ADVERTISEMENT

Who wanted Tulsi Gabbard to run for President?

Some of the things she has said on and some of the people she hired. As far as your second sentence, what quicker way to achieve it. Much like Trump she has no other way.

Yea, just I haven't seen any evidence tying her to Putin. Trump had a very long history of ties to Putin. I don't see her doing especially well in the primary given her non-Putin history. I've never been impressed with her.

The closest she has come to Putin is meeting with Assad. Personally, I didn't have a problem with that visit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T.M.P.
HRC will win the nomination again. Dems are not very smart people they just say they are and hope someone believes them.
 
Yea, just I haven't seen any evidence tying her to Putin. Trump had a very long history of ties to Putin. I don't see her doing especially well in the primary given her non-Putin history. I've never been impressed with her.

The closest she has come to Putin is meeting with Assad. Personally, I didn't have a problem with that visit.
Her rhetoric and associations mostly.
 
Her rhetoric and associations mostly.

I'll take your word for it. There are others higher up on my list as being Putin pawns. I think we have a bunch of pawns working at the the beck and call of the Israeli govt. Far more than are on the Russian payroll.
 
I'll take your word for it. There are others higher up on my list as being Putin pawns. I think we have a bunch of pawns working at the the beck and call of the Israeli govt. Far more than are on the Russian payroll.
Meh, use your own judgement based on what you know and learn.
 
Some dipshit partisans believe that members of other side aren't capable of change. Other dipshit partisans believe that only members of the other side are capable of change. Others yet go back and forth between the two, depending on whether or not the change is viewed as positive.

But don't pretend for one second that it's some kind of double standard that only gets done to Republicans. You're too smart to believe such nonsense.
 
That was from around 20 years ago (just a guess). The country has flipped on the question since. So have BHO, HRC, and Rep Gabbard.

Were these thoughts from before she held elected office? If so, it doesn’t matter. Republicans have taught us that things that happen before someone is elected are meaningless.
 
Last edited:
Democrats evolve, Republicans are never forgiven.
I know a very intelligent, relatively reasonable, but far-left liberal who was all-in on criticizing Kavanaugh. What this guy doesn't know is that his girlfriend in high school is a close friend of mine from childhood and she told me about him after they broke up...

He would be at her house, have sex, then leave without saying good-bye. Again and again. This bothered her. Deeply.​

On the surface this might not sound anything like what Kavanaugh's accused of but there is a common thread. There's a certain psychological trauma involved. The only reason I bring it up here is that I doubt he sees that he caused any trauma.


Not that I take your above assertion seriously. I assume you're saying that tongue in cheek.
 
Some dipshit partisans believe that members of other side aren't capable of change. Other dipshit partisans believe that only members of the other side are capable of change. Others yet go back and forth between the two, depending on whether or not the change is viewed as positive.

But don't pretend for one second that it's some kind of double standard that only gets done to Republicans. You're too smart to believe such nonsense.
I was talking about the hypocritical partisans on your side concerning this specific issue. We have hypocritical partisans too, but that wasn’t the issue in question.
 
I know a very intelligent, relatively reasonable, but far-left liberal who was all-in on criticizing Kavanaugh. What this guy doesn't know is that his girlfriend in high school is a close friend of mine from childhood and she told me about him after they broke up...

He would be at her house, have sex, then leave without saying good-bye. Again and again. This bothered her. Deeply.​

On the surface this might not sound anything like what Kavanaugh's accused of but there is a common thread. There's a certain psychological trauma involved. The only reason I bring it up here is that I doubt he sees that he caused any trauma.


Not that I take your above assertion seriously. I assume you're saying that tongue in cheek.

1. WTF does this have to do with anything?

and

2. If she was so "deeply bothered" why did she do this "again and again?"
 
Democrats evolve, Republicans are never forgiven.

I don't think she'll get away with it. From a practical matter she's simply not important enough. I've already seen one pretty lengthy article about her association with that "conversion therapy" group. That shit goes beyond merely opposing gay marriage.

Here's a quote from 2004 that won't sound good:

"To try to act as if there is a difference between 'civil unions' and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii," Gabbard said at the time. "As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists."

She didn't change her tune until 2012 when she ran for congress. (How convenient.) I'd say this will be her undoing.
 
I don't think she'll get away with it. From a practical matter she's simply not important enough. I've already seen one pretty lengthy article about her association with that "conversion therapy" group. That shit goes beyond merely opposing gay marriage.

Here's a quote from 2004 that won't sound good:

"To try to act as if there is a difference between 'civil unions' and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii," Gabbard said at the time. "As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists."

She didn't change her tune until 2012 when she ran for congress. (How convenient.) I'd say this will be her undoing.
That quote and conversion therapy won't be viewed as a plus. And the fact that the majority of the country won't have a clue who she is might slow her down a bit as well.
 
I was talking about the hypocritical partisans on your side concerning this specific issue. We have hypocritical partisans too, but that wasn’t the issue in question.
LOL. You're right. If we narrow the issue down to only liberal hypocrisy, then you were right on topic. Of course, that's a really dumb way to narrow the topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBing
I know a very intelligent, relatively reasonable, but far-left liberal who was all-in on criticizing Kavanaugh. What this guy doesn't know is that his girlfriend in high school is a close friend of mine from childhood and she told me about him after they broke up...

He would be at her house, have sex, then leave without saying good-bye. Again and again. This bothered her. Deeply.​

On the surface this might not sound anything like what Kavanaugh's accused of but there is a common thread. There's a certain psychological trauma involved. The only reason I bring it up here is that I doubt he sees that he caused any trauma.


Not that I take your above assertion seriously. I assume you're saying that tongue in cheek.


Wtf?

You have at least one post a day that appears to just leave a reader in total bewilderment.
 
Wtf?

You have at least one post a day that appears to just leave a reader in total bewilderment.
Aloha talked about Democrats evolving and not forgiving Republicans. I free associated with this liberal who might or might not have evolved from the days when he was a completely insensitive teenage dick in an intimate context to his outward attacks on the insensitivities of another teenage dick. He evidently forgave himself but not Kavanaugh. Sure, Kavanaugh's alleged behavior was morally and legally worse but in both cases the trauma caused appears to have been severe. I think a lot of insensitive people underestimate the damage they cause in various contexts.

Anyway, never mind.
 
You are very focused...on avoiding the uncomfortable question you don't want to answer. ;)
I don’t know and really don’t care. It’s a dead issue because the USSC made it legal in every state. No one runs on it now, do they?
 
I don’t know and really don’t care. It’s a dead issue because the USSC made it legal in every state. No one runs on it now, do they?
Your original accusation of hypocrisy against libs, though, kind of demands that you be able to name some Republican victims of said hypocrisy. If you can't, doesn't that mean your accusation was, just as I said originally, a load of shit?
 
Your original accusation of hypocrisy against libs, though, kind of demands that you be able to name some Republican victims of said hypocrisy. If you can't, doesn't that mean your accusation was, just as I said originally, a load of shit?
Not really. This goes back to the discussion about nearly all Democrat and Republican politicians having the same stance on same-sex marriage (opposed), including every Presidential nominee until Obama flipped for the 2012 election, and nearly every Democratic candidate for the Senate, Governor and most for the House. Democrats essentially ignored the Democratic politicians' position while criticizing the Republicans though there was little to no difference in their positions. You claimed the evolved (yep, nearly every Democrat suddenly evolved when the USSC decision made same-sex marriage legal throughout the country. I think many Democrats believed the Democratic politician was lying about his/her position for political purposes. We do have a lot of Republicans that have "evolved" too and don't oppose it (what's the point now anyway?) and some high profile ones off the top of my head that did are Gingrich, Cheney (before Obama "evolved"), Christie, Trump (though I don't really know if he flipped or was always a same-sex marriage supporter - after all, he was a Democrat before become a RINO), and Portman. I bet there would be little to no "forgiveness" by this board's left wing for their previous position similar to their forgiveness for the Clintons, Biden, Obama or the other Democrats that have "evolved" the same way. Technically, it's a theory, but I think it's a good one. I think it's mainly not a campaign issue any longer. It's a done deal.
 
Not really. This goes back to the discussion about nearly all Democrat and Republican politicians having the same stance on same-sex marriage (opposed), including every Presidential nominee until Obama flipped for the 2012 election, and nearly every Democratic candidate for the Senate, Governor and most for the House. Democrats essentially ignored the Democratic politicians' position while criticizing the Republicans though there was little to no difference in their positions. You claimed the evolved (yep, nearly every Democrat suddenly evolved when the USSC decision made same-sex marriage legal throughout the country. I think many Democrats believed the Democratic politician was lying about his/her position for political purposes. We do have a lot of Republicans that have "evolved" too and don't oppose it (what's the point now anyway?) and some high profile ones off the top of my head that did are Gingrich, Cheney (before Obama "evolved"), Christie, Trump (though I don't really know if he flipped or was always a same-sex marriage supporter - after all, he was a Democrat before become a RINO), and Portman. I bet there would be little to no "forgiveness" by this board's left wing for their previous position similar to their forgiveness for the Clintons, Biden, Obama or the other Democrats that have "evolved" the same way. Technically, it's a theory, but I think it's a good one. I think it's mainly not a campaign issue any longer. It's a done deal.
In essence, the change was societal not political. That's the main reason Democrats should prioritize jobs and the economy far before any social platform, politically speaking. It's the largely the social platform that drives away so many independents. Let society and the SC make forward progress socially.

The irony of all this is that the Democrats' stubborn intransigence on putting their social agenda front and center has led to a conservative SC, thus dropping the anchor on social change.
 
I'll say this. Dems will win if they nominate someone fairly young. If it's another damn baby boomer Trump wins easily. That's my prediction. The under 40 crowd is sick and tired of the damn boomers who are the most selfish and entitled generation in the history of civilization. Gabbard would get that vote out in droves.

yes, young voters hated Bernie.

NOT!

don't confuse young, with appealing to youth.

young voters want change in the current direction of things.

if they actually voted, they would have a lot more influence though.

that said, people confuse "generation" with age group.

generations are mostly all the same.

it's age groups that differ.

today's 22 yr old will act like today's 70 yr old when they are 70.

in the yr 2080, a 22 yr old will act much like today's 22 yr old.

in the yr 2128, that 2080 22 yr old will act like today's 70 yr old.

as the great philosopher Mike from Breaking Away once said,

"You know, I used to think I was a really great quarterback in high school. Still think so, too. Can't even bring myself to light a cigarette 'cause I keep thinkin' I gotta stay in shape. You know what really gets me, though? I mean, here I am, I gotta live in this stinkin' town, and I gotta read in the newspapers about some hot-shot kid, new star of the college team. Every year, it's gonna be a new one. Every year it's never gonna be me. I'm just gonna be Mike. Twenty year-old Mike. Thirty year-old Mike. Old, mean old man Mike. These college kids out here - they're never gonna get old or out of shape 'cause new ones come along every year. And they're gonna keep calling us 'Cutters'. To them, it's just a dirty word. To me, it's just somethin' else I never got a chance to be".
 
.
yes, young voters hated Bernie.

NOT!

don't confuse young, with appealing to youth.

young voters want change in the current direction of things.

if they actually voted, they would have a lot more influence though.

that said, people confuse "generation" with age group.

generations are mostly all the same.

it's age groups that differ.

today's 22 yr old will act like today's 70 yr old when they are 70.

in the yr 2080, a 22 yr old will act much like today's 22 yr old.

in the yr 2128, that 2080 22 yr old will act like today's 70 yr old.

as the great philosopher Mike from Breaking Away once said,

"You know, I used to think I was a really great quarterback in high school. Still think so, too. Can't even bring myself to light a cigarette 'cause I keep thinkin' I gotta stay in shape. You know what really gets me, though? I mean, here I am, I gotta live in this stinkin' town, and I gotta read in the newspapers about some hot-shot kid, new star of the college team. Every year, it's gonna be a new one. Every year it's never gonna be me. I'm just gonna be Mike. Twenty year-old Mike. Thirty year-old Mike. Old, mean old man Mike. These college kids out here - they're never gonna get old or out of shape 'cause new ones come along every year. And they're gonna keep calling us 'Cutters'. To them, it's just a dirty word. To me, it's just somethin' else I never got a chance to be".

You know the old saying, if you're not a liberal at 20 you've got no heart. If you're not a conservative at 40 you've got no brain.

Just kidding.

But it is a lot easier to be a radical progressive eager to topple the establishment to the ground when you're 20 and have nothing. Once you're older with more to lose, the idea doesn't seem quite as appealing.
 
.


You know the old saying, if you're not a liberal at 20 you've got no heart. If you're not a conservative at 40 you've got no brain.

Just kidding.

But it is a lot easier to be a radical progressive eager to topple the establishment to the ground when you're 20 and have nothing. Once you're older with more to lose, the idea doesn't seem quite as appealing.
Rather if you're a conservative at forty you lost it. (your heart)
 
Rather if you're a conservative at forty you lost it. (your heart)

Or never had one.

Actually I’m sure I was far more conservative at 20 than I am today. Particularly on social issues, though I imagine that’s true of society as a whole.
 
Not really. This goes back to the discussion about nearly all Democrat and Republican politicians having the same stance on same-sex marriage (opposed), including every Presidential nominee until Obama flipped for the 2012 election, and nearly every Democratic candidate for the Senate, Governor and most for the House. Democrats essentially ignored the Democratic politicians' position while criticizing the Republicans though there was little to no difference in their positions. You claimed the evolved (yep, nearly every Democrat suddenly evolved when the USSC decision made same-sex marriage legal throughout the country. I think many Democrats believed the Democratic politician was lying about his/her position for political purposes. We do have a lot of Republicans that have "evolved" too and don't oppose it (what's the point now anyway?) and some high profile ones off the top of my head that did are Gingrich, Cheney (before Obama "evolved"), Christie, Trump (though I don't really know if he flipped or was always a same-sex marriage supporter - after all, he was a Democrat before become a RINO), and Portman. I bet there would be little to no "forgiveness" by this board's left wing for their previous position similar to their forgiveness for the Clintons, Biden, Obama or the other Democrats that have "evolved" the same way. Technically, it's a theory, but I think it's a good one. I think it's mainly not a campaign issue any longer. It's a done deal.
Yeah, like I said. Load of shit. Plus you're now moving the goalposts to any entirely new load of shit, since you can't come up with support for your original hacktastic statement.
 
Yeah, like I said. Load of shit. Plus you're now moving the goalposts to any entirely new load of shit, since you can't come up with support for your original hacktastic statement.
If you say so.

Edited to take out a the insulting name. Might have meant it but I usually try to play nice.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT