@JCWeb

has a CIA background.

#3 The guy who runs Kos is a piece of crap. Rampant censorship on his site of those who expressed contrary or dissenting views -- he and his minions banned me and at least six others who posted positive diaries in support of Tulsi from commenting on the supposedly "open discussion" forums on his site. He runs this "Straw Poll" every 2-3 weeks, but when he doesn't like the results (like when Yang outpolled their preferred candidate, Warren), he changed the results to make Warren the winner. No better than the fascist South American dictators supported by the MIC and the CIA.

@snoopydawg  
Let’s see that for what it is: people claiming to be fighting fascism and authoritarianism without noticing the extent to which they themselves have become fascist in tactics and authoritarian in outlook.

#6

Tulsi Gabbard's talking points for tonight were apparently lost in translation from the original Russian.#DemDebate

— Charlotte Clymer(@cmclymer) November 21, 2019

Sigh

@Pricknick enjoyed a healthy pour of the world's best brandy.
Ararat 10 year vintage.
Better than the debate propagandized, staged, shit show.
Well, the brandy is better than most everything.

#8

I think I should be grateful for not being able to watch the debate, or what?

You missed nothing. I missed nothing.
All in all a great night.

@Pricknick I was taking a Dexter Gordon LP off the turntable and getting ready to turn in for the evening. By 9:30, my cat had curled up with me and we both were asleep. I feel that was a much more productive use of my time.

#8

I think I should be grateful for not being able to watch the debate, or what?

You missed nothing. I missed nothing.
All in all a great night.

@Centaurea yet reporting on his every Tweet or vocal fart like it's BREAKING NEWS to get anything like that?

#11
every time a corporate media or DNC bozo opens their mouth and calls her a "Russian asset".

Do the Dems and the MSM really not understand that fact?

@snoopydawg

#12

@JoeBiden Hasn't your keepers told you that the debate isn't for another 4 hours or so? pic.twitter.com/rDwgcHy4pF

— Rodney Latstetter (@proviewsusa) November 20, 2019

@mimi

#18
may be then both would shut up and think before talking.

@JCWeb for Tulsi, especially in front of that Atlanta audience, would have been if she had referenced Obama's line in the 2008 primary cycle about not requiring any preconditions and would meet with brutal dictators. Might have brought down the house. Certainly would have got people thinking -- Obama? Said he would meet with dictators?

Or she could have added how Nancy Pelosi went to meet with Assad in 2007, against the wishes of our FP Establishment.

Interesting how times have changed in just a decade. Now Dems run to hide behind the MIC-driven safe cold war rhetoric of faux toughness and stupidity. I don't believe half of them actually believe what they're saying, but they say it out of political cowardice.

As for Harris not going after Pete: Given her low poll numbers and Pete's high ones, she might have been thinking not to screw things up in case he needed some AA cover as his VP pick.

#20 #20 I'm a huge Tulsi fan, and I really was hoping she would deliver the KO to Booty jizz just as she did in the July confrontation with Harris. The opportunity was there, too, when he raised the Assad BS and she had the comeback on Roosevelt meeting with Stalin, JFK with Khrushchev, etc. But in one of her town halls she had an even better line, i.e., "I'm willing to meet with 100 brutal dictators if it would further the cause of world peace," which would have been even more effective. Then, when Booty interrupted with his smart-ass "Trump meeting with Kim" line, she could have pivoted and said, yes, I would be willing to meet with Kim but not the way Trump mishandled the situation, i.e., by withdrawing from every other treaty (INF, Iran Nuclear deal, Paris climate) etc, so no wonder Kim didn't trust US to live up to nuclear arms deals, but unfortunately, it wasn't a home run but I think it may be enough, hopefully, for her supporters to come through and give her another 4% in a DNC "qualified" poll to make the Dec. debate stage. (Of course, kind of suspicious to see so few NH polls since she got 5-6% there a couple of weeks back.)

I need to pivot to a point I've made before, namely about how how tough it is to make these nuanced points about FP which has received little attention in these debates where everything is encapsulated in 90-sec sound bites. If one goes back to the first serious Presidential debates (Kennedy-Nixon 1960), you'd see the answers were 3 to 5 min. in length, much more time to develop a nuanced FP argument.

Also, not sure the Mexico remark was the weak Achilles heel area for Booty; to me, it's still the fact he's run a racist police Dept. in South Bend for the last 7 1/2 years plus the more recent revelation that he misrepresented support for his BS "Frederick Douglass plan." This kind of record should be disqualifying, IMHO. Of course, the people who were better positioned to do this -- Booker and Harris -- both declined to take the shot, Harris probably because, like Mayo Pete, she's part of the corporate Dem establishment, whereas for Booker, it was really his last chance as I don't see him getting the poll numbers to make the next debate.

Finally, glad to see Tulsi sticking up for a fellow anti-Establishment candidate, Yang, about the lack of equal speaking time both were allotted by the moderators. Kind of a nice return of the favor since Yang was the first Dem candidate to back her up versus the HRC smears.

@JCWeb Kennedy-Nixon debates: At least in the first one, both were given 8 minutes each for opening statements. EIGHT minutes!

#20 #20 I'm a huge Tulsi fan, and I really was hoping she would deliver the KO to Booty jizz just as she did in the July confrontation with Harris. The opportunity was there, too, when he raised the Assad BS and she had the comeback on Roosevelt meeting with Stalin, JFK with Khrushchev, etc. But in one of her town halls she had an even better line, i.e., "I'm willing to meet with 100 brutal dictators if it would further the cause of world peace," which would have been even more effective. Then, when Booty interrupted with his smart-ass "Trump meeting with Kim" line, she could have pivoted and said, yes, I would be willing to meet with Kim but not the way Trump mishandled the situation, i.e., by withdrawing from every other treaty (INF, Iran Nuclear deal, Paris climate) etc, so no wonder Kim didn't trust US to live up to nuclear arms deals, but unfortunately, it wasn't a home run but I think it may be enough, hopefully, for her supporters to come through and give her another 4% in a DNC "qualified" poll to make the Dec. debate stage. (Of course, kind of suspicious to see so few NH polls since she got 5-6% there a couple of weeks back.)

I need to pivot to a point I've made before, namely about how how tough it is to make these nuanced points about FP which has received little attention in these debates where everything is encapsulated in 90-sec sound bites. If one goes back to the first serious Presidential debates (Kennedy-Nixon 1960), you'd see the answers were 3 to 5 min. in length, much more time to develop a nuanced FP argument.

Also, not sure the Mexico remark was the weak Achilles heel area for Booty; to me, it's still the fact he's run a racist police Dept. in South Bend for the last 7 1/2 years plus the more recent revelation that he misrepresented support for his BS "Frederick Douglass plan." This kind of record should be disqualifying, IMHO. Of course, the people who were better positioned to do this -- Booker and Harris -- both declined to take the shot, Harris probably because, like Mayo Pete, she's part of the corporate Dem establishment, whereas for Booker, it was really his last chance as I don't see him getting the poll numbers to make the next debate.

Finally, glad to see Tulsi sticking up for a fellow anti-Establishment candidate, Yang, about the lack of equal speaking time both were allotted by the moderators. Kind of a nice return of the favor since Yang was the first Dem candidate to back her up versus the HRC smears.

@mimi I stopped listening to her when she floundered around after Tulsi destroyed her criminal justice record in CA in debate #2, for which she had NO RESPONSE. To use a boxing analogy, Muhammad Ali was "the Greatest" not so much because he was he hardest puncher, but he had a good chin, he could take a punch. Debate #1, when Kamala went after Biden, she proved she could (when given the leeway of 3x the debate time limit) land a punch, but vs Tulsi, she proved she had a "glass jaw" and couldn't take a punch.

Last night, I give Bootyjizz some credit, when put under pressure from Tulsi and also on the experience question, he did some nice bobbing and weaving, but substantially, he offers nothing but platitudes and loads of mainstream Dem BS and, in my view, his background with the racist SBPD is disqualifying, and I hope voters will see through that.

#21
That Harris attacked Tulsi for having criticized Obama, slipping in a little hint that Tulsi might be a on the wrong side with regard to the racial divide.
Gabbard was asked. She said that it was very unfortunate to have a presidential candidate in Tusli, one that criticized Obame during his first years.

I remember well that I felt back then it to be difficult to criticize Obama as to not being accused of racial prejuidices. Tulsi was quite intelligent to not bite and did not say that Harris 'continues to traffick in racially insulting smears', but gracefully just said that Harris trafficks in 'lies'. I guess Harris thought Gabbard was not black enough, remembering that back in the days, people were wondering about Obama not being black enough. Now it seems as if all of the candidates are too white. Oh my, oh lord ... forgive me. /s

How 'nice' for a black woman to criticize another woman of color for criticizing a black President. May be I didn't get it right. But I think that's the last time I listen to Harris.

@mimi was actually a great thing for our owners, wasn't it? Go against him, you're merely a racist RWNJ, support him in any way and then you are a SJW bleeding heart liberal too blinded by ID politics to see reality (which is of course in many ways true, as is the RW relentless focus on racism, those small grains of truth work against you when leveling any factually reasonable argument, so either way, our owners win that one). And the RWNJ faction had been set up decades ago so if one ever did dare criticize it almost could not help but sound like a RWNJ racist attack. Just like now if you are against Impeachment, no matter what actual real reasons you have for that disagreement, you are merely a sexist, racist, RWNJ Trump supporter. Works like a charm, doesn't it?

#21
That Harris attacked Tulsi for having criticized Obama, slipping in a little hint that Tulsi might be a on the wrong side with regard to the racial divide.
Gabbard was asked. She said that it was very unfortunate to have a presidential candidate in Tusli, one that criticized Obame during his first years.

I remember well that I felt back then it to be difficult to criticize Obama as to not being accused of racial prejuidices. Tulsi was quite intelligent to not bite and did not say that Harris 'continues to traffick in racially insulting smears', but gracefully just said that Harris trafficks in 'lies'. I guess Harris thought Gabbard was not black enough, remembering that back in the days, people were wondering about Obama not being black enough. Now it seems as if all of the candidates are too white. Oh my, oh lord ... forgive me. /s

How 'nice' for a black woman to criticize another woman of color for criticizing a black President. May be I didn't get it right. But I think that's the last time I listen to Harris.