Login

TheO-LineMatters · 10-20-2019, 12:40 AM

(10-19-2019, 09:18 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: Tulsi Gabbard is in play now. She has exposed the DNC and has drawn Hillary Clinton out of her spider-hole. But Tulsi is fearless and a splendid tactician. She made Hillary knee-cap her own campaign. You never attack down, Hillary, but too late. You stepped in it and now we know who you fear.

Does this surprise anyone? Hillary Clinton is an attention seeking idiot.

mikesez · 10-20-2019, 01:09 AM

(10-19-2019, 06:02 PM)JackCity Wrote:
(10-19-2019, 04:34 PM)mikesez Wrote: Uhm, the current President of Syria is the son of the previous President, who was installed in a military coup in 1963.
The people of Syria at large did not choose him. A small clique in the army 56 years ago did. From what I can tell the last competitive national election was held in 1949.

I'm not a fan of Assad my man

Well Byron said Assad was chosen by the Syrian people and you didn't disagree with him.

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

JackCity · 10-20-2019, 02:23 AM

(10-20-2019, 01:09 AM)mikesez Wrote:
(10-19-2019, 06:02 PM)JackCity Wrote: I'm not a fan of Assad my man

Well Byron said Assad was chosen by the Syrian people and you didn't disagree with him.

I just mocked him for liking the big Assad fan

D6 · 10-20-2019, 04:55 AM

My political focus has been primarily on the Canadian election, which is tomorrow. But from what I have read and seen in the Democrat Race, I think Elizabeth Warren is the most likely Democrat Nominee for President. Before the process started, I thought Kamala Harris was the most likely choice. Now, it's more likely she will be out of the race early in the Primary season.

**flsprtsgod** · 10-20-2019, 09:25 AM

(10-20-2019, 04:55 AM)D6 Wrote: My political focus has been primarily on the Canadian election, which is tomorrow. But from what I have read and seen in the Democrat Race, I think Elizabeth Warren is the most likely Democrat Nominee for President. Before the process started, I thought Kamala Harris was the most likely choice. Now, it's more likely she will be out of the race early in the Primary season.

Really Harris had no chance. Between the sleeping her way up and her prosecutorial record she's unelectable.

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

TheO-LineMatters · 10-20-2019, 09:29 AM

I actually think Tulsi Gabbard can get back into contention in the short term, thanks to her fight with Hillary Clinton. A lot of people hate Hillary and what she did was appear to pick on someone way less powerful than herself. That is gonna get Gabbard some sympathy from the people who really dislike Clinton. I expect a pretty immediate surge for Gabbard, at least until the public realizes she is Hindu. That will be her downfall. I can see America electing a Christian (obviously) or even a Jew, but not a Hindu, Buddhist or a Muslim president. What do I know though? We have an obvious atheist president now, who panders to the extreme right, so anything is possible.

Byron LeftTown · 10-20-2019, 11:40 AM

Hillary fears Tulsi running 3rd party. Tulsi isn't a Dem and doesn't take orders from them. In that way she's like Trump, who isn't a Republiucan.

D6 · 10-20-2019, 12:22 PM

(10-20-2019, 09:25 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(10-20-2019, 04:55 AM)D6 Wrote: My political focus has been primarily on the Canadian election, which is tomorrow. But from what I have read and seen in the Democrat Race, I think Elizabeth Warren is the most likely Democrat Nominee for President. Before the process started, I thought Kamala Harris was the most likely choice. Now, it's more likely she will be out of the race early in the Primary season.

Really Harris had no chance. Between the sleeping her way up and her prosecutorial record she's unelectable.

Even with that factored in, I thought that Kamala Harris was the most likely Democrat Nominee because she checked the boxes when it comes to Intersectionality. Something that is huge amongst a high % of Democrat voters. Even that doesn't appear to be enough for Harris to get her campaign back in a position in which she can be a major contender for the nomination.

**flsprtsgod** · 10-20-2019, 12:34 PM

(10-20-2019, 12:22 PM)D6 Wrote:
(10-20-2019, 09:25 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: Really Harris had no chance. Between the sleeping her way up and her prosecutorial record she's unelectable.

Even with that factored in, I thought that Kamala Harris was the most likely Democrat Nominee because she checked the boxes when it comes to Intersectionality. Something that is huge amongst a high % of Democrat voters. Even that doesn't appear to be enough for Harris to get her campaign back in a position in which she can be a major contender for the nomination.

But much like Bernardo Sandersnista in 2016, that intersectionality doesn't overcome her history once you get to the general election so the Dem Powers won't let her be the nominee.

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

***jagibelieve*** · 10-20-2019, 12:48 PM

(10-20-2019, 12:22 PM)D6 Wrote:
(10-20-2019, 09:25 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: Really Harris had no chance. Between the sleeping her way up and her prosecutorial record she's unelectable.

Even with that factored in, I thought that Kamala Harris was the most likely Democrat Nominee because she checked the boxes when it comes to Intersectionality. Something that is huge amongst a high % of Democrat voters. Even that doesn't appear to be enough for Harris to get her campaign back in a position in which she can be a major contender for the nomination.

I also thought that she might be the nominee for pretty much the same reasons at the beginning.

I just don't see how any of the leading contenders at this point can be the democrat choice. Elizabeth Warren might be the perceived "favorite" right now, but I don't see her beating President Trump.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

***jagibelieve*** · 10-20-2019, 12:50 PM

(10-20-2019, 11:40 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: Hillary fears Tulsi running 3rd party. Tulsi isn't a Dem and doesn't take orders from them. In that way she's like Trump, who isn't a Republiucan.

Exactly. She is the democrat version of Trump.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

HURRICANE!!! · 10-22-2019, 11:37 AM

(10-20-2019, 11:40 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: Hillary fears Tulsi running 3rd party. Tulsi isn't a Dem and doesn't take orders from them. In that way she's like Trump, who isn't a Republiucan.

She's like Trump --- OMG did you just say that???

She's not a draft dodger and she would never leave our closest allies in the Middle East to get slaughtered. As a TRUE PATRIOT (not someone with just a really good slogan), Tulsi wouldn't ignore senor officials and all of their strategic recommendations based on the highly classified information they are able to obtain.

Tulsi may actually be the polar opposite of Trump.

Byron LeftTown · 10-22-2019, 12:27 PM

What we are saying is that Tulsi is not controlled by the DNC, just as Trump was/is not a puppet of the RNC.

**flsprtsgod** · 10-22-2019, 12:58 PM

(10-22-2019, 11:37 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote:
(10-20-2019, 11:40 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: Hillary fears Tulsi running 3rd party. Tulsi isn't a Dem and doesn't take orders from them. In that way she's like Trump, who isn't a Republiucan.

She's like Trump --- OMG did you just say that???

She's not a draft dodger and she would never leave our closest allies in the Middle East to get slaughtered. As a TRUE PATRIOT (not someone with just a really good slogan), Tulsi wouldn't ignore senor officials and all of their strategic recommendations based on the highly classified information they are able to obtain.

Tulsi may actually be the polar opposite of Trump.

So Tulsi would listen to the warmongers in the MIC who want endless conflict for fun and profit? Well great then!

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Byron LeftTown · 10-24-2019, 07:08 AM

NY Times has quietly altered history, changing Hillary Clinton's outrageous claim about Tulsi Gabbard. The original statement was "Russians were grooming" her as a third-party candidate. The "corrected" story claims Clinton said "Republicans were grooming" her.

I wonder why she had to collude with the NY Times to attempt to walk it back? Legal repercussions?

Gettin' Jaggy with it · 10-24-2019, 09:20 AM

(10-24-2019, 07:08 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: NY Times has quietly altered history, changing Hillary Clinton's outrageous claim about Tulsi Gabbard. The original statement was "Russians were grooming" her as a third-party candidate. The "corrected" story claims Clinton said "Republicans were grooming" her.

I wonder why she had to collude with the NY Times to attempt to walk it back? Legal repercussions?

The original statement was not "Russians were grooming" Gabbard. It was clear that HRC was saying that the Republicans were grooming her, and that as a closely related note Gabbard is a favorite of the Russians.

You can listen to the actual podcast yourself at 34:19.

Gabe · 10-24-2019, 09:38 AM

(10-20-2019, 12:50 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:
(10-20-2019, 11:40 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: Hillary fears Tulsi running 3rd party. Tulsi isn't a Dem and doesn't take orders from them. In that way she's like Trump, who isn't a Republiucan.

Exactly. She is the democrat version of Trump.

Agreed. She's also got David Duke's endorsement, so there's that.

I'll play you in ping pong.