Tulsi: Trump: Stop hiding Saudi role in 911 and protecting Al Qaeda

sbenois said:

Tulsi the Warmonger: Special Harassing the Free Press Supplementary Edition:

Ugly stuff here.  Tulsi seems to run a cult.

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/20612/DDOS-Attack-on-Hawaii-Free-Presstied-to-Gabbards-Cult.aspx

 It turns out that those calling Tulsi a religious bigot are the religious bigots.

But we've seen this kind of thing in politics before:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/1...

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

The fact that Tulsi was not contested by anyone in the Party is an even stronger endorsement of her views.

After reading up a little on who makes up the DNC and how its vice chairs are selected, I think it’s safe for me to laugh at this now.

 Except that if the accusations of Islamophobia and homophobia against Tulsi were even half true, there are plenty of DNC members who would have objected.

paulsurovell said:

 It turns out that those calling Tulsi a religious bigot are the religious bigots.

But we've seen this kind of thing in politics before:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/1...

Perfect example of a Gish Gallop ******** Artist at work. Divert. Change the subject.    

paulsurovell said:

 Except that if the accusations of Islamophobia and homophobia against Tulsi were even half true, there are plenty of DNC members who would have objected.

Tulsi is well known in DC as being an Islamophobe.  It's one of the main reasons why she is tolerated by the Right.   

And the accusations of her being a homophobe come from an impeccable source: her own writings and her own mouth.

sbenois said:

paulsurovell said:

 Except that if the accusations of Islamophobia and homophobia against Tulsi were even half true, there are plenty of DNC members who would have objected.

Tulsi is well known in DC as being an Islamophobe.  It's one of the main reasons why she is tolerated by the Right.   

And the accusations of her being a homophobe come from an impeccable source: her own writings and her own mouth.

 @sbenois, having made a total fool of himself, moves directly into Trump-speak channeling "It is well-known that Obama is a Muslim"

The "homophobe" lie is so pathetic, I hesitate to bring out the antidote again, but it's always good to hear from the first openly LGBTQ member of Congress from New York.

Keep 'em coming.

sbenois said:

paulsurovell said:

 It turns out that those calling Tulsi a religious bigot are the religious bigots.

But we've seen this kind of thing in politics before:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/1...

Perfect example of a Gish Gallop ******** Artist at work. Divert. Change the subject.    

 No, we're not going to let you get away with diverting attention from Janine di Giovanni's excellent article on Israeli war crimes against unarmed protesters in Gaza and its blockade which is causing extreme suffering among the children of Gaza.

It's too important.

My bold.

https://www.nydailynews.com/op...

She's not an Assad apologist; she simply believes in trying to stop armed conflict through negotiations

By Michael Tracey Jan 17, 2019 | 1:52 PM

Excerpts

[ . . . ]

Claiming that politicians are “defending” objectionable rulers they meet with, in pursuit of achieving some alternative to war, is a tired trope that has been frequently used throughout history to discredit diplomatic engagement. As Gabbard told me in an interview shortly after returning from Syria: “The reason why I decided to take this meeting on this trip was because if we profess to care about the Syrian people — if we really truly care about ending their suffering and ending this war — then we should be ready to meet with anyone if there is a chance that that meeting and that conversation could help to bring about an end to this war.”

“Whether you like it or not, if there is any hope for an end to the war in Syria, that engagement and conversation needs to happen,” she said.

Gabbard had previously called Assad a “brutal dictator,” but no amount of  nuance seemed to placate her critics. Ironically, the mindset she projects was once ascendant in the Democratic Party: the notion that
simply meeting with foreign despots was in no way tantamount to an endorsement of those despots, and in fact is crucial if diplomatic accords are to be achieved in some of the world’s most troubled regions.

In the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama invoked the example of John F. Kennedy to explain why he would be willing to take meetings “without preconditions” with the heads of Iran, Cuba and North Korea. Hillary Clinton, his opponent at the time, declared she would not do so and denounced the prospect as “naive.” Obama, needless to say, won the political argument.

Gabbard likened her efforts in Syria to those of a predecessor in Congress, Patsy Mink, who held the same Hawaii House seat she now occupies, and in 1972 met with a delegate representing the Viet Cong at a Paris peace conference. “She was criticized heavily for that, much as we are seeing now,” Gabbard told me. Mink also subsequently mounted a short-lived presidential bid, primarily as a critic of U.S. policy in Vietnam.

Much to the consternation of her critics, Gabbard’s posture continued in the ensuing months, when the Trump administration launched missile strikes against a Syrian airfield in retaliation for a chemical attack alleged to have been orchestrated by Assad. During an appearance on CNN, Gabbard said she was “skeptical” of the evidence put forward to justify the strikes. Although it would seem sensible to express skepticism of Trump’s claims, especially as they relate to the purported rationale for a military action, this was frantically denounced as further dictator-defending apologia on her part.

[ . . . ]

Paul went to the Twitter to lie about me and my comments on this thread.

Just an fyi.

nohero said:

Paul went to the Twitter to lie about me and my comments on this thread.

Just an fyi.

You know that anyone who uses the term "the Twitter" is a s_hmuck.

Good article on Tulsi by Matt Taibbi:

https://www.rollingstone.com/p...

paulsurovell said:

You know that anyone who uses the term "the Twitter" is a s_hmuck.

Is there a citation for that, or did you simply pull that out of your posterior, like everything else you lecture about?

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

You know that anyone who uses the term "the Twitter" is a s_hmuck.

Is there a citation for that, or did you simply pull that out of your posterior, like everything else you lecture about?

 You know that anyone who asks for a citation for that is a s_hmuck.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

You know that anyone who uses the term "the Twitter" is a s_hmuck.

Is there a citation for that, or did you simply pull that out of your posterior, like everything else you lecture about?

 You know that anyone who asks for a citation for that is a s_hmuck.

Here, let them know they're schmucks: https://twitter.com/hashtag/thetwitter 

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

You know that anyone who uses the term "the Twitter" is a s_hmuck.

Is there a citation for that, or did you simply pull that out of your posterior, like everything else you lecture about?

 You know that anyone who asks for a citation for that is a s_hmuck.

Here, let them know they're schmucks: https://twitter.com/hashtag/thetwitter 

Posting #thetwitter is not using the term "the Twitter". 

I know who’s a s_hmuck: Me, for still calling up this thread.

I do enjoy a game of Hangman, though. 

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

You know that anyone who uses the term "the Twitter" is a s_hmuck.

Is there a citation for that, or did you simply pull that out of your posterior, like everything else you lecture about?

 You know that anyone who asks for a citation for that is a s_hmuck.

Here, let them know they're schmucks: https://twitter.com/hashtag/thetwitter 

Posting #thetwitter is not using the term "the Twitter". 

The World's Foremost Authority has spoken.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/08/23/who-is-supporting-tulsi-gabbards-candidacy/

sbenois said:

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/08/23/who-is-supporting-tulsi-gabbards-candidacy/

 Great description of Michael Tracey and the latest "outrage" being pushed by Tulsi:

In other words, the label that might best fit Tracey is “****-stirrer.” He not only denies Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election, but once suggested that if Russia did interfere, the American public should be thankful.

These days, Tracey is stirring up some **** that is reminiscent of a myth that was promulgated by Sanders supporters during the 2016 presidential primary: that the Democratic National Committee is rigging the game against Gabbard. At this point, the congresswoman from Hawaii hasn’t qualified for the September debate, with the deadline for doing so coming up next week. Even though the DNC announced the criteria to qualify for this debate back in May, Tracey is suggesting that it was rigged to keep Gabbard out. That message is now being picked up by right wing outlets like American Thinker.

And of course, Tracey brings this siht-show to Tucker "No such thing as White Supremacy" Carlson:

Poll numbers are in Tulsi won't be in the next debate.  I'm surprised she got as far as she did.

nohero said:

And of course, Tracey brings this siht-show to Tucker "No such thing as White Supremacy" Carlson:

 Look who's been on Tucker Carlson

sbenois said:

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/08/23/who-is-supporting-tulsi-gabbards-candidacy/

 It is the people who are using her candidacy—with or without her
consent—to foment disruption and chaos in the process of selecting a
nominee that is cause for concern.

Wow. That's some heavy stuff. Glad you found something that makes you happy.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

And of course, Tracey brings this siht-show to Tucker "No such thing as White Supremacy" Carlson:

 Look who's been on Tucker Carlson

Pretending to miss the point (as Paul is wont to do) doesn't actually make a point.

Take Paul's pictures, compare them to this one, and you can sing, "One of these things is not like the others."

nohero said:

Pretending to miss the point (as Paul is wont to do) doesn't actually make a point.

Take Paul's pictures, compare them to this one, and you can sing, "One of these things is not like the others."

 Just wanted to show your heroes on Tucker Carlson to dispose of your suggestion that there is something wrong with appearing on his show.

Here is what Michael Tracey wrote about the questionable DNC criteria that has thus far excluded Tulsi from the September debate:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/08/21/gabbard_victimized_by_dncs_dubious_debate_criteria_141055.html

[ Excerpt ]

Tulsi Gabbard is on the verge of being excluded from the next Democratic presidential debate on the basis of criteria that appear increasingly absurd.

Take, for instance, her poll standing in New Hampshire, which currently places Gabbard at 3.3% support, according to the RealClearPolitics average as of Aug. 20. One might suspect that such a figure would merit inclusion in the upcoming debates -- especially considering she’s ahead of several candidates who have already been granted entry, including Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, and Andrew Yang. But the Democratic National Committee has decreed that the polls constituting this average are not sufficiently “qualifying.”

What makes a poll “qualifying” in the eyes of the DNC? The answer is conspicuously inscrutable. Months ago, party chieftains issued a list of “approved sponsoring organizations/institutions” for polls that satisfy their criteria for debate admittance. Not appearing on that list is the Boston Globe, which sponsored a Suffolk University poll published Aug. 6 that placed Gabbard at 3%. The DNC had proclaimed that for admittance to the September and October debates, candidates must secure polling results of 2% or more in four separate “approved” polls -- but a poll sponsored by the newspaper with the largest circulation in New Hampshire (the Globe recently surpassed the New Hampshire Union Leader there) does not count, per this cockamamie criteria. There has not been an officially qualifying poll in New Hampshire, Gabbard’s best state, in over a month.

The absurdity mounts. A South Carolina poll published Aug. 14 by the Post and Courier placed Gabbard at 2%. One might have again vainly assumed that the newspaper with the largest circulation in a critical early primary state would be an “approved” sponsor per the dictates of the DNC, but it is not. Curious.

To recap: Gabbard has polled at 2% or more in two polls sponsored by the two largest newspapers in two early primary states, but the DNC -- through its mysteriously incoherent selection process -- has determined that these surveys do not count toward her debate eligibility. Without these exclusions, Gabbard would have already qualified. She has polled at 2% or more in two polls officially deemed “qualifying,” and surpassed the 130,000 donor threshold on Aug. 2. While the latter metric would seem more indicative of “grassroots support” -- a formerly obscure Hawaii congresswoman has managed to secure more than 160,000 individual contributions from all 50 states, according to the latest figures from her campaign -- the DNC has declared that it will prioritize polling over donors. In polls with a sample size of just a few hundred people, this means excluding candidates based on what can literally amount to rounding errors: A poll that places a candidate at 1.4% could be considered non-qualifying, but a poll that places a candidate at 1.5% is considered qualifying. Pinning such massive decisions for the trajectory of a campaign on insignificant fractional differences seems wildly arbitrary.

Take also Gabbard’s performance in polls conducted by YouGov. One such poll published July 21, sponsored by CBS, placed Gabbard at 2% in New Hampshire and therefore counts toward her qualifying total. But Gabbard has polled at 2% or more in five additional YouGov polls -- except those polls are sponsored by The Economist, not CBS. Needless to say, The Economist is not a “sponsoring organization,” per the whims of the DNC. It may be one of the most vaunted news organizations in the world, and YouGov may be a “qualified” polling firm in other contexts, but the DNC has chosen to exclude The Economist’s results for reasons that appear less and less defensible.

[ . . . ]

From a press release by Tulsi for President: Tulsi scored 2% or higher in 26 polls.

24 Non-Qualifying National & Early State Polls at 2% or Higher

1. National (Harvard/Harris) 2% (July 2019)
2. National (Emerson) 2% (July 2019)
3. National (Economist/YouGov) 2% (July 2019)
4. New Hampshire (Change Research/PollerCoaster) 2% (July 2019)
5. South Carolina (Change Research/PollerCoaster) 2% (July 2019)
6. New Hampshire (603/Change Research) 3% (July 2019)
7. National (ABC News/Washington Post) (July 2019) (*qualifying poll but “non-qualifying” question. received 2% in open-ended question)
8. National (The Economist/YouGov) 2% (July 24, 2019)
9. National (YouGov/PerryUdem) 2% (July 29)
10. National (ChangeResearch) 2% (July 29, 2019)
11. National (Echelon Insights) 2% (July 29, 2019)
12. National (The Economist/YouGov) 2% (July 31, 2019)
13. National (HarrisX) 3% (August 2, 2019)
14. National (HarrisX) 2% (July 30, 2019)
15. National (HarrisX) 2% (July 31, 2019)
16. New Hampshire (Suffolk University/Boston Globe) 3% (August 6, 2019)
17. National (The Economist/YouGov) 3% (August 7, 2019)
18. National (ChangeResearch) 2% (August 8, 2019)
19. New Hampshire (Gravis Marketing) 5% (August 13, 2019)
20. National (YouGov/The Economist) 2% (August 14, 2019)
21. Iowa (ChangeResearch) 2% (August 15, 2019)
22. South Carolina (ChangeResearch) 2% (August 15, 2019)
23. Nevada (Gravis Marketing) 2% (August 20, 2019)
24. National (The Economist/YouGov) 2% (August 21, 2019)

 https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/08/28/gabbard-falls-short-qualifying-third-democratic-presidential-debate/

Tulsi the Warmonger takes a page out of Bernie the Multi-Millllllllionaire's playbook: whine about DNC rules if you aren't going to get the nomination.   

The good news is that technically her supporters aren't supposed to vote in the election anyway.  

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/29/politics/tulsi-gabbard-2020-race-cnntv/index.html

paulsurovell said:

From a press release by Tulsi for President: Tulsi scored 2% or higher in 26 polls.

24 Non-Qualifying National & Early State Polls at 2% or Higher

1. National (Harvard/Harris) 2% (July 2019)
2. National (Emerson) 2% (July 2019)
3. National (Economist/YouGov) 2% (July 2019)
4. New Hampshire (Change Research/PollerCoaster) 2% (July 2019)
5. South Carolina (Change Research/PollerCoaster) 2% (July 2019)
6. New Hampshire (603/Change Research) 3% (July 2019)
7. National (ABC News/Washington Post) (July 2019) (*qualifying poll but “non-qualifying” question. received 2% in open-ended question)
8. National (The Economist/YouGov) 2% (July 24, 2019)
9. National (YouGov/PerryUdem) 2% (July 29)
10. National (ChangeResearch) 2% (July 29, 2019)
11. National (Echelon Insights) 2% (July 29, 2019)
12. National (The Economist/YouGov) 2% (July 31, 2019)
13. National (HarrisX) 3% (August 2, 2019)
14. National (HarrisX) 2% (July 30, 2019)
15. National (HarrisX) 2% (July 31, 2019)
16. New Hampshire (Suffolk University/Boston Globe) 3% (August 6, 2019)
17. National (The Economist/YouGov) 3% (August 7, 2019)
18. National (ChangeResearch) 2% (August 8, 2019)
19. New Hampshire (Gravis Marketing) 5% (August 13, 2019)
20. National (YouGov/The Economist) 2% (August 14, 2019)
21. Iowa (ChangeResearch) 2% (August 15, 2019)
22. South Carolina (ChangeResearch) 2% (August 15, 2019)
23. Nevada (Gravis Marketing) 2% (August 20, 2019)
24. National (The Economist/YouGov) 2% (August 21, 2019)

Very self-serving.  How did other candidates perform on these or other polls?  Who should be in line ahead of Tulsi if her "Calvinball" proposal was to be adopted.

The reliance on Michael Tracey in the press release, who in turn relies on Tulsi for his writing and appearance on "Tucker", is just a big feedback loop.

nohero said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

From a press release by Tulsi for President: Tulsi scored 2% or higher in 26 polls.

24 Non-Qualifying National & Early State Polls at 2% or Higher

1. National (Harvard/Harris) 2% (July 2019)
2. National (Emerson) 2% (July 2019)
3. National (Economist/YouGov) 2% (July 2019)
4. New Hampshire (Change Research/PollerCoaster) 2% (July 2019)
5. South Carolina (Change Research/PollerCoaster) 2% (July 2019)
6. New Hampshire (603/Change Research) 3% (July 2019)
7. National (ABC News/Washington Post) (July 2019) (*qualifying poll but “non-qualifying” question. received 2% in open-ended question)
8. National (The Economist/YouGov) 2% (July 24, 2019)
9. National (YouGov/PerryUdem) 2% (July 29)
10. National (ChangeResearch) 2% (July 29, 2019)
11. National (Echelon Insights) 2% (July 29, 2019)
12. National (The Economist/YouGov) 2% (July 31, 2019)
13. National (HarrisX) 3% (August 2, 2019)
14. National (HarrisX) 2% (July 30, 2019)
15. National (HarrisX) 2% (July 31, 2019)
16. New Hampshire (Suffolk University/Boston Globe) 3% (August 6, 2019)
17. National (The Economist/YouGov) 3% (August 7, 2019)
18. National (ChangeResearch) 2% (August 8, 2019)
19. New Hampshire (Gravis Marketing) 5% (August 13, 2019)
20. National (YouGov/The Economist) 2% (August 14, 2019)
21. Iowa (ChangeResearch) 2% (August 15, 2019)
22. South Carolina (ChangeResearch) 2% (August 15, 2019)
23. Nevada (Gravis Marketing) 2% (August 20, 2019)
24. National (The Economist/YouGov) 2% (August 21, 2019)

undefined

 Of course it's self-serving and anyone else who met the criteria on 26 polls but didn't make the cut should also make a self-serving complaint.

Edited to delete @sbenois comment which will get its own post below.

The good news is that Tulsi will now have time to go visit with Assad and come up with some new coordinates for his air force to use.

sbenois said:

Tulsi the Warmonger takes a page out of Bernie the Multi-Millllllllionaire's playbook: whine about DNC rules if you aren't going to get the nomination.   

The good news is that technically her supporters aren't supposed to vote in the election anyway.  

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/29/politics/tulsi-gabbard-2020-race-cnntv/index.html

 Your playbook:

sbenois said:

The good news is that Tulsi will now have time to go visit with Assad and come up with some new coordinates for his air force to use.

 Subtext:

@sbenois wants to protect Al Qaeda, his regime-change heroes.