Gabbard calls on Biden, Sanders to help put her on debate stage

[DrLove]

And the Quit Running Around the World Starting Wars vote....

you may hate Trump, but he has been the best POTUS on this score in many decades

Must be why our allies LOVE him eh?

Trump Approval Worldwide Remains Low Especially Among Key Allies

The same allies you can not stand yourself.

Oh? Please mansplain

 

[Pogo]

Dimms change rules to cheat Tulsi.

Dimms wouldn’t know fair play if it blew semen all over their blue dresses.

It's a political party. "Fair play" is not involved.

 

[Pogo]

And the Quit Running Around the World Starting Wars vote....

you may hate Trump, but he has been the best POTUS on this score in many decades

So far, you have a point. Specifically, since Jimmy Carter. And that is odd, for a weasel who's so inherently confrontational. I guess it's because war involves entire military branches and divisions rather than Numero Uno. But yes, we can count our blessings there.

My differences with Rump have nothing to do with policies anyway, since he doesn't have any. They're entirely about personal character.

 

[Pogo]

So about that media attention thing.

I just went out to run some errands. On the way I dialed up a cable news channel on the satellite radio (doesn't matter which but it was MSNBC). Heard an entire segment on the latest in the Democratic primaries, headlined with "it's down to three candidates, only two of which have a real shot". They then went to a live report from a Biden event complete with an actuality clip from Biden. Then they transferred to a live report from a Sanders event complete with an actuality clip from Sanders. Then they summed up and moved on to the next unrelated story.

Never once even mentioned Tulsi Gabbard's NAME. Never mentioned her state, her position, nothing. That's media pumping the Same Old Thing for ratings. "Only two have a real shot and we'll tell you all about them, but that third one we won't even touch".

On the way back I flipped on the radio again and they were actually doing a segment about women running for President. I didn't hear it from the beginning but I heard Elizabeth Warren used as an example, I heard Hillary Clinton used as an example, heard nothing about Tulsi. Clinton isn't even running.

That's what I mean by being ignored by the media and the polling/voting that results from it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sanders is done, put a fork in him

Yeah, and you missed the point. You said something stupid.

So, you say they kicked out Tulsi for not accepting their "radical ideas", yet we all saw them align against Sanders and his ideas. So, to which "radical ideas" are you referring?

You said something dumb, because it pleased your own ears. Period.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I done pushed her up to 2% in a single thread.

Wow! So,if there were 50 candidates, she could be tied for first place!

 

[22lcidw]

And the Quit Running Around the World Starting Wars vote....

you may hate Trump, but he has been the best POTUS on this score in many decades

Must be why our allies LOVE him eh?

Trump Approval Worldwide Remains Low Especially Among Key Allies

The same allies you can not stand yourself.

Oh? Please mansplain

Over the years Progs have practically vomited towards Euro nations and their leaders. They represented white superiority and the colonialism that they pushed on other peoples. Those white elitists who live like royalty that laugh at Trump in Euro countries would let you ph ukn starve if it came down to it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Never once even mentioned Tulsi Gabbard's NAME. Never mentioned her state, her position, nothing.

Well of course not. She is at the bottom of the pile.

 

[Pogo]

Never once even mentioned Tulsi Gabbard's NAME. Never mentioned her state, her position, nothing.

Well of course not. She is at the bottom of the pile.

And as long as media ignores her not even mentioning her name, THAT WILL KEEP HER THERE.

HELLO?? THIS THING ON?? TAP TAP HELLO?

Media sells horse races. That's not constructive. Oh sure it's profitable -- for them -- but not constructive to public discourse.

And when I say "not constructive" I'm being too kind. I mean to say it's destructive.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And as long as media ignores her not even mentioning her name, THAT WILL KEEP HER THERE.

Haha....no. I know her positions and have seen her talk many times, yet at no point have I met her or attended her speeches.

I wonder where I divined this information?????

She's done in the primaries. No, that's not the media's fault. If not for the media, nobody would ever have heard of her in the lower 48.

She will run again. Hang in there.

 

[Pogo]

And as long as media ignores her not even mentioning her name, THAT WILL KEEP HER THERE.

Haha....no. I know her positions and have seen her talk many times, yet at no point have I met her or attended her speeches.

I wonder where I divined this information?????

She's done in the primaries. No, that's not the media's fault. If not for the media, nobody would ever have heard of her in the lower 48.

She will run again. Hang in there.

Whelp --- I've just related a media story, from this very afternoon, as an example of the media doing exactly what the DNC is doing --- foisting the cloak of invisibility on a candidate who's qualified for all the same primaries as the Bidens and the Sanderses and the Warrens. Look back to my post about the ratings game. They're BOTH playing it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Whelp --- I've just related a media story, from this very afternoon, as an example of the media doing exactly what the DNC is doing -

Ignoring a candidate with one delegate, polling at1% in March of an election year?

And this makes Tulsi special....how?

Sorry, that doesn't make your case.

 

[Pogo]

Whelp --- I've just related a media story, from this very afternoon, as an example of the media doing exactly what the DNC is doing -

Ignoring a candidate with one delegate, polling at1% in March of an election year?

And this makes Tulsi special....how?

Sorry, that doesn't make your case.

Funny how you cut out 90% of my posts and then go "this doesn't make your case". Seems to be a pattern.

If it was supposed to make my case THE REST OF THE POST WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE, would it.

 

[rightwinger]

It looks bad for the Democratic Party (that already doesn't look so wonderful) to change the rules this way. It only reinforces the "rigged" image.
A little audacity, a little daring couldn't hurt. Let the candidate debate.

Gabbard has been left behind
Maybe if she had some voters.......

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Funny how you cut out 90% of my posts and then go "this doesn't make your case".

I responded right to the germane point. And you know, thus this latest red herring.

Did they mention Booker, or Harris? No? Of course not, because they did the honorable thing and dropped out (despite doing better than Tulsi).

This alone is compelling evidence that her attempt to get back in the debate stage is not about you, or me, or ideas, but rather 100% about Tulsi Gabbard.

It's bad form. She's not doing herself any favors.

 

[Pogo]

Funny how you cut out 90% of my posts and then go "this doesn't make your case".

I responded right to the germane point. And you know, thus this latest red herring.

Did they mention Booker, or Harris? No? Of course not, because they did the honorable thing and dropped out (despite doing better than Tulsi).

This alone is compelling evidence that her attempt to get back in the debate stage is not about you, or me, or ideas, but rather 100% about Tulsi Gabbard.

It's bad form. She's not doing herself any favors.

No they did not, because, as you indicated, Booker and Harris (and others) are no longer running.

They specifically mentioned THREE candidates who ARE running, and then specifically examined TWO of them. In other words not even acknowledging that they just said the number "three". Not even a name.

But how interesting that you want to blame the candidate for that omission.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No they did not, because, as you indicated, Booker and Harris (and others) are no longer running.

Correct. Which puts their chancesat 0%, same as Tulsi gabbard. I think you're starting to get this...

They specifically mentioned THREE candidates who ARE running, and then specifically examined TWO of them

Shocking! I wonder if that has anything to do with their delegate counts and their polling?

Should we look up these numbers and compare them to Tulsi's?

I think you put way too much stock in the actions of a for profite media. If Tulsi was a popular candidate and generated traffic, she would get her coverage. But she isn't.

 

[pknopp]

Funny how you cut out 90% of my posts and then go "this doesn't make your case".

I responded right to the germane point. And you know, thus this latest red herring.

Did they mention Booker, or Harris? No? Of course not, because they did the honorable thing and dropped out (despite doing better than Tulsi).

This alone is compelling evidence that her attempt to get back in the debate stage is not about you, or me, or ideas, but rather 100% about Tulsi Gabbard.

It's bad form. She's not doing herself any favors.

No they did not, because, as you indicated, Booker and Harris (and others) are no longer running.

They specifically mentioned THREE candidates who ARE running, and then specifically examined TWO of them. In other words not even acknowledging that they just said the number "three". Not even a name.

But how interesting that you want to blame the candidate for that omission.

The media isn't going to forgive her for helping expose the cheating by the DNC last time or for being right about Syria.

 

[Pogo]

No they did not, because, as you indicated, Booker and Harris (and others) are no longer running.

Correct. Which puts their chancesat 0%, same as Tulsi gabbard. I think you're starting to get this...

They specifically mentioned THREE candidates who ARE running, and then specifically examined TWO of them

Shocking! I wonder if that has anything to do with their delegate counts and their polling?

Should we look up these numbers and compare them to Tulsi's?

I think you put way too much stock in the actions of a for profite media. If Tulsi was a popular candidate and generated traffic, she would get her coverage. But she isn't.

Interestingly that was one of the post elements you cut out as inconvenient, and now you're sitting here trying to take credit for it. Go get your own material.

As I said --- seems to be a pattern. Them: cut Gabbard out of debates and media coverage and then go "oh look, she has no support". You: cut the meat out of my posts and then go "oh look, you didn't make your point".

 

[rightwinger]

Gabbards political support qualifies for a thread on USMB

Nothing more