Has anyone reviewed the amounts and sources of Tulsi Gabbard's contributions? Does the DNC ever

[Atticus]

do this?

I just wonder if several thousand of her "contributions" are one dollar each from an assortment of Russian bots.

Her presence on the next debate stage will be an embarrassment.

[sharedvalues]

1. Many are from Republicans. DNC should ban her

Having smart people who are Democratic leaders close candidates is actually often GOOD.

Williamson and Gabbard are not good candidates for Democrats or for America.

[blm]

2. That was my first thought

[applegrove]

3. Or republican donors.

[still_one]

4. нет

[Blue_true]

5. Her and Williamson are getting help from the right.

Some on the right have admitted it. They want to gum up our debates.

If I remember correctly, Williamson is close to qualifying for the next debate. She needs one 2% poll (she has the donor numbers). It is all a sham, her "donors" are given $1 or $2. The accual composition of her donations isn't something that the DNC is privy to. The DNC can dictate that a donation to a candidate must be more than a specific amount (say $25 minimum), but people like Senator Sanders would likely immediately call that elitist.

[brush]

7. Williamson is out there on some issues (vacinating) but don't put her in Gabbard's...

class. She's a Dem, just somewhat wacky. Gabbard is a repug in Dem clothing.

[Blue_true]

8. Williamson is a Dem, but she has been a useful tool for the rightwing ratfuckers. nt

[brush]

10. You made the charge. Tell us how so.

[Blue_true]

11. She has been on Fox News a couple of times panning democrats and our nominating process. nt

[thesquanderer]

17. re: "Gabbard is a repug in Dem clothing."

I'd sooner believe she was a russian plant than a disguised republican. The russian thing may be sheer speculation, but it is at least not so obviously false on its face.

Look at Gabbard's actual votes since she's been in congress, not nearly as close to Republican even as many other Dems. Look at the positions she has put forth in her campaign (which are consistent with that liberal voting record). She's not even a lousy "republican," she's not even a good "blue dog Democrat."

Williamson, Gabbard, Sanders, and Warren are all positionally similar, on the left side of the Dem spectrum. Williamson has repeatedly praised Sanders and Warren, and both Williamson and Gabbard supported Sanders in 2016 (which, I know, is something else some here will hold against them).

[brush]

19. Your opinion on Gabbard differs from mine. She has, btw, said that trump's extortion of the...

president of the Ukraine does not rise to the level of impeachment, a position taken by the republican party.

[thesquanderer]

20. It's not a matter of liking Gabbard or not, or of her stand on any particular issue.

Last edited Fri Sep 27, 2019, 01:10 PM - Edit history (1)

It's just a matter of trying to be factual, that her proposals and VOTES align much, much more with the Dem party than Repub.

I hope she comes around on impeachment... but until two days ago, her position was the same as Nancy Pelosi's, who I assume you were not calling a DINO before then.

[brush]

21. Her position was what two days ago?

[thesquanderer]

22. Up until two days ago, Gabbard and Pelosi both did not feel impeachment was worth pursuing.nt

[brush]

23. Pelosi's public stance has always been that she wanted to continue with the investigations of the...

House committees and see where the investigations led. She never said she was against impeachment, just that we weren't there yet and the majority of her caucus definitely wasn't there yet. She also is on record as saying "trump will self-impeach", and as soon as he did she initiated an impeachment inquiry.

I don't recall that being Gabbard's positions at all.

[thesquanderer]

24. The two of them have repeatedly talked about impeachment being divisive.

This week's revelations and the pressure of so many of her caucus members now wanting to impeach have finally tipped Pelosi the other way.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/867187/pelosi-reportedly-asking-democrats-time-impeach-trump

I'm not saying the two have been identical in their statements... and obviously, one wouldn't expect them to be, even if only because their positions and responsibilities are different. But up until a couple of days ago, both felt that, based on what was known so far, impeachment was not prudent.

We'll see if Gabbard moves on this. But my point was that, up until two days ago, neither Gabbard nor Pelosi were in favor of pursuing impeachment. Even today, Gabbard is not the only Dem in the House not (yet) supporting impeachment, there are 15 others. List at:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/trump-impeachment-congress-list.html

[brush]

25. Give it up. Pelosi has always played her cards close to the vest. She sprung the impeachment...

inquiry on trump when the time was right which should tell any thinking person what her actual position was all along. Do not equate her with the repug-talking-point-spewing Gabbard.

You can defend the DINO all you want but you're the only one on this board who does. Haven't you taken a glance at the other posters who also are not fooled by Gabbard?

Now I'm done with this.

[thesquanderer]

26. I understand not liking Gabbard, I understand most of the slams against her.

I just think the one saying that she is DINO (i.e. Republican) makes no sense, when you look at her positions and her actual voting record.

[thesquanderer]

15. re:"Williamson is close to qualifying for the next debate. She needs one 2% poll"

She needs three more, by Oct 1.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tulsi-gabbard-is-the-12th-candidate-to-make-octobers-democratic-debate/

Unless she's already gotten more since that article on Tuesday?

[ecstatic]

6. The DNC needs to intervene. She is being propped up by the GOP

and possibly foreign donors. She will take time away from our viable candidates--and I'm sure her only goal will be to attack and tear down the front runners.

[Blue_true]

9. The DNC has no way to intervene other than raising the minimum amount

that a candidate can accept from a donor. If the minimum donation is raised to say $25, the bots and rightwing ratfuckers are likely to not want to pay that. As long as they can make $2 donations, they will play all day long. But if the DNC raised the Min donation, expect a person like Senator Sanders to call the change "elitist".

[brooklynite]

13. The DNC can't set any requirements as to how much or how little a person can contribute.

[brooklynite]

12. Everything is listed on the FEC website...

[Devil Child]

14. I review the amount and source every time I donate to Rep. Gabbard

Amount = what I can afford.

Source = my wallet.

Repeat the above as often as I can.

Her presence on the debate stage is welcome news to me!

[MineralMan]

16. Tulsi Gabbard is insignificant in the extreme.

Who cares? I mean, really...

[George II]

18. I've looked at the filings of several of the top candidates - Biden, Harris, Warren, Sanders...

...O'Rourke.

I didn't bother with Gabbard's because the headlines were that she was getting very little. I'll look at them and see if there's anything weird.

[George II]

27. 61% of her contributions are "unitemized", that's lower than some other candidates....

Also, of her 1907 itemized contributors (not including those unitemized) 1008 have given more than once, but the highest number of contributions is 43 from one individual, most of that 1008 were 2 or 3 contributions.

That's a sharp contrast from another candidate who has contributors that have given hundreds of times, one more than 800 times in four months!