A true anti-interventionist would not be for ANY military intervention overseas and instead would advocate for a diplomatic approach."

You are defining pacifism. Pacifism is not a viable foreign policy for anyone but Dennis Kucinich.

"she just wants our military to be used to prop up her dictator friends like Assad"

This ad hominem attack on Gabbard is belied by her own words in the videos I posted of her interviews with The View and The New Yorker in my previous post as well as this relevant excerpt from her 2017 profile in The New Yorker magazine:

".... Gabbard agreed to meet with Trump to make her case for a noninterventionist foreign policy. A few months later, she flew to Syria and met with Bashar al-Assad, who is presiding over a brutal civil war; she and he seemed to agree that the United States should not intervene to stop it."

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe

[W_HAMILTON]

384. Wrong.

People that don't actually delve into Gabbard's history ignorantly conflate her anti-regime-change wars stance with anti-interventionism. It is intellectually lazy. She has called herself a hawk before in terms of military intervention, she just wants us to go after the "terrorists" that are rebelling against dictators like Assad.

If you think she has somehow on this, feel free to show me where she has completely renounced her past stances of advocating for military intervention in the Middle East that I've shown in her previous tweets on the subject.

[Princetonian]

385. What's wrong is conflating really old tweets with Gabbard's present noninterventionist FP beliefs.

Hmmm... "intellectually lazy"? Not providing any quote, link or factual attribution for one's assertions and expecting people to believe it is coming close.

I offered a quote, dates, sources, links, and video that all illustrate Gabbard's noninterventionist foreign policy perspective dating from 2017 until present day: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=248454

Please provide quotes, links, and dates to prove your assertions here:

"She has called herself a hawk before in terms of military intervention, she just wants us to go after the "terrorists" that are rebelling against dictators like Assad."

If your sources predate 2017 and/or come from stale tweets from 4-5 years ago, then don't bother.

[W_HAMILTON]

386. And unless your "fresh" quotes, sources, links or videos show her outright renouncing...

...her former pro-military-intervention stances from just a few years ago, she is not an anti-interventionist and it is pure propaganda to claim that she is such.

[Princetonian]

387. Stale tweets, stale thoughts.

[W_HAMILTON]

388. If she can renounce her "stale" anti-gay stances...

...she can renounce her many "stale" pro-military-intervention stances -- or else she and her defenders will continued to be called out on their lies about her being anti-interventionist.

[Princetonian]

389. Current 100% rating from HRC and NARAL, thanks for asking!

[Cha]

414. Thanks for the facts on Gabbard.

[at140]

128. Correctomundo..here is the photo..

[Princetonian]

357. Funny, I don't recall Pelosi smeared as "The Assadist" by Democrats back then...

... Republicans were outraged though. How times have changed!



Thanks, at140.

[Me.]

22. Who BY THe Way

just cut all the phone lines and pulled the internet plug, in Kasimir.

[hedda_foil]

26. No! Syria has nothing to do with Kashmir, which is in India.

[Me.]

37. Um

mine was a response to post #14 and the statement that TG supports the nationalists in India.

So yes, I do know where Kasimir is located.

[MrsCoffee]

183. I think they know.

“While she has secret meetings with Assad and supports the nationalists in India”.

[Me.]

185. What?

“Bam, there’s a curfew, internet is cut, telephone lines are snapped, you can’t make any kind of communication,” he says. Outside, access to main roads in Srinagar, the largest city in Indian-administered Kashmir, had been blocked.

Hours later, the Indian government announced the most radical change any government has suggested for Kashmir since the region joined the Indian union. It would revoke Kashmir’s special status and divide the state in two.

The move immediately angered Pakistan, which also claims Kashmir, and provoked warnings from China, which holds a thinly populated area in the disputed region.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/06/india-kashmir-crackdown-region-delhi-autonomy

Pakistan Warns Of War After India's Move To End Kashmir's Special Status

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/07/748957876/pakistan-warns-indias-move-to-end-kashmir-s-special-status-could-lead-to-war

In Kashmir Move, Critics Say, Modi Is Trying to Make India a Hindu Nation

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/world/asia/jammu-kashmir-india.html

[emmaverybo]

195. Misread. Thought you meant Assad. Deleting. Nt

[Me.]

196. Happens All The Time

[emmaverybo]

197. Thanks for your graciousness on my error.

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

15. Believe I've read that the Russian trolls like and support Tulsi.

If true, that is probably disqualifying.

[Me.]

19. So Whose Dirty Work Is She Doing?

and what does she expect to get out of it? This, IMHO, has a familiar feel to it.

[at140]

129. Do you consider Kamala attacking Biden in 1st debate

dirty work as well?

[Demsrule86]

174. Exactly, you can't have your cake and eat it too...

[Me.]

204. No

and frankly, don't trust TG.

“She has repeatedly praised Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister and leader of the ruling Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, and advocated for closer ties with him.”

“Gabbard has stated the U.S. government should drop charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, saying "… his arrest and all … that just went down … poses a great threat to our freedom of the press and to our freedom of speech." She would also pardon NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, taking action to "close the loopholes" in the law Snowden exposed.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

"Now that Mueller has reported that his investigation revealed no such collusion, we all need to put aside our partisan interests and recognize that finding that the president of the United States did not conspire with Russia to interfere with our elections is a good thing for our country,"

https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-twitter-trump-russia-probe-1380775

“The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020.

An NBC News analysis of the main English-language news sites employed by Russia in its 2016 election meddling shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is set to make her formal announcement Saturday, has become a favorite of the sites Moscow used when it interfered in 2016.

Several experts who track websites and social media linked to the Kremlin have also seen what they believe may be the first stirrings of an upcoming Russian campaign of support for Gabbard.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261

“She’s also been an outspoken Putin supporter, dubbing him a “straightforward, reliable and exceptionally inventive man” in a column last year. Tennison wrote that column in spite of her detention in Russia two years earlier, when she was accused of attempting to covertly advance U.S. foreign policy interests
in the country.

To the extent that those donors toe the Kremlin line on issues such as Syria, they’re more squarely in line with Gabbard’s own views than those of any other Democratic presidential candidate. As a member of Congress, she has personally met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and cast doubt on widely accepted reports that he deployed nerve gas weapons against his own people.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/tulsi-gabbards-campaign-is-being-boosted-by-russophiles

[thesquanderer]

198. Whose dirty work and what she expects to get out of it? Possible answer...

... in what I posted above in post #187.

[Ponietz]

20. Here's what Harris did today--sent lunch to Beto's El Paso headquarters

[link:http://

Link to tweet

?s=21|

[betsuni]

23. Those are conspiracy theories, been debunked.

Russia.

[Princetonian]

28. Wrong. Debunked by whom? Harris has not addressed any of the allegations directly.

[betsuni]

38. I looked into them when they first came out, they're not true.

Now I have no idea where I looked, have to do it all over again.

[Princetonian]

53. "Now I have no idea where I looked, have to do it all over again."

Would you do that? Because I cannot accept your claim otherwise.

[betsuni]

58. Politifact: Were Tulsi Gabbard's attacks on Kamala Harris' record as a California prosecutor on

target?

http://www.politifact.com/california/article/2019/aug/01/were-tulsi-gabbards-attacks-kamala-harris-record-c

[Princetonian]

63. See Reply 35.

[betsuni]

81. The article does not support Gabbards' claims.

Marijuana-related arrests decreased from 817 in Harris' first year to 137 her last. She would not have personally prosecuted those cases as attorney general. She did not laugh about those arrests.

The Kevin Cooper case: Most legal activity around the case occurred before her term in office, this specific request was made to and decided by lower level attorneys.

Lawyers in her AG office made the argument that prisoners should be kept longer to fight fires in 2014 and when Harris found out she told them not to make that argument again.

When she was DA in 2004 the SF Superior Court raised cash bails for weapons-related felony charges, including assault with a firearm and sals of machine guns. As Senator she introduced a bipartisan bill to reform the bail system so lower-income people aren't jailed because they couldn't pay.

I don't see anything there. She was doing her job. If she is personally responsible for every employee in her office, then so is everyone else. At least she didn't give the excuse that she was "a little bit busy" to notice things.

[Princetonian]

85. Harris did directly prosecute marijuana cases as San Francisco district attorney from 2004-2010

According to Mercury News: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/01/democratic-debate-kamala-harris-tulsi-gabbard-joe-biden-fact-check/

This especially turns my stomach:

Death row appeals

Tulsi Gabbard: “She blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so. In the case of those who were on death row, innocent people, you actually blocked evidence from being revealed that would have freed them until you were forced to do so.”

The facts: Harris’s attorney general office did block DNA testing that some legal observers believe could have helped overturn the murder conviction of a death row inmate who has insisted he was framed.

Harris opposed efforts by lawyers for Kevin Cooper, a death row inmate from San Bernardino County, to get new DNA testing. In 2018, following a New York Times investigation into the case, Harris said she was wrong and called for further testing.

No wonder Harris wants to only talk about Trump all of a sudden!

Gabbard was also correct that Harris "fought to keep a cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in the worst kind of way.”

[rzemanfl]

116. Bookmarking. n/t

[emmaverybo]

119. Well, I do have to say with the mountain of circumstantial and scientific evidence against Cooper,

and testing only further confirmed his guilt, she had some reason in his case.

But there were others which suggest she was more concerned with prosecutorial reputation than getting it right.

Also, what about the truancy solution—to criminalize parents?

And questions are well-placed on her contradictory stance on the DP.

Neither The Mercury nor Gabbard mentioned a possible striking example of ethical lapse when Harris learned about a complete mess with SF lab handling evidence in drug cases and did not, until forced to by circumstance, inform defense attorneys. Over 600 cases had to be thrown out.

I find overall, and I am not bringing up all the questions, that Harris’s record shows her to be
political more than progressive.

I don’t like how she fought Hallinan to become SF’s DA, and don’t like a similar tactic to bring down
Biden. She uses “exposing” the rival in a public way to score points. That, however, is not unusual in political life!

[Princetonian]

162. Harris had no reason to deny a blood test because there was clear evidence he was framed.

Read the entire New York Times piece by Pulitzer-Prize Winning Author Nicholas Kristof which led to Harris "feeling awful" and recommending a blood test immediately after its publication: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=230562

Tulsi Gabbard is correct. Harris owes him an apology.

[Princetonian]

165. Yes, Harris' truancy "solution" did criminalize parents: "Kamala Harris Spins Facts on Truancy Law"

Factcheck.org:

In an interview with Jake Tapper, 'Sen. Kamala Harris acknowledges that a 2010 state truancy law she sponsored resulted in some parents being jailed. But she misleadingly claims that jailing parents was an “unintended consequence” of the law... the law added Section 270.1 to the California Penal Code to allow prosecutors to fine and/or jail a parent “who has failed to reasonably supervise and encourage the pupil’s school attendance.”...Harris, a Democratic candidate for president, was San Francisco District Attorney from 2004 to 2011... as the San Francisco District Attorney, Harris sponsored a state Senate bill — SB 1317... modeled on her truancy initiative in San Francisco, and did result in some parents being jailed.

Los Angeles Times, April 17: Harris took that advocacy statewide, sponsoring a 2010 law to make it a misdemeanor for parents whose young children miss more than 10% of school days a year without a valid excuse. Parents could be punished with a maximum $2,000 fine, up to a year in county jail or both.'

The possibility of jailing parents was not an “unintended consequence,” and the bill did not just change the education code. It also created a new section to the California Penal Code, as we have already noted.

Harris knew this, of course... She also said the arrests were “not under my watch,” and that she had “no control” over the arrests — even though she sponsored the state law that allowed for the arrests, and her office provided guidance to local district attorneys on when prosecutions should and should not be made.'

Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/05/kamala-harris-spins-facts-on-truancy-law/

The Biden campaign described Harris as "slippery" after the first debate.

[emmaverybo]

199. Her claims are as troubling as the law itself. After the second debate, interviewed by Anderson

Cooper she was once again “slippery” in saying her healthcare initiative would not ban employer provided plans, just separate the employer from the private insurer.

That is certainly double talk. One’s employer negotiates the plans, often pays some or all of the premium, and gets a deal you can’t get as an individual. With the employer out of it, you are on your own.

And with ACA under siege of dismantling, should we lose the pre-conditions regulation, many plans would not accept you.

Employers can offer group plans which are far superior in coverage to the same plan at individual rates and at lower premiums. These can carry over in retirement to supplement your Medicare.

Slippery in responding as to truancy law SHE sponsored, and slippery on her healthcare proposal.

[Princetonian]

239. Thanks, I missed that. Harris' MFA claims are troubling to me as well. Her answers are pablum.

"After the second debate, interviewed by Anderson Cooper she was once again “slippery” in saying her healthcare initiative would not ban employer provided plans, just separate the employer from the private insurer.

That is certainly double talk. One’s employer negotiates the plans, often pays some or all of the premium, and gets a deal you can’t get as an individual. With the employer out of it, you are on your own.

And with ACA under siege of dismantling, should we lose the pre-conditions regulation, many plans would not accept you.

Employers can offer group plans which are far superior in coverage to the same plan at individual rates and at lower premiums. These can carry over in retirement to supplement your Medicare.

Slippery in responding as to truancy law SHE sponsored, and slippery on her healthcare proposal."

Slippery when confronted, period. The September debate should be interesting because I think her sudden interest in only talking about Trump is really about not wanting her history brought up again.

[emmaverybo]

246. Ah, hah! NT

[betsuni]

138. District attorneys aren't responsible for marijuana being illegal, she was doing her job.

"Each time additional forensic testing has been performed in the case the test results only further establish Mr. Cooper's guilt."

This turns my stomach:

"A teenage girl testified during ... Cooper's trial that, less than a year before the Ryen killings, she dropped by a friend's house in Pittsburgh and was attacked by a stranger who answered the door. The stranger, who appeared to be in the midst of burglarizing the home, hit her with a camera and dragged her into her car.

"Police found Cooper's palm print on the gearshift in the girl's car and a semen stain consistent with Cooper's DNA on the girl's pants. At Cooper's trial in the San Bernardino murder case, defense attorney Nigus stipulated to the court without any objection from Cooper that he kidnapped and raped the teenager and that the crime unfolded in the manner she testified. In an interview earlier this year, Cooper admitted that he had sex with the teenager, whom he had never met, but denied it was rape."

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-kevin-cooper-20180708-htmlstory.html

[Princetonian]

159. "Was Kevin Cooper Framed For Murder?" by New York Times Pulitzer Prize Winner Nicholas Kristof

"One Test Could Exonerate Him. Why Won't California Do It?

In 1983, four people were murdered in a home in Chino Hills, Calif. The sole survivor of the attack said three white intruders had committed the murders. Then a woman told the police that her boyfriend, a white convicted murderer, was probably involved, and she gave deputies his bloody coveralls. So here’s what sheriff’s deputies did: They threw away the bloody coveralls and arrested a young black man named Kevin Cooper. He is now awaiting execution.

<snip>

The test tube miraculously contained the blood of two or more people. This indicated that the sheriff’s office may have used the test tube of Cooper’s blood to frame him, and then topped off the test tube with someone else’s blood.

Cooper’s lawyers ask above all for new “touch DNA” testing — capable of detecting microscopic residues... As state attorney general, Kamala Harris refused to allow this advanced DNA testing and showed no interest in the case (on Friday, after the online publication of this column, Senator Harris called me to say "I feel awful about this" and put out a statement saying: "As a firm believer in DNA testing..."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/17/opinion/sunday/kevin-cooper-california-death-row.html

[betsuni]

161. Suddenly the New York Times isn't fake news!

[Princetonian]

163. Are you interested in why Harris did an about-face? Did you read the article?

[betsuni]

164. Not everything is a conspiracy.

[Princetonian]

166. NYT Pulitzer-Prize Winner Nicholas Kristof forced AG Harris to do the right thing.

Kevin Cooper was framed by a blood test that was clearly tampered with. Yet despite widespread outcry amid from judges to a human rights advocacy, Harris refused to order a new DNA test...
until NYT Pulitzer-Prize winner Nicholas Kristof wrote his expose.

[betsuni]

167. Hey, nonny no!

Men are fools that wish to die!
Is't not fine to dance and sing
When the bells of death do ring?
Is't not fine to swim in wine,
And turn upon the toe,
And sing Hey, nonny no!
When the winds blow and the seas flow?
Hey, nonny no!

[Demsrule86]

208. Heartless and political...not who I want as our nominee...sure I'd vote for her in a general.

Better than Trump.

[Princetonian]

240. Agreed. What Harris did is not social justice.

Last edited Thu Aug 8, 2019, 12:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Just the opposite. Forget about heading the DoJ. There are far better candidates.

[Demsrule86]

244. She is too political. We need to restore the integrity of the DOJ.

[Princetonian]

181. "Harris' district attorney's office violated defendants' rights by hiding damaging information"

In response to your earlier reply to me:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=230468

As DA, the buck stopped with Harris. More evidence from the SF Chronicle Debate Factcheck that backs up Tulsi Gabbard's claims:

'San Francisco Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo... said Harris’ district attorney’s office violated defendants’ rights by hiding damaging information about the technician and was indifferent to demands that the office account for its failings. “The District Attorney failed to disclose information that clearly should have been disclosed,” the judge wrote in a court order. Plus, Harris’ office did not have a written policy about informing defendants if there were any problems with evidence or witnesses. The scandal led to 1,000 cases being dismissed.'

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Fact-checking-the-Democratic-debate-attacks-14275081.php?psid=glXZf

Also: "The attack: Gabbard said Harris “kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California.”

The context: This is rooted in the 2011 Supreme Court case that said California’s prisons were too overcrowded. In 2014, lawyers working for the state Department of Justice told a court that if low-level offenders — who are often used to fight wildfires — were freed, it “would severely impact fire camp participation — a dangerous outcome while California is in the middle of a difficult fire season and severe drought.”

In 2014, Harris said she didn’t know lawyers working for her had made that argument until she read published reports of it. Subsequently, she asked her staff to discontinue making that argument."

That teenage girl's testimony against Kevin Cooper was questionable. Read NYT Pulitzer Prize winning reporter's story, "Was Kevin Cooper Framed For Murder" for more details about doubts surrounding her accusation. Look at what Kristof wrote about Harris' treatment of Kevin Cooper:

"One Test Could Exonerate Him. Why Won't California Do It?

In 1983, four people were murdered in a home in Chino Hills, Calif. The sole survivor of the attack said three white intruders had committed the murders. Then a woman told the police that her boyfriend, a white convicted murderer, was probably involved, and she gave deputies his bloody coveralls. So here’s what sheriff’s deputies did: They threw away the bloody coveralls and arrested a young black man named Kevin Cooper. He is now awaiting execution.

<snip>

The test tube miraculously contained the blood of two or more people. This indicated that the sheriff’s office may have used the test tube of Cooper’s blood to frame him, and then topped off the test tube with someone else’s blood.

Cooper’s lawyers ask above all for new “touch DNA” testing — capable of detecting microscopic residues... As state attorney general, Kamala Harris refused to allow this advanced DNA testing and showed no interest in the case (on Friday, after the online publication of this column, Senator Harris called me to say "I feel awful about this" and put out a statement saying: "As a firm believer in DNA testing..."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/17/opinion/sunday/kevin-cooper-california-death-row.html

Gabbard was right. Harris owes Kevin Cooper an apology.

[namahage]

261. So? That was 9-15 years ago! n/t

[Princetonian]

264. And?

[Demsrule86]

175. No they haven't and pretending it is so does Sen. Harris no good as it will just keep coming.

[Eliot Rosewater]

243. And yet there are what, dozens, hundreds of Kamala BASHERS here now

[Andy823]

25. Gabbard is a joke

She sucks up to trump, is supported by Russian trolls, and yet some here want to elevate her simply because she is trying to smear Harris, just what Putins wants. Some people here really need to take stock of what they are doing.

[Princetonian]

33. Did you know that Gabbard said has been factchecked by the SF Chronicle?

[FreeState]

39. She can say that but that's not what the article said

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Fact-checking-the-Democratic-debate-attacks-14275081.php

The attack: Gabbard said Harris “put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.”

The context: The Gabbard campaign pointed to a February article in the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative media outlet, headlined, “Kamala Harris Packed California Prisons With Pot Peddlers” as attorney general. The article cited statistics from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that said “at least 1,560 people were sent to state prisons for marijuana-related offenses between 2011 and 2016” during the time Harris was the state AG. On Thursday, a department spokesman told The Chronicle that 1,974 people were admitted for hashish and marijuana convictions during that period.

Harris didn’t back legalizing cannabis for recreational use until last year, two years after California voters did. She also opposed a statewide ballot measure to legalize weed in 2010, when she was San Francisco’s district attorney and running to be state attorney general. Harris called that proposal “flawed public policy.”

And the laughing? Harris admitted to smoking weed in college during a radio show appearance in February and laughed when asked if she supported legalization. “Half my family’s from Jamaica. Are you kidding me?” Her father, who was born in Jamaica, wasn’t laughing when he heard about his daughter’s comments. Donald Harris wrote that his family “must be turning in their grave right now to see their family’s name, reputation and proud Jamaican identity” being connected with the “fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker.”

[Princetonian]

44. Gabbard is truthful: "U.S. judges see 'epidemic' of prosecutorial misconduct in state" (LA Times)

"Federal judges called upon state Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris to respond to reports of a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct going undisciplined in state courts."

Also:

'Judge Alex Kozinski asked Vienna if his boss, Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris, wanted to defend a conviction “obtained by lying prosecutors.” If Harris did not back off the case, Kozinski warned, the court would “name names” in a ruling that would not be “very pretty.”'

https://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-lying-prosecutors-20150201-story.html

Notice the big photo of Harris??

[FreeState]

104. So your just moving goal posts

No thanks. Enjoy your stay.

[Princetonian]

114. Proving Gabbard is truthful is moving the goalpost?

[Princetonian]

117. I disagree. That is what the article is saying.

And I have given more than ample proof that Gabbard is telling the truth.

[mcar]

34. Kind of makes one see who Putin and the Rs are most worried about

[Demsrule86]

176. This has nothing to do with Putin...this is a situation where a second tier candidate is trying to

make points by attacking a more successful candidate...akin to what Sen. Harris herself did in the first debate and it worked to some degree. The right will pile on as they always do. But Sen. Harris could end this by addressing the substance and will not end this by attacking Gabbard.

[Kurt V.]

36. i agree with gabbard on a whole bunch of stuff policy wise. her tactics not so much.

still i hope she hangs in there.

[GulfCoast66]

45. Now we see the purpose of her running.

At least in my opinion.

Look for the attacks to spread and get worse.

This is not the right way for Democratic candidates to behave when going up against Trump.

[sheshe2]

52. Tulsi said?

[Blue Owl]

54. Seems made for the CNN Attackometer

[Codeine]

56. Trump is owned by homophobic Russian nationalists,

Gabbard by homophobic Hindu nationalists. I fail to see much difference.

[SHRED]

57. Tulsi believes the Barr Report

Last edited Wed Aug 7, 2019, 07:29 PM - Edit history (1)

That is all.

[Cha]

70. That's not all..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

She has stated on numerous occasions that she supports expanding the use of drone strikes against military opponents, and, in 2014, refused to rule out the idea of using torture on suspected terrorists. Gabbard also spoke out vehemently against the Iran nuclear deal when it was first proposed by President Obama.

https://arcdigital.media/tulsi-gabbard-is-not-anti-war-660e7d1e4ce1

Link to tweet

Tulsi Gabbard: Trump indictment might have 'led to civil war'

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/435780-tulsi-gabbard-trump-indictment-might-have-led-to-civil-war

[SHRED]

76. I should of said

That's all we need to know about her.

Because it is and she's going nowhere.

Thanks for those.

[thesquanderer]

78. I saw where she believed it in March, the weekend it was released, as did...

...many others, including most of the media. Do you have any evidence that she has had such a position since the Mueller report itself was released?

[SHRED]

83. She has that video on her Twitter page still

[thesquanderer]

379. Mixed feelings about that...

I don't like when people "scrub" their feed of old tweets to whitewash their history. But I'd also like to see something newer to reflect what she has thought since the report was released.

[uponit7771]

375. I disagree that most of the media outside of FAUX news believed the Barr Summary on its face. They..

... repeated stupid shit about it but there was more "wait for the full report" than Barr is 100% correct.

[thesquanderer]

380. Here's how the New York Times headlined it that week:

and that perspective was widely echoed throughout mainstream that week. It's not like the other big media was contradicting this or saying the Times got it wrong.

[Thekaspervote]

300. This to me ends it! How can any dem believe Barr??!! There lay her true stripes

She may have spoken the truth about Harris, but she needs to look at her own idiotic mess. Seriously, can anyone imagine having her as president, VP?!

[thesquanderer]

310. Like many, she believed the Barr report in March when it came out.

That's when that statement was from.

Someone should ask her about her thoughts on the Mueller report now.

[uponit7771]

374. Is there a link on this? This alone should disqualify Gabbard and keep her off of DU imho.

[SHRED]

59. No wonder the right-wing loves her

[SunsetDreams2]

61. Projection

Reminds me of someone...blame others for what they do.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is a clear example of Russian disinformation happening in real time. A hashtag created & promoted by Russia Today against Kamala Harris & supporting Rep. Gabbard, who is an apologist for another Putin puppet, Bashar Assad. This is a sign that Harris is seen as a threat. <a href="https://t.co/1aQi4WMISb">https://t.co/1aQi4WMISb</a></p>— Richard Stengel (@stengel) <a href="

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 1, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Tarc]

64. "Tulsi Gabbard says..."

"Why, yes, that book can be found in the Fiction aisle."

[Demsrule86]

177. Again...attacks but no defense of the DA/AG years...it won't work.

[Ponietz]

82. Any candidate who minimizes the Mueller findings is SUSPECT

[Starry Messenger]

123. Cult member Tulsi says what?

[Beringia]

137. Why do you say cult?

[obamanut2012]

193. Science of Identity Foundation and Chris Butler

Enough said.

[Beringia]

194. Enough said for you maybe

People get involved in all kinds of religious groups via their parents, friends, etc. You could easily find something wrong with being Jewish or Catholic or Muslim, and criticize their warped views or associations. Here is a comment from a reader on an article on this "cult" and I think it makes sense.




"As I write this in 2019, Tulsi is running for President of the US, and she takes no sh-t from no one, and she does it with compassion and grace, with focused intelligence…She has proven herself to be an independent thinker so much that she disturbs the corrupt establishment status quo…Perhaps this is her way to break free from what “spell” you say she’s under and put this Butler guy in his place, because that’s the kind of thing she’s been doing to all the corrupt political frauds who question her noble anti-war stance and her insistence on putting the people and planet before profits…"

https://medium.com/p/e2650f0d09/responses/show

[FreeState]

201. Have you heard of the BITE Model?

Its a well know tool to identify high demand closed groups (cults).

https://www.openmindsfoundation.org/the-bite-model-of-influence/

I. Behavior Control
II. Information Control
III. Thought Control
IV. Emotional Control

Now read this experience with the The Science of Identity Foundation. I think you will find it hits every letter in BITE.

Article Link


"He was my parents spiritual master and they looked to him for guidance on everything, from what to eat, to how to raise their children, and they did it all without question."

"He demanded the utmost dedication and loyalty from his followers and if he didn’t get it, the punishments were swift and severe. I remember hearing stories of people who were told they weren’t allowed to eat because they didn’t make food to his liking, who were not allowed to sleep because there was a light making a buzzing noise in the house, and the follower didn’t have the foresight to fix the issue ahead of time."

"Literally everything we did had to go through Chris. If you wanted to work outside of the group, you had to ask his permission. No-one could get married without his consent."

"We were encouraged to not invest in any relationships other than with him, so we were in effect isolated from our parents who did their best to not love us as per his recommendation, and instead looked at him like a surrogate father/messiah figure."

[Beringia]

219. So do you think Tulsi goes to Chris Butler for advice

on everything she says and does? According to this article she does.

[Starry Messenger]

232. Great response

*thumbsup*

[pnwmom]

266. She and her cult fought against abortion rights and against LGBT.

In an interview with Ozy that was published in 2016, she said that her political views had changed, but not her personal views.

And there is no indication she's broken from cult leader Butler, who brought his cult along with him when he joined Hare Krishna.

&t=194s

[Princetonian]

267. Tulsi is ranked 100% by NARAL Pro-Choice America

Link: https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/representative/tulsi-gabbard/

Her Voting Record:

2018 Granting Legal Rights to a Pregnancy (“Personhood”) (12/20/18)
2018 Granting Legal Rights to a Pregnancy (“Personhood”) (9/27/18)
2018 Interference in Abortion Practice (1/19/18)
2017 Attack on the ACA (12/20/17)
2017 Granting Legal Rights to a Pregnancy (“Personhood”) (11/16/17)
2017 20-Week Abortion Ban (10/3/17)
2017 20-Week Abortion Ban: Add Health Exception (10/3/17)
2017 Attack on Family-Planning Funding, Planned Parenthood, and Abortion Coverage (9/14/17)
2017 Anti-Choice Refusal: D.C. Reproductive-Health Non-Discrimination Law (9/14/17)
2017 ACA Repeal and Attack on Planned Parenthood (5/4/17)
2017 Rescind Title X Protections (2/16/17)
2017 No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (1/24/17)
2016 Attack on Planned Parenthood: Special “Investigation” Committee Funding (12/1/16)
2016 Anti-Choice Refusal: Conscience Protection Act (7/13/16)
2016 Anti-Choice Refusal: D.C. Reproductive-Health Non-Discrimination Law (7/7/16)
2016 Federal Employees’ Health Insurance (7/6/16)
2016 Restriction on Contraception: Zika Response (6/23/16)
2016 Anti-Choice Refusal: Taxpayer-Funded Discrimination (5/25/16)
2016 Attack on Planned Parenthood: Veto Override (2/2/16)
2016 Attack on Planned Parenthood: One-Year Funding Ban (1/6/16)

[pnwmom]

268. And that's a great pro-choice record fas a legislator. But I think the President of the US

should PERSONALLY support women's choice and LGBT equality -- not just take the position politically.

And as recently as 2013, she refused to campaign for Hawaii's marriage equality bill. (This was after actively working against a civil union bill in 2004.)

https://mauitime.com/news/politics/heres-why-the-hawaii-lgbt-caucus-doesnt-support-rep-tulsi-gabbards-reelection-campaign/

“The HRC has been out of step with local politics and needs,” Golojuch told MauiTime. He also said he felt insulted that “a straight person” would try to school the Caucus on who they should support. And, he added, the Caucus had “reached out to” Gabbard during the 2013 Legislative Special Session on same-sex marriage, only to be rebuffed. “We were told that Congresswoman Gabbard doesn’t get involved in state politics,” he said, though he noted that Representative Colleen Hanabusa and Senators Mazie Hirono and Brian Schatz had sent people to testify in support of the same-sex marriage bill.

[Princetonian]

271. Tulsi "is now pro-choice and pro-same-sex-marriage" (The New Yorker, November 6, 2017 issue)

"When Gabbard entered politics, she was only twenty-one, and in those early years she was a social conservative, pro-life and active in the fight against same-sex marriage. She is now pro-choice and pro-same-sex-marriage: on these and other issues, she has evolved..."

Due to her time in Iraq, Gabbard is in favor of a non-intervention approach to foreign policy to prevent another FUBAR. This is why she went to meet Trump and Assad:

"Gabbard agreed to meet with Trump to make her case for a noninterventionist foreign policy. A few months later, she flew to Syria and met with Bashar al-Assad, who is presiding over a brutal civil war; she and he seemed to agree that the United States should not intervene to stop it."

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe

[ucrdem]

283. This is very enlightening.

Thanks for the research!

[thesquanderer]

295. re: "I think the President of the US should PERSONALLY support women's choice" etc.

So it's not enough that a president DO the right thing, they also have to have the approved thoughts about it.

This reminds me of the hubbub about Jimmy Carter having lusted in his heart.

There is not a single candidate without negatives. Not being liberally pure of thought even while governing just as we'd like on these issues is about as inconsequential a negative as one could imagine. I mean literally, inconsequential, i.e. it is a negative that would have no actual policy consequences. As negatives go, that's about as good as you get.

[pnwmom]

309. We have many excellent candidates this year who have many fewer negatives than she has.

None of the others ever worked actively against abortion and LGBT equality.

Would you say the same thing if she had worked against civil rights of black people in 2004? Would her current political positions be the only thing that matters?

[thesquanderer]

313. re: "We have many excellent candidates this year who have many fewer negatives"

I'm not saying I think she's the best candidate. I'm saying that I think some of the knocks on her are unfair.

That said, I agree with most of her positions, and I think she has an effective TV presence which I think is something necessary to win. And in these two respects (which are what matter to me), I put her ahead of most of the other candidates.

re: "None of the others ever worked actively against abortion and LGBT equality."
She changed positions at least 7 years ago (maybe more, I'm not sure), and more importantly, has voted pro-choice and pro-LGBT ever since.

re: "Would you say the same thing if she had worked against civil rights of black people in 2004?"
yes, if they have worked in the other direction ever since, because someone's actions for the last 15 years are more important than what they did before. I'm not religious, but I believe in redemption.

[pnwmom]

314. She told Ozy in 2015 that her personal views hadn't changed, and she refused to campaign

for marriage equality in Hawaii in 2013.

We don't need a President whose personal view is against marriage equality.

[thesquanderer]

316. Again, we don't know exactly WHAT she told Oxy. No quote...

...just a paraphrased response to an unknown question. (Even if the paraphrased statement is accurate, exactly which personal views was she talking about that have not changed?) This is the kind of "non-quote" I cannot take at face value, there's too much room for editorial interpretation.

re: "refused to campaign for marriage equality in Hawaii in 2013. "
Do you have a link? A quick google search myself only turned up support for gay marriage in 2013. She put out a press release supporting gay marriage in January of 2013.

https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-tulsi-gabbard-statement-same-sex-marriage

and here is a statement she gave in 2012 (linked from her web site):

Obama was against marriage equality until 2012 as well, of course. I understand, he hadn't been as vehemently against it as Gabbard once was, but both have been on the LGBT side of the issue for the last 7 years.

[pnwmom]

317. We do know that she refused to campaign for Hawaii's marriage equality bill in 2013.

And Obama was NOT against individual states passing these bills -- that was his preference.

[Princetonian]

318. Tulsi did not want to get involved in state politics and has a 100% rating from HRC.

You know she is endorsed by The Human Rights Campaign which is America's largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer equality and rank her voting record 100%.

[pnwmom]

319. And she was NOT endorsed by the Hawaiian LGBT caucus, which was in a

much better position to know her, and how her lack of support affected them.

The Hawaiian LGBT caucus strongly endorsed her primary opponent.

[Princetonian]

321. Petty politics. They 're playing favorites. One can't get much better than a 100% rating from HRC.

[pnwmom]

322. That was based solely on her votes, which I already agreed toed the official D line.

They obviously disregarded everything else.

[thesquanderer]

336. Two things...

1. re: "We do know that she refused to campaign for Hawaii's marriage equality bill in 2013."

Again, a quick google did not turn up any confirmation of that for me, only that she supported gay marriage in 2013 (and 2012). Can you provide a link to confirm this? I'd like to see if there's more detail about it. Sometimes things don't appear exactly as they seem on the surface.

2. re: "And Obama was NOT against individual states passing these bills -- that was his preference."

He had been personally against gay marriage. In 2008, he said "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." He softened in 2010, saying, "I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage...while I’m not prepared to reverse myself here, sitting in the Roosevelt Room at 3:30 in the afternoon, I think it’s fair to say that it’s something that I think a lot about. That’s probably the best you’ll do out of me today." In 2011, he took another step, instructing the justice department not to enforce DOMA (which allowed states to refuse to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states)... and in 2012 he supported it. I could not find any reference to his believing that it should be left to the states, which would have been a poor argument anyway, if you believe in equal rights for LGBT, just as it was a poor argument for slavery.

[Princetonian]

315. Nothing Tulsi said has been refuted by Harris.

Gee, I wonder why...

[pnwmom]

323. It seems so strange that you spend so much more time championing Tulsi than Biden,

who is supposedly your preference.

And they couldn't be more different.

[Princetonian]

324. What's stranger is Harris has not refuted much less addressed one iota of what Tulsi has said.

Gee I wonder why?

[pnwmom]

325. Maybe on the theory Tulsi has 2% support and isn't worth that much attention.

But I think that's wrong. Jill Stein was a menace and her support was always in that range.

[Princetonian]

326. Harris can't. Tulsi is backed up by years of news stories like the one here and all over this thread

Harris is an unviable general election candidate because her history as DA and AG raises serious questions as to her judgment and ideas about social justice:

U.S. judges see ‘epidemic’ of prosecutorial misconduct in state

Judge Alex Kozinski asked Vienna if his boss, Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris, wanted to defend a conviction “obtained by lying prosecutors.” If Harris did not back off the case, Kozinski warned, the court would “name names” in a ruling that would not be “very pretty.”

Judge Kim Wardlaw wanted to know why Riverside County prosecutors presented a murder-for-hire case against the killer but did not charge the man they said had arranged the killings... The January hearing in Pasadena, posted online under new 9th Circuit policies, provided a rare and critical examination of a murder case in which prosecutors presented false evidence but were never investigated or disciplined.Harris would need to take action if her office wanted to avoid an embarrassing ruling, Kozinski said.

“Make sure she understands the gravity of the situation,” Kozinski said, adding that the case “speaks very poorly for the attorney general’s office.”

Harris, a candidate for U.S. Senate, changed course.

Link: https://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-lying-prosecutors-20150201-story.html

[pnwmom]

328. Where's your link to the rest of the article? n/t

[Princetonian]

330. "Federal judges called upon state Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris to respond to reports of a pattern of

... prosecutorial misconduct going undisciplined in state courts."

Link to LA Times article:
https://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-lying-prosecutors-20150201-story.html

The LA Time has a big photo of Harris heading the article. Underneath her photo is this sentence...

"Federal judges called upon state Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris to respond to reports of a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct going undisciplined in state courts."

Voters deserve to know more about this and other parts of her history as DA and AG.

[pnwmom]

329. Both Hillary and Obama supported MA's gay marriage ruling in 2005. Tulsi was actively fighting

against gay marriage in that time period, as well as fighting abortion rights.

Tulsi even fought civil unions in that time period. Both Obama and Hillary always supported civil unions.

[Princetonian]

332. Where are your sources? You got busted shading Tulsi with a remark she didn't make in Oxy...

You said: "314. She told Ozy in 2015 that her personal views hadn't changed, and she refused to campaign for marriage equality in Hawaii in 2013."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=234608

Tulsi said nothing of the sort:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=234630



to thesquanderer

[thesquanderer]

339. re: "Would you say the same thing if she had worked against civil rights of black people in 2004? "

Besides what I've already said on this, here's a flip of that perspective, of holding people's 15-year old positions against them...

Hillary Clinton backed DOMA in 1996, and continued to defend it, in some manner as late as 2016! At that point she was trying to claim that it was a defense against a worse possibility, but that was debunked. See https://reason.com/2016/10/10/clinton-campaign-leaks-show-her-stubborn

Were you similarly holding that against Hillary in 2016? (Or in 2008?)

[thesquanderer]

345. Also, I assume you're more comfortable supporting Biden than Gabbard? Could be problematic too.

This is another thought about your question to me, "Would you say the same thing if she had worked against civil rights of black people in 2004" --- What would you say about a candidate who arguably worked against the civil rights of black people many years ago?

Here's a pretty damning take--from a legitimate, left-leaning source--on some of Joe Biden's history regarding racial justice. Should these be reasons to not support him today?

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/joe-biden-record-on-busing-incarceration-racial-justice-democratic-primary-2020-explained.html

I'd say these are not "disqualifying" things. First because, as we have been talking about, these are what he espoused in the past, and is not consistent with what he is campaigning on today, nor the positions he has taken in recent political life.

But also, and again relevant to some of our conversation, even to the extent that the statements are accurate, they may also be incomplete in understanding the full context or counterpoints to some of what the article puts forward, and so it would be unfair to judge him exclusively from the perspectives presented there.

That said, Gabbard's past poor positions were at least from someone young, and from someone who had relatively little ability for her positions to affect many people's lives. OTOH, looking at Clinton on DOMA and Biden on the Crime Bill, these were positions of mature individuals and of people who were actually in positions of power and were able to take some of these views and help make them the official policies of the nation. Who did more damage?

But as I said, I believe in redemption. But if you don't, you may find it no easier to support Biden than Gabbard. The Crime Bill was just awful. And it's not like Biden can say "I had to vote for it in order to get the good from it, even if it meant accepting the bad in it." The bill was his baby. Listen to his speeches from that time, he was quite happy with the bad in it.

[Princetonian]

269. Tulsi has a 100% rating for her voting record by the Human Rights Campaign who also endorsed her.

Last edited Fri Aug 9, 2019, 11:30 PM - Edit history (1)

She is a member of the LGBT Equality Caucus in the House.

Tulsi has a 100% for her voting record and endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBT lobby organization in the country.

"With the many challenges facing the LGBT community, we're honored to count Tulsi as an ally in standing up for issues of fairness. From her cosponsorship of the Equality Act to supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples and fighting for persons with HIV/AIDS, we applaud Tulsi's commitment to fundamental equal rights for all." - Mike Mings, Director Human Rights Campaign PAC

Tulsi has received a 100% rating for her voting record in favor of LGBT legislation:

H.R.5 Equality Act of 2019 To prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes
H.R.1244 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that all provisions shall apply to legally married same-sex couples in the same manner as other married couples, and for other purposes.
H.R 2532 Respect for Marriage Act
H.R.2119 Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act of 2017, To prohibit, as an unfair or deceptive act or practice, commercial sexual orientation conversion therapy
H.Res.124 — Expressing opposition to banning service in the Armed Forces by openly transgender individuals.
H.R. 1755 Employment Non-Discrimination Act
H.R. 2839 Restore Honor to Service Members Act
H.R. 197 Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act
H.R. 683 Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act
H.R. 1199 Safe Schools Improvement Act
H.R. 932 Healthy Families Act
H. Res. 549 Designating June 26th as LGBT Equality Day
H. Res. 208 Equality for All Resolution, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in areas that include credit, employment, education, federally funded programs, housing, jury service, and public accommodations
H.R. 3273 LGBT Data Inclusion Act
Signed the Marriage Equality Amicus Briefs
Advocated for LGBT Housing / Privacy Rights
Advocated to End Bullying and Harassment in Schools
Tulsi signs letter urging President Trump to reverse transgender military ban https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1197627/letter-to-donald-j-trump-president-of-the-united-states-representatives-urge-trump-to-reverse-transgender-military-ban#.XBfzFBNKikZ
H.R. 2282 Equality Act of 2017 which amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation


Tulsi directly addresses her views on the LGBTQ+ community:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4764183/tulsi-gabbard-lgbtq-record

At a 2012 meeting of Hawai’i Democratic Party LGBT caucus, Tulsi addressed her opposition to same sex marriage in her youth and her complete evolution on this important issue. She openly and wholeheartedly apologizes for her wrongdoing and the harm she had caused the LGBT community, asking for but not expecting their forgiveness.

“On #EqualityDay, we recognize that many LGBT Americans still face discrimination everyday. This is wrong, and defies our American principles of equality, justice, and individual freedom. The #EqualityAct would extend comprehensive anti-discrimination protections to LGBT Americans”

Link to tweet

Of the Pulse Night Club Shooting in 2016: “A year ago the LGBT community suffered deadly mass shooting at #Pulse. We honor the victims & stand against bigotry & hatred #OrlandoUnited” -

Link to tweet

On LGBT Bullying: "I have advocated to end LGBT bullying and harassment in schools. School should always be a safe place for children.”

Link to tweet

Video of Tulsi addressing her views and record on LGBT in NH 12/1/2018

Tulsi speaks on her views supporting LGBT

Tulsi supports Hawai’i Equality March: https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-gabbard-facebook-hawaii-equality-march

Tulsi thanks those helping to fight to pass Equality Amendment:

Link to tweet

Tulsi celebrates LGBT Pride Month:

Link to tweet

Tulsi condemns torture and violent treatment of LGBT in Chechnya:

Link to tweet

Expressions! Interview on how Tulsi came to be such a strong supporter of LGBTQ+ rights: http://archive.is/5DkwH

“Tulsi Gabbard Remains a Committed Ally of the LGBT Community as America Celebrates National Coming Out Day” https://medium.com/@MPMagayon/tulsi-gabbard-remains-a-committed-ally-of-the-lgbt-community-as-america-celebrates-national-coming-4fa8bece8c97

Source: https://activatenow.us/tulsi-gabbard-a-strong-record-of-fighting-for-lgbt-rights-and-equality/

[pnwmom]

270. And yet she was NOT endorsed by the Hawaii LGBT caucus, and she rebuffed their request

to campaign for the marriage equality bill in 2013.


https://mauitime.com/news/politics/heres-why-the-hawaii-lgbt-caucus-doesnt-support-rep-tulsi-gabbards-reelection-campaign/

This really burned Golojuch. “Just so you know the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) does not speak for the entire or even a majority of the LGBTQ community, especially after they endorsed Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth’s republican challenger for the US Sentate [sic],” Golojuch added in his email to Tsuji.

“The HRC has been out of step with local politics and needs,” Golojuch told MauiTime. He also said he felt insulted that “a straight person” would try to school the Caucus on who they should support. And, he added, the Caucus had “reached out to” Gabbard during the 2013 Legislative Special Session on same-sex marriage, only to be rebuffed. “We were told that Congresswoman Gabbard doesn’t get involved in state politics,” he said, though he noted that Representative Colleen Hanabusa and Senators Mazie Hirono and Brian Schatz had sent people to testify in support of the same-sex marriage bill.

[Princetonian]

272. You keep moving the goalpost. I disproved your insinuation that Tulsi is anti-choice and anti-LGBTQ.

That should be enough.

And Tulsi wanted to stay out of state politics according to the article. From the nasty vibe coming from that pol in the article, I can see why.

[pnwmom]

274. So how come a supposed Biden supporter is so determined to champion an opposing candidate

who was so critical of Obama during his Presidency?

Seems very odd.

[Princetonian]

275. I admire strong women who stand up to bullies.

[pnwmom]

276. Oh, right! Like she stood up to the vicious murderer Assad!

Anyone would admire that!




https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/10/tulsi-gabbard-assad-syria-1214882

Presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) declined Sunday to say whether Syrian President Bashar Assad is a war criminal, and did not answer whether she would trust her own intelligence community if elected commander in chief.

“I think that the evidence needs to be gathered, and as I have said before, if there is evidence that he has committed war crimes, he should be prosecuted as such,” Gabbard told CNN host Dana Bash during a town hall event in Austin, Texas.

The remarks from Gabbard represent the latest entry in what lawmakers from both parties have criticized as a disconcerting posture toward Assad, which emerged when the Aloha State lawmaker made an unannounced visit to the Middle East strongman two years ago.

Gabbard previously said she was "skeptical" that Assad’s government perpetrated a chemical weapons attack in April 2017 that killed dozens of Syrians, although the Defense Department and the United Nations found that his regime was responsible for the slaughter.

[ucrdem]

277. I admire that. And wherefore the hostility to Gabbard?

Is it really just about Assad? And if you think Assad, who follows protocol so assiduously that he buses Al Qaeda fighters out of towns he's trying to recapture, would use chemical weapons after all the warnings that came down not to, can you you supply a motive? I frankly can't.

[pnwmom]

278. For me, it began with her strident opposition to civil unions in Hawaii, followed by

her failure to campaign for marriage equality in 2013 (though Mazie Hirano and Brian Schadtz did). Also, her past opposition to abortion.

And then her strange positions on Assad.

[ucrdem]

279. But hasn't she changed her views on those issues?

And why would anyone be in favor of pursuing another pointless forever war that is not only destroying Syria but whose collateral damage is tearing apart the world?

[pnwmom]

280. I don't excuse anyone who actively fought LGBT equality in 2004 -- she was an adult then.

I knew no young adults who had her attitude -- and growing up in a blue state like Hawaii she had no excuse. She didn't publicly change her position till 2012, and even then she refused to help campaign for the marriage equality bill in 2013. And in the Ozy article published in 2016 she said her personal views on this hadn't changed -- only her political positions.

That's the kind of ally we don't need.

[ucrdem]

281. Okay so don't support her. But the claims made about her here are way worse than that.

She's eccentric, her parents are conservative, I don't know if she's a devout Hindu or what but there was a world-wide wave of religious fundamentalism after 911 that is only just now beginning to recede. So, she's changed her views. If you can't allow for that you might as well be a fundamentalist yourself.

[pnwmom]

284. She grew up in an authoritarian cult -- her parents were involved long before 911.

And her aunt has spoken out about this. What she says is very concerning, given what we know about Gabbard. She met privately with Assad, without informing House leadership in advance. She parroted some of Assad's claims and criticized Obama. She met with Trump in the tower shortly after the election. And right-wingers like Breitbart and Steve Bannon thinks she's great.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/01/15/can-democrats-trust-tulsi-gabbard/

Gabbard’s support for authoritarian dictators was a mystery to me until I learned that she was raised as part of a group called the Science of Identity Foundation, led by a man named Chris Butler. Kelefa Sanneh wrote about all of that in a profile of Gabbard in the New Yorker. In response to the article, Caroline Sinavaiana Gabbard wrote the following:

As Representative Tulsi Gabbard’s aunt, it gives me no pleasure to publicly air my doubts regarding my niece’s political agenda, which Kelefa Sanneh describes in his Profile (“Against the Tide,” November 6th). However, I take my role as a citizen seriously, and I would be remiss not to share my concerns. Sanneh raises the issue of Gabbard’s lifelong immersion in the Science of Identity Foundation, an opaque religious organization that she and its founder, Chris Butler, have attempted to reframe as a “resource.” Gabbard’s answer to a basic question about Butler is troubling: despite calling him her “guru dev” (spiritual master) in her own promotional video, she denies that he is more important than any of her other teachers. She also has a notably mixed voting record, and associations that veer from certain progressive causes to the apparent courting of such strongmen as Narendra Modi, Bashar al-Assad, and Abdel Fattah el-Sisi (not to mention Trump)—this zigzagging path through positions is vexing. Sanneh’s article walks the fine line of investigation and exposition in a way that points to shadows worthy of further illumination.

In his article, Sanneh notes that several of Butler’s former followers talk about an authoritarian atmosphere in the group and describe themselves as survivors of an abusive cult. One of those people has written of her experience under the name “Lalita.”

Everything I did I had to think about how it benefitted [Chris Butler]. He was my parents spiritual master and they looked to him for guidance on everything, from what to eat, to how to raise their children, and they did it all without question…I was raised to believe Chris Butler was God’s voice on earth, and if you questioned him or offended him in any way, you were effectively offending God, and because we believed in reincarnation, that meant that you would be reborn as the lowest lifeform imaginable and then have to spend eon’s working your way back into God’s good graces…He demanded the utmost dedication and loyalty from his followers and if he didn’t get it, the punishments were swift and severe…

[ucrdem]

285. Okay but people overcome all kinds of bad stuff in their youth. As for Assad, the motive

seems perfectly clear: end a horrific humanitarian catastrophe perpetrated by nations that have no excuse for such brutality. She's young and has seen war up close. That doesn't make her an admirer of Assad. Incidentally I've met a few young Syrians (now Syrian-Americans) who are admirers of Assad and see him as a rightfully elected leader standing up to the criminal thuggery of the US and its allies. So there's that.

[pnwmom]

286. As recently as 3 years ago Ozy published the interview in which she said her personal beliefs

on LGBT hadn't changed -- just her political positions.

I don't know why any progressive should find that position acceptable, or why anyone is pushing her views here. It's not like we don't have many, many candidates more qualified than this 37 year old.

[Princetonian]

287. In 2017, The New Yorker interviewed Tulsi and found her to be pro-choice & pro-same-sex-marriage.

2017 trumps 2016.

"When Gabbard entered politics, she was only twenty-one, and in those early years she was a social conservative, pro-life and active in the fight against same-sex marriage. She is now pro-choice and pro-same-sex-marriage: on these and other issues, she has evolved..."

Due to her time in Iraq, Gabbard is in favor of a non-intervention approach to foreign policy to prevent another FUBAR. This is why she went to meet Trump and Assad:

"Gabbard agreed to meet with Trump to make her case for a noninterventionist foreign policy. A few months later, she flew to Syria and met with Bashar al-Assad, who is presiding over a brutal civil war; she and he seemed to agree that the United States should not intervene to stop it."

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe

[pnwmom]

288. So what? That's one reporter. There is a small mountain of evidence providing good reason

for concern, including statements by her aunt and people who've left the cult.

I have no idea why anyone would want to take a chance on her when there are so many eminently qualified candidates running this time.

Or why someone who purports to support Biden would spend so much time promoting this person.

[thesquanderer]

293. re: "Ozy published the interview in which she said..." WRONG.

Last edited Sat Aug 10, 2019, 07:37 AM - Edit history (1)

She "said" no such thing. There was NO QUOTE, either of Gabbard's exact words, nor the question she was responding to. It was an unsupported, ambiguous author's paraphrase. Just the kind of thing one should never count on for accuracy.

[Demsrule86]

398. which has nothing to do with what she accused Kamala of...why won't she refute this? she should.

[Princetonian]

282. Do you think Harris will ever address why she refused a DNA test for Kevin Cooper until the NY Times

... wrote an expose that publicized how the death row inmate was framed? This is the story by Pulitzer Prize Winner Nicholas Kristof:

"One Test Could Exonerate Him. Why Won't California Do It? Was Kevin Cooper Framed For Murder?"

In 1983, four people were murdered in a home in Chino Hills, Calif. The sole survivor of the attack said three white intruders had committed the murders. Then a woman told the police that her boyfriend, a white convicted murderer, was probably involved, and she gave deputies his bloody coveralls. So here’s what sheriff’s deputies did: They threw away the bloody coveralls and arrested a young black man named Kevin Cooper. He is now awaiting execution.

<snip>

The test tube miraculously contained the blood of two or more people. This indicated that the sheriff’s office may have used the test tube of Cooper’s blood to frame him, and then topped off the test tube with someone else’s blood.

<snip>

Cooper’s lawyers ask above all for new “touch DNA” testing — capable of detecting microscopic residues... As state attorney general, Kamala Harris refused to allow this advanced DNA testing and showed no interest in the case (on Friday, after the online publication of this column, Senator Harris called me to say "I feel awful about this" and put out a statement saying: "As a firm believer in DNA testing..."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/17/opinion/sunday/kevin-cooper-california-death-row.html

Gabbard is right. Harris owes Kevin Cooper an apology. This is The Mercury Press' Debate Factcheck from last Wednesday:


Death row appeals

Tulsi Gabbard: “She blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so. In the case of those who were on death row, innocent people, you actually blocked evidence from being revealed that would have freed them until you were forced to do so.”

The facts: Harris’s attorney general office did block DNA testing that some legal observers believe could have helped overturn the murder conviction of a death row inmate who has insisted he was framed.

Harris opposed efforts by lawyers for Kevin Cooper, a death row inmate from San Bernardino County, to get new DNA testing. In 2018, following a New York Times investigation into the case, Harris said she was wrong and called for further testing.

Link to Mercury News: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/01/democratic-debate-kamala-harris-tulsi-gabbard-joe-biden-fact-check/

[Gothmog]

140. I stand with Senator Harris

I do not trust or believe Gabbard’s claims. Senator Harris is a very electable candidate in my opinion.

[ucrdem]

143. Meanwhile Gabbard rises to 6th in NH and meets the donor threshold for fall debate

putting her at 3% ahead of Cory Booker at 1%. Links:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/456026-gabbard-reaches-donor-threshold-for-fall-debates

Link to tweet

[tonedevil]

147. RTTV...

thanks you for your support.

[ucrdem]

151. Don't shoot the piano player

[tonedevil]

157. LOL... /nt

[Demsrule86]

179. haha... this is funny stuff.

[JI7]

155. +

[Demsrule86]

178. I find the entire thing kind of hillarious...Tulsi is doing what Sen. Harris did in order to advance

herself in the primary ...going after a more successful candidate and seems to be working...I don't like it but the door was opened during the first debate.

[duforsure]

158. Same putin tactic used by trump

Now used by her. She's a plant, and I don't trust anything she says.

[33taw]

180. I refuse to watch any station the airs Tulsi Gabbard.

[liberalmuse]

182. Who?

Why are people trying to make this woman happen? I don’t know who she is and have not cared enough to try and find out. Attacking a top tier candidate is one way to get attention I guess.

[titaniumsalute]

192. Russian asset says what?

[Princetonian]

220. I hope you are referring to Trump. Are you?

[ismnotwasm]

205. Wow. Given the demographics of supporters of these women are entirely different

One wonders what Gabbard hopes to gain? Kamala’s niece is super pissed, using social media to debunk this crap.

[SaschaHM]

343. Well, ever since Obama left office, Tulsi hasn't had a black president to attack.

Since Biden looks like he's on his way to the white house, she probably figured she could settle for a "black president"ial candidate and get her fill that way.

Or it could be a desperate attempt to become Biden's VP which probably isn't going to fly at all with Black voters who despise Tulsi like the plague or other Democrats who remember how she scurried to Trump Tower to kiss that monster's ring. No segment of the party would like to see her as VP over their preferred candidate.

[thesquanderer]

347. re: "Black voters...despise Tulsi like the plague"

What polls support that assertion?

To the contrary, here's a poll of likely Dem primary voters in South Carolina which shows that, of those who had heard of her enough to have formed any opinion, more black voters had favorable impressions of her than had unfavorable. She may not be their first choice (Biden, Harris, and Sanders are the only ones with double digit support there) but that doesn't mean they don't view her favorably. If she has higher favorables than unfavorables, that supports VP potential.

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_sc_072519.pdf/

And do you really think Tulsi had an issue with Obama because he was black? There were points of disagreement, but why not assume she just disagreed on those issues, instead of disparaging one of our candidates with accusations of racism? Again, do you have any evidence that race was a factor? (Obama did endorse her congressional run, btw.)

[Princetonian]

355. What an extraordinarily ugly accusation to make! Are you calling Tulsi Gabbard a racist now?

You'd better walk that nasty back.

At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, Gabbard praised President Obama, a fellow-Hawaiian, and Vice-President Joe Biden, along with their wives, as “the strongest advocates our military families could ever have.”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe

[uponit7771]

377. Gabbard might be the new Cornel West just without claiming Obama N-Word-ized the Oval Office

[Princetonian]

393. Nope. It's Harris who "might be the new Cornel West" since she attacked both Joe & The Obama Legacy.

[Princetonian]

354. Sorry, can't debunk the facts. Impeccable news sources, remember?

Read through the thread. Take off your blinders.

No one candidate is worth ignoring the facts about their history.

No one's niece is more credible than the reporting done by the The New York Times, LA Times, The Mercury Press' Debate Factcheck, The SF Chronicle, Factcheck.org, The New Yorker, and Rolling Stone.

[FrankBooth]

210. Tulsi obviously got her marching orders to take Kamala down a peg

Tulsi is a vanity candidate who knows she has no chance. She's running for some other reason, although not sure exactly what that is... but it isn't to help the Democratic Party. Whomever is pulling the financial strings for Tulsi is scared of Kamala, and told Tulsi to attack. It's obvious. Now these factually dubious RW talking points that Tulsi has pulled from fringe wingnut sources and introduced into the mainstream will be used against KH forever, when Tulsi is long gone from the race and working at Heritage or hosting her show on Fox News. Tulsi is a fraud and should be treated as such by Democrats who want to beat Trump in 2020.

[Princetonian]

362. Gabbard has yet to be proven wrong.

CNN asked Harris about it, showed her a videoclip and she still did not refute Gabbard's claims.
What does that tell you?

What do all the factchecks on this thread tell you? It tells me that Harris has a lot of explaining to do.

[BannonsLiver]

214. Irony is dead.

[Joe941]

223. I believe this has all been proven false.

[Princetonian]

230. You would be wrong.

Last edited Sat Aug 10, 2019, 02:38 AM - Edit history (1)

Unless you have research and sources that can override those of The New York Times, The Mercury News, LA Times, SF Chronicle and Factcheck.org. Those are the sources which back up Tulsi's claims on this thread. Try reading them with an open mind instead of discounting them out of hand. These news outlets and their editorial staff do not publish Fake News.

[FreeState]

320. +1

It is interesting to see which posters dig in here... just saying...

[jcgoldie]

404. thats correct but some folks have a rather transparent agenda here

And a long history of this type of thing.

[Princetonian]

407. Joe941 is incorrect and so are you, jcgoldie. Want proof?

Last edited Sat Aug 24, 2019, 07:39 PM - Edit history (2)

Ready for some unvarnished facts about Harris history as San Francisco District Attorney and Califonia Attorney General? All of Gabbard's claims are true and are proven within the factual framework of the following analysis, all of which is impeccably sourced. I encourage clicking on all the links to read the entire stories:

"Clergy Abuse Survivors Question Kamala Harris’ Record"

'Harris never responded to him when he wrote to tell her that a priest who had molested him was still in ministry at a local Catholic cathedral. And, he says, she didn’t reply five years later when he wrote again, urging her to release records on accused clergy to help other alleged victims who were filing lawsuits.

“She did nothing,” said Piscitelli, today the Northern California spokesman for SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Survivors of clergy abuse and their attorneys say that Harris’ record on fighting sex abuse within the Catholic Church is relevant as the U.S. senator from California campaigns for the presidency... They complain that Harris was consistently silent on the Catholic Church’s abuse scandal — first as district attorney in San Francisco and later as California’s attorney general...

Catholics make up large voting blocs in the city and the state, accounting for roughly a quarter of the population in both San Francisco’s metro area and across California.

“There’s a potential political risk if you move aggressively against the church,” said Michael Meadows, a Bay Area attorney who has represented clergy abuse victims. “I just don’t think she was willing to take it.'

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/06/26/clergy-abuse-survivors-question-sen-kamala-harris-record/

The attack: Gabbard said Harris “blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from Death Row until the courts forced her to do so.”

The context: Gabbard is referring to the case of Kevin Cooper, a Death Row inmate convicted of quadruple murder in 1983. Harris, during her tenure as attorney general, declined to use advanced DNA testing in the widely publicized case.

Last year, after the New York Times published an investigative piece on Cooper’s case, then-Sen. Harris backtracked, saying, “I feel awful about this,” and that she hoped the governor would order the testing. In February, Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered new tests. The results are pending.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Fact-checking-the-Democratic-debate-attacks-14275081.php

From Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter Nicholas Kristof, here are excerpts from his expose that forced Harris to backtrack:

"One Test Could Exonerate Him. Why Won't California Do It? Was Kevin Cooper Framed For Murder?"

In 1983, four people were murdered in a home in Chino Hills, Calif. The sole survivor of the attack said three white intruders had committed the murders. Then a woman told the police that her boyfriend, a white convicted murderer, was probably involved, and she gave deputies his bloody coveralls. So here’s what sheriff’s deputies did: They threw away the bloody coveralls and arrested a young black man named Kevin Cooper. He is now awaiting execution.

<snip>

The test tube miraculously contained the blood of two or more people. This indicated that the sheriff’s office may have used the test tube of Cooper’s blood to frame him, and then topped off the test tube with someone else’s blood.

Cooper’s lawyers ask above all for new “touch DNA” testing — capable of detecting microscopic residues... As state attorney general, Kamala Harris refused to allow this advanced DNA testing and showed no interest in the case (on Friday, after the online publication of this column, Senator Harris called me to say "I feel awful about this" and put out a statement saying: "As a firm believer in DNA testing..."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/17/opinion/sunday/kevin-cooper-california-death-row.html

Gabbard is right: Harris owes Kevin Cooper an apology.

"Harris' district attorney's office violated defendants' rights by hiding damaging information"

As DA, the buck stopped with Harris. More evidence from the SF Chronicle Debate Factcheck that backs up Tulsi Gabbard's claims:

'San Francisco Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo... said Harris’ district attorney’s office violated defendants’ rights by hiding damaging information about the technician and was indifferent to demands that the office account for its failings. “The District Attorney failed to disclose information that clearly should have been disclosed,” the judge wrote in a court order. Plus, Harris’ office did not have a written policy about informing defendants if there were any problems with evidence or witnesses. The scandal led to 1,000 cases being dismissed.'

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Fact-checking-the-Democratic-debate-attacks-14275081.php?psid=glXZf

U.S. judges see ‘epidemic’ of prosecutorial misconduct in state

Judge Alex Kozinski asked Vienna if his boss, Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris, wanted to defend a conviction “obtained by lying prosecutors.” If Harris did not back off the case, Kozinski warned, the court would “name names” in a ruling that would not be “very pretty.”

Judge Kim Wardlaw wanted to know why Riverside County prosecutors presented a murder-for-hire case against the killer but did not charge the man they said had arranged the killings.

“It looks terrible,” said Judge William Fletcher... a rare and critical examination of a murder case in which prosecutors presented false evidence but were never investigated or disciplined... Kozinski, who in the past has spoken out about an “epidemic” of prosecutorial misconduct... told him to get her attention within 48 hours. Harris would need to take action if her office wanted to avoid an embarrassing ruling, Kozinski said.

“Make sure she understands the gravity of the situation,” Kozinski said, adding that the case “speaks very poorly for the attorney general’s office.”

Harris, a candidate for U.S. Senate, changed course."

https://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-lying-prosecutors-20150201-story.html

Harris’s office fought to release fewer prisoners even after the US Supreme Court found that overcrowding in California prisons was so terrible that it amounted to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment! At one point, her lawyers argued that the state couldn’t release some prisoners because it would deplete its pool for prison labor.

"The attack: Gabbard said Harris “kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California.”

The context: This is rooted in the 2011 Supreme Court case that said California’s prisons were too overcrowded. In 2014, lawyers working for the state Department of Justice told a court that if low-level offenders — who are often used to fight wildfires — were freed, it “would severely impact fire camp participation — a dangerous outcome while California is in the middle of a difficult fire season and severe drought.”

In 2014, Harris said she didn’t know lawyers working for her had made that argument until she read published reports of it."

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Fact-checking-the-Democratic-debate-attacks-14275081.php?psid=glXZf

Playing the plausible deniability card by blaming underlings - who know better than to contradict their boss - reflects poorly on Harris.

As befitting a great leader, President Barack Obama always took responsibility for those in his administration and apologized when he felt it was necessary.

As San Francisco DA and California AG, the buck stopped with you Harris. Own it.

The attack: Gabbard said Harris “put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.”

<snip>

On Thursday, a department spokesman told The Chronicle that 1,974 people were admitted for hashish and marijuana convictions during that period.

Harris didn’t back legalizing cannabis for recreational use until last year, two years after California voters did. She also opposed a statewide ballot measure to legalize weed in 2010, when she was San Francisco’s district attorney and running to be state attorney general. Harris called that proposal “flawed public policy.”

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Fact-checking-the-Democratic-debate-attacks-14275081.php

In an interview with Jake Tapper, 'Sen. Kamala Harris acknowledges that a 2010 state truancy law she sponsored resulted in some parents being jailed. But she misleadingly claims that jailing parents was an “unintended consequence” of the law... the law added Section 270.1 to the California Penal Code to allow prosecutors to fine and/or jail a parent “who has failed to reasonably supervise and encourage the pupil’s school attendance.”...Harris, a Democratic candidate for president, was San Francisco District Attorney from 2004 to 2011... as the San Francisco District Attorney, Harris sponsored a state Senate bill — SB 1317... modeled on her truancy initiative in San Francisco, and did result in some parents being jailed.

Los Angeles Times, April 17: Harris took that advocacy statewide, sponsoring a 2010 law to make it a misdemeanor for parents whose young children miss more than 10% of school days a year without a valid excuse. Parents could be punished with a maximum $2,000 fine, up to a year in county jail or both.'

When Jake Tapper asked about the state law, she did not tell the truth. 'The possibility of jailing parents was not an “unintended consequence,” and the bill did not just change the education code. It also created a new section to the California Penal Code, as we have already noted.

Harris knew this, of course... She also said the arrests were “not under my watch,” and that she had “no control” over the arrests — even though she sponsored the state law that allowed for the arrests, and her office provided guidance to local district attorneys on when prosecutions should and should not be made.'

Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/05/kamala-harris-spins-facts-on-truancy-law/

When a Biden campaign advisor described Harris as "slippery" after the first debate, they weren't kidding: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/kamala-harris-biden-debate-busing-1414911

Harris has not refuted one word of Gabbard's claims to this day. She can't very well deny what is a matter of public record.

[jcgoldie]

408. No Oberliner I dont

I'm well aware of your game.

[Princetonian]

409. How amusing! I am not Oberliner. What makes you think I am? Do tell.

[Dawson Leery]

227. Kamala is the anti-Putin candidate.

[Blue_Tires]

228. The only people shocked about this are the ones who haven't been keeping up

Tulsi is only in this race to fuck with the biggest threat to Trump, on behalf of her Russian paymasters... I cannot put it more simply than this.

[Eliot Rosewater]

241. Tulsi works for Putin, we know that now for a fact as the Russian embassy

promotes her candidacy.

[Tarc]

250. This is what the Russian disinfo campaign is focused on

finding a fringe candidate, Democratic or other, amplify their criticisms with trending tweets and such, and hope to drive a wedge in the Democratic voting base.

Stein was Vlad's poster child in 2016. Now they have a new one.

Thank god Williamson sank her own ship with her anti-vax past, otherwise it would've been her.

[Princetonian]

251. Are you accusing those not attacking Gabbard of being part of "the Russian disinfo campaign"?

Tulsi Gabbard has responded to the partisans who are taking part in the smear campaign against her:

Gabbard denied any connections between her campaign and neo-Nazis, distancing herself from the website’s solicitations. “I have and continue to completely denounce people like David Duke, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists and the evil they preach across our country,” she said.

Asked about other conservative supporters, she added: “I don’t know why people like you keep bringing them up other than to try to make it out that I’m something that I’m not... she summed up her view of the backlash: “Smears.”

“They responded by calling you a puppet of Assad,” a supporter cried out...

“The gall that these people have now today to try to smear me and tell me that I don’t love my country, that I’m a Trojan horse for some foreign country, that I’m a Russian, whatever you want to call it," she added. The suggestion "that my oath and loyalties lie anywhere but to the country and to the people I have sworn to put my life on the line for is offensive.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/08/tulsi-gabbard-kamala-harris-2020-1452578

Gabbard is the only Presidential candidate to have served honorably in the Iraq war. Furthermore, she is the first Samoan-American and Hindu ever elected to Congress. In 2012, when she was only 21, Tulsi became the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.

Tulsi served as Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2013-2016.

Gabbard is not a traitor or a Russian Asset. If you have proof otherwise, I suggest you contact the CIA immediately.

[Tarc]

260. "Gabbard is not a traitor or a Russian Asset"

That's nice, chief, but I didn't say she was.

The Russian bot farms are clearly and demonstrably propping up her non-viable campaign, however, as she is a divisive figure within the party, and they hope to use that as a wedge.

[Princetonian]

263. Take note: "Indictment: Russians also tried to help Bernie Sanders..." (USA Today, Feb. 17, 2018)

Last edited Fri Aug 9, 2019, 04:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Do not blame the victims of politically motivated Russian interference. Neither Tulsi or Bernie are/were responsible for or complicit with the orders coming out of Moscow:

'Special counsel Robert Mueller’s office said on Friday that a federal grand jury has indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities accused of interfering with U.S. elections and political processes.

WASHINGTON – It turns out Donald Trump wasn’t the only candidate the Russians allegedly tried to help during the 2016 presidential campaign.

A 37-page indictment resulting from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation shows that Russian nationals and businesses also worked to boost the campaigns of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders... in an effort to damage Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The Russians “engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump,” according to the indictment, which was issued Friday.'

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/17/indictment-russians-also-tried-help-bernie-sanders-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/

----

Russians are equal opportunity shit-stirrers. They do not care about party labels which means it is wrong to assume that the candidates they "support" are bad or believe that the ones that they attack (see Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio) are good. Blaming Tulsi or Bernie is missing this point completely.

Instead of throwing shade at Gabbard, Harris needs to address point by point Gabbard's attack on her history as DA and AG. I have yet to see anything substantive out of the Harris campaign besides deflection and a Kill the Messenger defense which won't work.

Voters deserve to know the truth.

Earlier, I said, "... Unless you have research and sources that can override those of The New York Times, The Mercury Press, LA Times, SF Chronicle and Factcheck.org. Those are the sources which back up Tulsi's claims on this thread. Try reading them with an open mind instead of discounting them out of hand. These news outlets and their editorial staff do not publish Fake News."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=231730

[DaDeacon]

252. She's just a bad candidate...

Let’s not attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. She is just found a Target that lets her claim to be at the big table now. Sadly she going to get the attention she wants from Harris and it’s going to suck for her on the debate stage. You make noise move up some points in the polls and move on.

[Joe941]

253. As much as I hate to say it... Tulsi's attacks on Kamala were devastating.

True or not - it doesn't matter anymore.

[SaschaHM]

337. I hope some of the people supporting Tulsi going after Harris for going after Biden...

keep that same energy when she inevitably goes after Biden. This Assadist went on Fox News night after night to bash the Obama Administration's foreign policy. It's not even going to be a hop, skip, and a jump for her to eventually hit Biden in a similar way. Not to mention the framing of her attacks on Harris' criminal justice record can just as easily be used to hit Biden.

Enjoy it now, but when this Assadist gets up to 2% and takes that shot at Biden, I'm going to laugh.

[JI7]

338. there was a troll that came here just today that started with the ugly attacks

on Biden after attacking Harris.

[SaschaHM]

340. DU often can't see the forest for the trees.

It's why people donated money to Jill Stein for a "recount", which she used to pay staffers instead, after she spent the entire cycle lambasting Hillary and insinuating that she would be worse than Trump.

It's why people bought into that whole "Grandmarshall of the Supreme Court" impeachment bs.

Right now, she's just trying to rally up enough support to get into the debates. As soon as she's secured her seat at the table, her guns are going to be aimed at Biden much like they were aimed at Clinton during 2016.

Then there's this nugget from May when she couldn't even pretend not to despise the Clintons.

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Ftulsi-gabbard-clinton-clapper-joe-rogan

[ucrdem]

342. I didn't donate but I think the Stein recounts were invaluable.

And only Stein could have initiated them.

[Celerity]

394. Stein got PA to switch to voter-verifiable paper ballots with her lawsuit

https://www.apnews.com/da88a6bf0fd1489abfb72b967bfd6fa4

and

https://www.salon.com/2018/12/01/why-it-could-be-much-harder-to-steal-the-vote-in-swing-state-pennsylvania_partner/

Pennsylvania, the 2016 battleground state where many counties refused to conduct a presidential recount, has settled a lawsuit with Green Party candidate Jill Stein and state residents, agreeing to have paper ballot-based voting in place by 2020 and a new audit process to verify vote counts before election results become official by 2022.

“It’s a major improvement to have paper ballots,” Stein said Thursday. “That’s really critical. And it’s really important that we be watchdogging this, and that the issues of transparency and accountability be paramount. And [that] we constantly be measuring [what unfolds] against a very high bar for transparency and accountability.”

snip

the lawsuit docs

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/jillstein/pages/29165/attachments/original/1543446617/Stein._Letter_to_the_Court_with_Settlement_Agreement__dkt_108__11-28-18_%2800356071x9CCC2%29.pdf?1543446617

[Princetonian]

346. Not true. He/she was critical of false attacks on Tulsi's LGBTQ history and corrected them neatly.

I read her/his comments because I was actively refuting the same poster in the same thread and did not want to step on her/his message.

[ucrdem]

341. It's crossed my mind. Here's why I think she won't:

1) it didn't help Harris much, and may have done her permanent damage, speaking as one of her constituents;
2) Biden is and remains the front-runner, and I don't see that changing;
3) If Gabbard hopes to profit politically it would benefit her to stay on good terms with Biden;
4) She said she has concerns for Harris's temperament. I take her at her word. Biden on the other hand has already spent 8 years in the WH and if anything has shown himself to be prudent in matters of launching rockets.

So apart from sheer perversity there's not much to be gained by it, and she'd do more harm than good to herself by going after Biden. With Harris, that's not the case.

[Princetonian]

344. Obama faced similar smears & attacks when he said he would speak to Syria without preconditions.

Last edited Sun Aug 11, 2019, 09:57 AM - Edit history (1)

Due to her time in Iraq, Gabbard is in favor of a non-intervention approach to foreign policy to prevent another FUBAR. This is why she went to meet Trump and Assad:

"Gabbard agreed to meet with Trump to make her case for a noninterventionist foreign policy. A few months later, she flew to Syria and met with Bashar al-Assad, who is presiding over a brutal civil war; she and he seemed to agree that the United States should not intervene to stop it."

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe

When will Harris refute Representative Tulsi Gabbard's criticsm of Harris' history as DA and AG?

Since last Wednesday, there's been ugly unsubstantiated smears aimed at Killing the Messenger but I have not seen one instance where either Harris or her campaign have denied any of what Gabbard asserted.

Don't you find that interesting? Gee, I wonder why....

Oh wait, if anyone bothered to read the evidence contained in this thread, you would know why. There's alot more out there too.

The Democratic Party needs the strongest candidate to face Trump in 2020. Harris is not that candidate. Vice President Joe Biden is. Joe said in a Telemundo interview that he wants a vice president who he can "completely trust" which appears to discount Harris, who has repeatedly and unrepentently implied he is a racist who "worked with segregationists" which is an attack she planned with her advisors for months: "Kamala's attack on Biden was months in the making. She and her advisers assiduously plotted the attack — and how to capitalize on it afterward."
Source link:https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/28/kamala-harris-joe-biden-debate-1390383

Elizabeth Warren would make a terrific VP if she is not the nominee. Her integrity, brilliance and class are undisputed except by Chumpanzees.

Representative Gabbard was Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2013-2016. She served honorably in the Iraq War which has made her skeptical of the official line on the Middle East. Gabbard has been a member of the National Guard since 2003 and is currently on military maneuvers in Indonesia. This is the person you are smearing as "The Assadist".

Representative Gabbard appears to have committed the great sin of publicly exposing faultlines in Harris' relatively unexamined (during her runs for both Senator and now) background as DA and AG.These criticisms are based on fact and will come back to haunt Harris if she were to be the nominee or on the 2020 ticket.

I do not want this to happen. I and other Democrats are still waiting for Harris to address them honestly.

[Celerity]

395. so I can assume that you are not a fan of a Biden/Harris ticket?

I am not.

Also I happen to agree about the dodgy smears on Gabbard. Many are so much situational ethics. Some critiques are legit though, like her closeness with that rotter Modi, and she does tend to get too overboard at times with the anti-muslim stuff (so ironic as she is smeared as an 'Assadist', and thus supporting Iran, lolol.)

Russian just latches on to some of her anti-empiric war themes, as it happens to suit their non-linear warfare model of multi-variate destabilisation. I do NOT think her a traitor, just a person who pisses off a lot of people from a wide variety of angles. I am glad she changed on her LGBTQ stances, I accept that she has.

Traitors are fuckers like Bush, Cheney, most all the shitbag neocons, etc who got us into an illegal war in Iraq (and all those who want one with Iran, like Bolton, et. al), and then, of course, Moscow Mitch, Barr, Manafort, Kushner, and the entire demonoid grifter Rump clan, minus Tiffany and Barron.

[Princetonian]

396. In his Telemundo interview, Joe said he wants a VP he "can completely trust" which leaves Harris out

"No to Harris" for me as well and for Biden family members like Jill who have had to publicly defend him against Harris' ugly insinuation that he is a racist.

What a nice reply, Celerity -- so different from the "smear & spin" that I usually peruse. I found myself smiling while I read your post.

I agree with your perspective, of course, though I suspect her relationship to Modi is part of her foreign policy modus operandi in keeping potential future influence paths open so she can negotiate policy with who is leading a global behemoth if an opportunity presents itself.

By the way, the following post is an absolute joy. You need to take over for Schumer. Or become his top aide... like now! I agree with your top winning Senate picks (Hickenlooper in CO and Mark Kelly in AZ) but the rest are going to be a challenge, eh? I wish Abrams would run in GA but she is waiting to be vetted for Joe's VP. So many others are turning down what could be winnable races. I don't fault Beto for skipping Texas, by the way.

Celerity
21. I am always talking about the Senate, especially the big guns who are turning down running
in most every one of the 12 possible flippable States.

Here is my completely up to date, most detailed post yet on the state of the races.

We need a plus 4 net to flip the Senate to a 51-49 Dem advantage (so no power sharing agreements needed at all) as it stands, and a plus 5 net if Paedo Moore is not the Rethug Alabama nominee (and even that bastard will be hard for Jones to beat in a POTUS year in Alabama) and we lose Doug Jones. We should absolute hold all our other seats. Jeanne Shaheen in NH is the only one that is probably not a 99% lock, with the Rethugs choosing between Don Bolduc, former U.S. Army brigadier general, Bill O'Brien, former Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, Kelly Ayotte, former U.S. Senator and former Attorney General of New Hampshire, Scott 'Pickup' Brown, U.S. Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa, former U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, and 2014 Republican nominee for U.S. Senate from New Hampshire, and the lunatic Rump stooge (and Hope Hicks' ex BF/verbal abuser), Corey Lewandowski. Bolduc and Ayotte are probably their best shots there (with Bolduc worrying me the most), but I feel really good about our chances to hold it, due to Rump being between 11 and 17 points (depending on the poll) underwater overall in NH.


These are all the remotely possible races where we can flip, all 12 of them. Some are very much a stretch, and also we are having a lot of big names refuse to run, in fact, all the arguably best candidates in 10 of the 12 states have all refused, so far, to run.


These are the only 2 states ATM with our strongest possible candidates running:

Arizona (Mark Kelly has a great chance at beating McSally. This was (until Hickenlooper got smart) the only state so far that we had the best potential candidate already running.)

Colorado Hickenlooper now running makes it 90-95% that we flip this. Even if you do not think he is the best on policy, he still is the most electable. All I ask is that he knocks it off with the red-baiting (saying progressives are bringing back Stalin and Marx's policies), which is asinine and plays into the fucking Rethug's hands.


Now the ones who do NOT have our strongest candidates running as of yet:


Alaska (I hope Mark Begich, our ex US Senator there, runs versus Sullivan, he has said he was not, but now may change his mind.) If Begich ends up completely declining, then it will probably be between Ethan Berkowitz, the mayor of Anchorage, and Forrest Dunbar, Anchorage assemblyman and nominee for Alaska's at-large congressional district in 2014.

Maine (Susan Rice, who has said no quite emphatically, would have been the best to knock out the POS hypocrite Collins IMHO, but hopefully we can find another great one, it looks likely to be Sara Gideon atm, I think Gideon can take out Collins, just was more sure on Rice, but she is not going to run.)

Montana (The most glaring one, probably, grrrr as Bullock is basically the only one of ours who would have a great chance at beating Daines, I think Bullock would defeat him, but he has said dozens of times he will not run, I just heard him say it again today. Only redeemable way this works is if Biden makes him his VP pick, which I fully support, as that ticket is the hardest to attack for Rump and the Rethugs.) I think we MIGHT have a shot if Brian Schweitzer changes his mind and runs.

Tennessee (open Rethug seat, due to Alexander retiring, I so hope Tim McGraw (yes the superstar singer, who say for years he would run when he was 50, and he is 52 now) reconsiders his turndown, he would have the best shot from all I have seen, most of the other candidates we have are already one time losers, some just last year, or pretty unknown. The two I see who are the best should McGraw not change his mind are Jeff Yarbro and James Mackler)

Georgia (Stacey Abrams and Sally Yates would have had the best chances by far to beat Perdue, but each one has said no over and over, so it is going to be much harder I fear, even though Perdue is weak, and a shit campaigner. So far it looks like the best of the rest are Teresa Tomlinson and perhaps Jon Ossoff )

Kansas (open Rethug seat due to Roberts retiring, the right candidate for us has a shot, maybe Kathleen Sebelius, but she also just said no, and a big local paper says that really hurts our chances This is a carbon copy of Montana, just swap in Sebelius for Bullock, its a Red state and all the insiders say she is only Dem who can win.)

Iowa (Cindy Axne and Vilsack, probably our 2 best chances to beat Ernst, both have declined to run, but I have hope we can find another great candidate, Theresa Greenfield or Abby Finkenauer look to be the best of the rest, thsi is like Maine to me)

North Carolina (our two best candidates by far, Foxx and Stein, have both said no, grrr, I so hope one, especially Foxx, re-considers) Tillis is so ripe for the picking if we get one of those 2 to run, and still may have a shot if it is another, Cal Cunningham perhaps, or Erica Smith, but both will have a harder time that Stein or Foxx would have had. This one is so so irritating me.

now the two wishful thinking states:

Kentucky This is probably the 2nd toughest. Andy Beshear might have had a shot at dumping McTurtle, but he is running for Governor, Amy McGrath is who we are going to have to roll with, and it is not impossible, due to McConnell being truly hated even by some Rethugs, his overall approval numbers are worse than Rump by far, amongst the bottom in all the Senate. Overall a huge reach, but so hope Moscow Mitch goes DOWN. McGrath needs to make no more errors like the one she did right at kickoff (saying she would have voted yes for Kavanaugh for SCOTUS. The same thing crushed Bredeson in TN in 2018, so depressed our base turnout.)

Texas Cornyn in Texas is the toughest reach, IMHO, even if Beto runs (which I doubt he will.) Cornyn is streets ahead of Cruz in terms of TX popularity. I like Amanda Edwards a lot, I hope she wins the Primary, but, I do not see a pathway to anyone beating Cornyn unless something massive breaks our way.


We would need to win FIVE of those 12 to flip it to 51-49 IF Jones goes down in Alabama, and only CO is even close to one that I would say is a pretty good chance to label a semi-lock, and some are just downright so so hard, even if the best candidates change their minds and run. My true target is 6 flips, so we are at 52-48, and thus negate Manchin and Sinema, who vote with the Rethugs 55% of the time, far more than any other Democratic Senators. I SO hope Hickenlooper does not become the 3rd member of that posse, lolol.

Schumer and Cortez Masto have been so poor at recruiting the best candidates, it is one of the biggest stories of 2020 so far. I am going to give up on pulling the people who I think are strongest in ME, IA, (those two I can be happy with who we have) TX, and KY. We just have to roll with who we have there now. AZ and CO now have our best possible, so that leaves:

AK (Begich run!)
MT (Bullock run! or if he is VP, or if he refuses, Schweitzer run!)
TN (McGraw run!)
KS (Sebelius run!)
NC (Foxx and/or Stein run!)
GA (Abrams run! or Yates run! if Abrams is the VP or refuses still)

IF all those above change their minds and run, I can say, with at least 55% or more confidence, we will hit at least 6 flips, and maybe, IF Rump just gets crushed, win 10 of the 12, and if he goes down with (my biggest possible EC count giving us EVERY remotely possible EV) we may get all 12, plus keep Jones. If that happened we would have 59 seats, so one seat shy of a filibusterer proof majority, and one of the dead Red lock states is by far the best bet there to grab the magic number 60, that being Mike Rounds in SD going down, hopefully to ex Senator Tim Johnson's son, Brendan Johnson. The max possible EC victory count by the way, that paved the way for a 12 out of 12 sweep plus Jones holding and SD even maybe flipped, was our Dem POTUS nominee 472 - Rump 66. A girl can dream!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=250763

[Celerity]

397. wow, thanks!

I hope he pick Abrams too. I can see her as a POTUS in 4 (if Biden decides 1 term is enough at 82 years of age) or 8 years. With Pete as her VP!!!!

They both have that 'it' presence, more so than almost any others I have seen since Obama. Pete needs to sort his racial/copper issues and quick. The anti-LGBTQ issue will take care of itself over the next decade or so, even with my fellow PoC, at least I so hope so, and at least to the point he can gain traction in disparate communities. The generations who have significant amounts of that form of bigotry to disproportionate degrees are slowly dying off.

I think the other VP options Biden looks at will be Deval Patrick (an old Obama favourite for POTUS at one time, and close to Biden philosophy wise, especially on economic issues), Cedric Richmond (whose only downside is he is only a Representative, BUT was the CBC chair and is on Biden's campaign already as Co-Chair.), and obviously Susan Rice, or if he tosses gender and race completely out the window, Bullock or Inslee or even Ryan perhaps. Sherrod Brown would be great, but that would so fuck us in the senate (Rethug OH Governor DeWine would appoint his successor.)

Other options, Roy Cooper from NC (Governor and REALLY puts that state into play)

Martin O'Malley (ex Governor, already a bit vetted due to 2016 run)

John Lynch NH (ex Governor, most popular governor in the US whilst he was in office, and also most popular in NH history)

Martin Heinrich NM Senator

Gavin Newsom CA (he seems a POTUS type out of Hollywood casting, Harris would probably rage, lolol, who knows, I think he deffo runs for the top in a few years)

super wild card

4-Star Admiral William McRaven (brilliant guy, super charismatic and looks the part, but needs to be seen if his cancer (which forced him to step down as University of Texas President several years back) is in check. He would smash Rump and Pence on a Rethug strong (not really, it is a myth, they are shit) point, military security)

[Princetonian]

405. My pleasure, really! Now let's see what you have here, Celerity...

I hope he pick Abrams too. I can see her as a POTUS in 4 (if Biden decides 1 term is enough at 82 years of age) or 8 years. With Pete as her VP!!!!

They both have that 'it' presence, more so than almost any others I have seen since Obama. Pete needs to sort his racial/copper issues and quick. The anti-LGBTQ issue will take care of itself over the next decade or so, even with my fellow PoC, at least I so hope so, and at least to the point he can gain traction in disparate communities. The generations who have significant amounts of that form of bigotry to disproportionate degrees are slowly dying off.

That would be a full Technicolor continuation of the Dream.

I think the other VP options Biden looks at will be Deval Patrick (an old Obama favourite for POTUS at one time, and close to Biden philosophy wise, especially on economic issues), Cedric Richmond (whose only downside is he is only a Representative, BUT was the CBC chair and is on Biden's campaign already as Co-Chair.), and obviously Susan Rice, or if he tosses gender and race completely out the window, Bullock or Inslee or even Ryan perhaps. Sherrod Brown would be great, but that would so fuck us in the senate (Rethug OH Governor DeWine would appoint his successor.)

Susan Rice is so sharp and a team player but is she a good retail campaigner? We need a VP who can win the presidency someday. Rice would make a great Secretary of State. I admire Inslee very much. Would he want to be Energy Secretary? He seems born for the role. I hope Bullock runs for Senator. Patrick and Richmond are tested loyal men. Both would be terrific on the campaign trail.

Other options, Roy Cooper from NC (Governor and REALLY puts that state into play)

Martin O'Malley (ex Governor, already a bit vetted due to 2016 run)

John Lynch NH (ex Governor, most popular governor in the US whilst he was in office, and also most popular in NH history)

Martin Heinrich NM Senator

Gavin Newsom CA (he seems a POTUS type out of Hollywood casting, Harris would probably rage, lolol, who knows, I think he deffo runs for the top in a few years)

super wild card

4-Star Admiral William McRaven (brilliant guy, super charismatic and looks the part, but needs to be seen if his cancer (which forced him to step down as University of Texas President several years back) is in check. He would smash Rump and Pence on a Rethug strong (not really, it is a myth, they are shit) point, military security)

Nice list. Such a deep bench! McRaven is the only question mark.

We have the potential of keeping the White House for decades as the demographic trends continue to favor the Democratic Party. Somehow 2020 feels like the Year of the Woman VP with Abrams looking good if she passes vetting which she should because you know that dog of a GA governor and his allies tried their hardest to shade her.

[Celerity]

406. Kemp belongs in prison for stealing (a charge I almost never make) that election nt

[Demsrule86]

399. I am still waiting for the Harris campaign to address Gabbards claims? How long is it now?

[Cha]

415. Laugh all you want.. I want nothing

to do with Gabbard.. I know who she is.

I hope Kai Kaheli beats her in the 2020 primary, too.

[tymorial]

351. Pot meets kettle

I don't believe a word that comes out of gabbard's mouth

[Princetonian]

363. None of Gabbard's claims have been refuted by Harris or her campaign.

Questions to Ask Yourself:

Why didn't Harris refute Gabbard's claims during her CNN and MSNBC appearances on the morning of August 1st?

CNN asked her about it, showed her the video clip and she still did not refute the claims.

Why wouldn't she simply and categorically refute Gabbard's claims if they were not true?

[oasis]

364. I'm no fan of Tulsi, but Kamala needs to speak up on this. nt

[FreeLookMode]

365. Why does she have this fixation on Harris? What's the tactical advantage?

Harris isn't the front runner, are Harris and Gabbard fighting over the same base supporters? It seems odd to me that the Gabbard campaign has now become equated with the go after Harris campaign. She's just one not very well performing candidate among many? I don't get it. Seems like the targets would be biden, sanders, warren in that order.

[Princetonian]

367. Good question. Here's my take on Gabbard's motivation...

Last edited Sat Aug 17, 2019, 04:01 PM - Edit history (7)

"It seems odd to me that the Gabbard campaign has now become equated with the go after Harris campaign. She's just one not very well performing candidate among many? I don't get it. Seems like the targets would be biden, sanders, warren in that order."

This surprisingly in-depth non-softball interview gave me insight into Gabbard. Tulsi gives her reasons for running in this at-times tough interview on The View where she gets asked questions on issues that many are curious about or have smeared her reputation over:

This is an helpful additional insight into Gabbard: then Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee Representative Tulsi Gabbard gave high public praise to Barack and Joe during her 2012 convention speech. Gabbard has been in the National Guard since 2003 and served honorably in the Iraq War. She, like many soldiers, are loyal to those who have done good for those who have served. I believe Gabbard respects and likes Joe very much. No backstabber here.

'At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, Gabbard praised President Obama, a fellow-Hawaiian, and Vice-President Joe Biden, along with their wives, as “the strongest advocates our military families could ever have.”'

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe

Tulsi showed her loyalty to former VP Joe when she surprised many by fiercely defending Joe after Harris attacked by implying Joe is a racist during the first debate. I believe she helped Joe when no other candidate would defend him.

Remember Beau Biden also served honorably in Iraq. To Gabbard, that service to country - similar to her own as a scion of a Hawaiian political dynasty - by Joe's much mourned beloved son must mean a great deal. Joe is family.

'Gabbard hits Harris "for false accusation that Biden is a racist":
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/451962-tulsi-gabbard-slams-kamala-harris-it-was-a-false-accusation-that-joe-biden

You said: "It seems odd to me that the Gabbard campaign has now become equated with the go after Harris campaign. She's just one not very well performing candidate among many? I don't get it. Seems like the targets would be biden, sanders, warren in that order."

My guess as to Gabbard's motivation?

She intensely disliked Harris' premeditated (yes, that is true - "months in the making" - Politico did a story on it: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/28/kamala-harris-joe-biden-debate-1390383) implication-attacks that Joe is a racist about which Harris was completely unrepentent in interviews she gave afterwards, including Politico. Then Harris doubled down in the second debate when she reminded everyone - again - that Joe "worked with segregationists".

Gabbard decided that "payback's a b*tch" after the first debate (as that old saying I knew growing up goes) and she was going to be the one to deliver it at the second debate. Whether or not Harris' attacks on Joe at the second debate had any effect on Gabbard's decision to launch is anyone's guess.

That's my take, anyway. Your mileage may differ.

[Princetonian]

368. Anderson Cooper to Tulsi: "Clearly you, your team did your research and had facts down." (CNN Video)

Last edited Mon Aug 26, 2019, 02:33 PM - Edit history (6)

Anderson Cooper did his research too because he knew Tulsi Gabbard was telling the truth. He brings up what Harris said when he brought up Tulsi's claims. Good interview where he grills Tulsi on many issues people here want answers to...so listen to the answers and decide for yourself!

[stonecutter357]

378. lol !

[lsewpershad]

402. Tulsi is just jealous of Kamala.

[Princetonian]

411. What could Representative Gabbard be "jealous" of?

Is it this?



Or this?

http://echeloninsights.com/wp-content/uploads/Omnibus-August-2019_Dem-Primary.pdf

Q. If the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries were being held today and you had to make a choice between these two candidates, for whom would you vote? (asked of Democrats & Democratic leaners)

August: Sanders versus Biden +20% | July: Biden +29%
August: Warren versus Biden +20% | July Biden +19%
August: Harris versus Biden +24% | July Biden +23%

Their polling showed that if the primary race were down to only two Democratic candidates at this point, Biden being one of them:

Biden beats Sanders 55% - 35%

Biden beats Warren 52% to 32%

Biden beats Harris 55% to 31%


Biden has slipped a little from July. But that 20+ points is still a commanding lead over his three closest competitors in those head-to-head matchups.

When they simply asked for Democratic candidate preference, the results were:

Biden 30%
Sanders 19%
Warren 11%
Harris 11%
O'Rourke 4%
Booker 4%
Buttigieg 3%
All others 1% or less

Maybe it's these?

LIKELY VOTER Harris X Aug.23-26: Biden 36%, Sanders 14%, Warren 14%, Harris 6%, Buttigieg 5%: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287255855





** NEW ** Morning Consult/Politico Poll - vs Trump: Biden +7, Sanders +5, Warren (-), Harris (-3)

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/21/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-beat-trump-poll-1470372

Biden and Bernie the only Democrats to beat Trump in new poll

Snip...

Biden leads Trump by 7 points overall in the POLITICO/Morning Consult survey and also posts larger leads than the other Democratic candidates among independents (by 8 points), self-identified moderates (27 points) and voters in the Midwest (5 points).

Biden “would potentially attract the most broad swath of voters across the ideological spectrum in a matchup against President Trump,” said Tyler Sinclair, Morning Consult’s vice president. “Our polling shows 38 percent of independents and 9 percent of Republicans say they would vote for Biden over Trump, respectively. Bernie Sanders receives the same level of support among independents but less Republican support at 6 percent, while Elizabeth Warren holds at 32 percent of independents and 5 percent of Republicans.”

https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/190845_crosstabs_POLITICO_RVs_v1_JB.pdf

Biden 42 vs Trump 35
Sanders 40 vs Trump 35
Warren 35 vs Trump 35
Harris 32 vs Trump 35
Booker 28 vs Trump 35
Buttigieg 27 vs Trump 35
O'Rourke 28 vs Trump 36

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287248154

Looking at the above poll results, former DNC Vice Chair (2013-2016), Iraq War veteran and National Guard member (serving our country since 2003) Representative Tulsi Gabbard should be very envious of Joe. Instead, she publicly defended him after the first debate against Harris' implication that Joe is a racist.

Rhetoric 101. "I don't believe you're a racist, but..." means you're about to imply he's a racist.

I am puzzled. Please explain why "Tulsi is jealous of Kamala"? Thanks in advance!