Tulsi Gabbard Will Be Excluded from the Next Debates if She Doesn't Have 130K donors by Aug 28

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Hope you like Trump then. It amazes me we have not learned this lesson, change comes from within a party, third party candidates only hurt one of the other parties they are most akin to.

Nothing says democracy like "You'll only get two choices and like it!"

 

[BluesLegend]

Democrats are irrelevant. The GOP needs to start cleaning its own house of the nutjob sociopath rightwingers and assorted gimps. This is especially needed in the Senate, Congressional, and state races in the Big Four states.

Said nobody in the GOP.

 

[HappyJoy]

Hope you like Trump then. It amazes me we have not learned this lesson, change comes from within a party, third party candidates only hurt one of the other parties they are most akin to.

Nothing says democracy like "You'll only get two choices and like it!"

Neat kid, nobody is forcing anyone to only vote one of the two party candidates, I'm simply giving my reasons as to why I believe voting third party is throwing away your vote and ending up electing your least favorite choice. But go ahead and distort that.

I only wish those that vote third party would actually work to make their votes effective, like pushing for instant run off voting, rather than whining about the lesser of two evils and then complain about who wins elections. You're waiting for a magical unicorn to come along and save the day, news flash for ya', Ross Perot never became president. If you're not interested in working within a political party then do something real about actually getting third party candidates elected, otherwise you're just playing with yourself, kid.

 

[hjmick]

For all you Tulsi Gabbard fans out there, be advised that if she does not have 130,000 donors by August 28, she will be excluded from the next round of debates, which will be held in September. The requirement for participation is 130,000 donors, with at least 400 per state in 20 states. As of a few minutes ago, she had 128,415 donors.

I presume she has met the 400 per state in 20 states requirement because her website is saying that she just needs to reach 130,000 by August 28 to qualify for the next round of debates.

Because I think she has an open mind, even though I disagree with most of her stated positions, and because she is not as radical as Sanders, Harris, DeBlasio, etc., I just donated a small amount to give her one more donor.

I will not tolerate big pharma ripping off the American people | TULSI 2020

I like her, I'd probably vote for her. But does anyone here really believe that the DNC hasn't already decided who their candidate will be? It's all kabuki theater...

They're already fucking Yang over... why does the DNC hate Asians?

Yang campaign slams DNC over poll qualification criteria for September debate

Andrew Yang's campaign blasted the DNC for not allowing him to use 2 polls from same source for fall Democratic debates

 

[pknopp]

For all you Tulsi Gabbard fans out there, be advised that if she does not have 130,000 donors by August 28, she will be excluded from the next round of debates, which will be held in September. The requirement for participation is 130,000 donors, with at least 400 per state in 20 states. As of a few minutes ago, she had 128,415 donors.

I presume she has met the 400 per state in 20 states requirement because her website is saying that she just needs to reach 130,000 by August 28 to qualify for the next round of debates.

Because I think she has an open mind, even though I disagree with most of her stated positions, and because she is not as radical as Sanders, Harris, DeBlasio, etc., I just donated a small amount to give her one more donor.

I will not tolerate big pharma ripping off the American people | TULSI 2020

I like her, I'd probably vote for her. But does anyone here really believe that the DNC hasn't already decided who their candidate will be? It's all kabuki theater...

They're already fucking Yang over... why does the DNC hate Asians?

Yang campaign slams DNC over poll qualification criteria for September debate

Andrew Yang's campaign blasted the DNC for not allowing him to use 2 polls from same source for fall Democratic debates

The field will have to be narrowed down but many do see the DNC still putting their fingers on the scale of fairness. This caused them to lose last time and they have not learned that lesson IMO.

 

[P F Tinmore]

For all you Tulsi Gabbard fans out there, be advised that if she does not have 130,000 donors by August 28, she will be excluded from the next round of debates, which will be held in September. The requirement for participation is 130,000 donors, with at least 400 per state in 20 states. As of a few minutes ago, she had 128,415 donors.

I presume she has met the 400 per state in 20 states requirement because her website is saying that she just needs to reach 130,000 by August 28 to qualify for the next round of debates.

Because I think she has an open mind, even though I disagree with most of her stated positions, and because she is not as radical as Sanders, Harris, DeBlasio, etc., I just donated a small amount to give her one more donor.

I will not tolerate big pharma ripping off the American people | TULSI 2020

 

[FA_Q2]

Thank you. Not being a Democrat, my opinion so far was that Gabbert and Ryan were the best of the bunch. But I'm not going to argue with Democrats if they eliminate who I feel are their strongest candidates. That helps my guy and I really believe we will need him for his second term.

Gabbard is for ending the wars and out never ending meddling into other countries. Ryan is for continuing the never ending wars. I can not see how anyone could find them both attractive at the same time unless they are not paying attention to what they are actually saying.

Gabbards slam of Harris is the "left" position.

Perhaps they are not single issue voters or FP is not the largest concern for them.

My remark was not about a single issue.

Your comment brings up one issue and that was it.

Sorry, hard to keep track of every post. I've noted their disagreements on Health Care also. The wars and health care are my top two.

They have a lot of disagreements but really the overall point I was getting at (and not very clearly ) is that it is not unreasonable to have similar support for both. While they disagree a lot most of it is not really that far from each other. Of course that is mostly due to this being a primary and they are likely to be much further apart than they put on now when pandering is the name of the game.

Those that supported Trump or Bernie and those that voted for Obama and then Trump are far more split than those two.

 

[Jitss617]

Let her run 3rd party

 

[Fang]

She'll get there easily. If she keeps the pressure on that racist Kamala Harris I might just donate myself.

 

[pknopp]

Gabbard is for ending the wars and out never ending meddling into other countries. Ryan is for continuing the never ending wars. I can not see how anyone could find them both attractive at the same time unless they are not paying attention to what they are actually saying.

Gabbards slam of Harris is the "left" position.

Perhaps they are not single issue voters or FP is not the largest concern for them.

My remark was not about a single issue.

Your comment brings up one issue and that was it.

Sorry, hard to keep track of every post. I've noted their disagreements on Health Care also. The wars and health care are my top two.

They have a lot of disagreements but really the overall point I was getting at (and not very clearly ) is that it is not unreasonable to have similar support for both. While they disagree a lot most of it is not really that far from each other. Of course that is mostly due to this being a primary and they are likely to be much further apart than they put on now when pandering is the name of the game.

Those that supported Trump or Bernie and those that voted for Obama and then Trump are far more split than those two.

Few voted Obama and then Trump.

 

[FA_Q2]

Perhaps they are not single issue voters or FP is not the largest concern for them.

My remark was not about a single issue.

Your comment brings up one issue and that was it.

Sorry, hard to keep track of every post. I've noted their disagreements on Health Care also. The wars and health care are my top two.

They have a lot of disagreements but really the overall point I was getting at (and not very clearly ) is that it is not unreasonable to have similar support for both. While they disagree a lot most of it is not really that far from each other. Of course that is mostly due to this being a primary and they are likely to be much further apart than they put on now when pandering is the name of the game.

Those that supported Trump or Bernie and those that voted for Obama and then Trump are far more split than those two.

Few voted Obama and then Trump.

Define few?

While the data is hard to accurately account for because we do not have direct and hard numbers, it seems that 6 million of them is a reasonable estimate. 10% is not 'few' IMHO in this scenario and, more importantly, is more than enough to cost Trump the presidency in 2020. I do not think that particular voting group is very happy with Trump and may well decide the 2020 election. Particularly when you consider the fact that Trump won because he was able to take states considered a sure fire dem vote.
Just How Many Obama 2012-Trump 2016 Voters Were There? - Rasmussen Reports®

 

[The Professor]

For all you Tulsi Gabbard fans out there, be advised that if she does not have 130,000 donors by August 28, she will be excluded from the next round of debates, which will be held in September. The requirement for participation is 130,000 donors, with at least 400 per state in 20 states. As of a few minutes ago, she had 128,415 donors.

I presume she has met the 400 per state in 20 states requirement because her website is saying that she just needs to reach 130,000 by August 28 to qualify for the next round of debates.

Because I think she has an open mind, even though I disagree with most of her stated positions, and because she is not as radical as Sanders, Harris, DeBlasio, etc., I just donated a small amount to give her one more donor.

I will not tolerate big pharma ripping off the American people | TULSI 2020

I will most likely vote for Trump again, but I gave her a donation to make sure she qualifies. I really want her in the debates. Of all the Democrat candidates I favor her. My reasoning for donating is simple: If Trump loses I want him to lose to the most qualified candidate which, in my humble opinion, is Gabbard (OK, I lied about the humble part).

 

[lennypartiv]

Because I think she has an open mind, even though I disagree with most of her stated positions, and because she is not as radical as Sanders, Harris, DeBlasio, etc., I just donated a small amount to give her one more donor.

She's a left winger. She supports Medicare for All just like Bernie Sanders. She has also bashed President Trump on the border issue.

 

[lennypartiv]

Sharp woman

Like to see more of her

She's hot looking, but she's definitely a liberal.

 

[pknopp]

My remark was not about a single issue.

Your comment brings up one issue and that was it.

Sorry, hard to keep track of every post. I've noted their disagreements on Health Care also. The wars and health care are my top two.

They have a lot of disagreements but really the overall point I was getting at (and not very clearly ) is that it is not unreasonable to have similar support for both. While they disagree a lot most of it is not really that far from each other. Of course that is mostly due to this being a primary and they are likely to be much further apart than they put on now when pandering is the name of the game.

Those that supported Trump or Bernie and those that voted for Obama and then Trump are far more split than those two.

Few voted Obama and then Trump.

Define few?

While the data is hard to accurately account for because we do not have direct and hard numbers, it seems that 6 million of them is a reasonable estimate. 10% is not 'few' IMHO in this scenario and, more importantly, is more than enough to cost Trump the presidency in 2020. I do not think that particular voting group is very happy with Trump and may well decide the 2020 election. Particularly when you consider the fact that Trump won because he was able to take states considered a sure fire dem vote.
Just How Many Obama 2012-Trump 2016 Voters Were There? - Rasmussen Reports®

Trump did do that. It was a race to the bottom. Hillary won.

 

[mikegriffith1]

LOL @ giving money to ANY leftist.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But consider:

* She has repeatedly voiced support for securing the border through a combination of fencing/wall and technology. In one recent interview, she said we need to secure the border or else we don't really have a country. I quote: "We've got to address the needs at our border. Border security is a reality that we have to face that as a country our borders need to be secure; otherwise we don't really have a country."

* She opposes giving free health care to illegals.

* She voted for the bill that opposes efforts to boycott and isolate Israel.

* She voted to allow VA officials more power to discipline sub-substandard employees.

* She voted for the last two defense spending bills, unlike many radicals in the House.

My main reason for wishing her success is that I don't think she's a blind partisan. I think she's open to persuasion and willing to compromise.

 

[Slade3200]

I don’t think anybody has proposed giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants. Maybe Sanders and warren but I specifically heard most the other day that they weren’t proposing giving free healthcare out to illegals. Do you have a link?

View attachment 272433

That question wasn’t about free healthcare

 

[Slade3200]

She's too conservative for the party.

Biden probably has all the non-Regressives.

I noticed in the debate that she said she does *not* support giving free health care to illegal immigrants. She is one of the few Dems who does not support this.

She is also one of the few Dems who is willing to do interviews on Fox News. She has been on Tucker Carlson's show twice in the last five weeks alone.

I don’t think anybody has proposed giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants. Maybe Sanders and warren but I specifically heard most the other day that they weren’t proposing giving free healthcare out to illegals. Do you have a link?

They all support HC plans that include free or at least massively subsidized coverage for the poor. They all support including illegal aliens on that plan.

They all do? Can you show where Biden’s plan says that?

 

[lennypartiv]

* She opposes giving free health care to illegals.
* She voted for the bill that opposes efforts to boycott and isolate Israel.
* She voted to allow VA officials more power to discipline sub-substandard employees.
* She voted for the last two defense spending bills, unlike many radicals in the House.

Tulsi Gabbards on the issues:
Mandate an end to the use of fossil fuels for electricity by 2050. Ban fracking.
Tuition-free community college for all and tuition-free public university for most families.
Ban assault weapons and require universal background checks.
Create “Medicare for All,” a universal, government-sponsored health care system.
What does Tulsi Gabbard believe? Where the candidate stands on 7 issues

 

[Picaro]

Democrats are irrelevant. The GOP needs to start cleaning its own house of the nutjob sociopath rightwingers and assorted gimps. This is especially needed in the Senate, Congressional, and state races in the Big Four states.

Said nobody in the GOP.

Few voted for Trump because he ran as a Republican; they voted for him because he was essentially an independent. Nobody in the GOP establishment supported him in the 2016 elections, and very few do now. Your 'Party' disintegrated when your media hacks lost their credibility and can no longer deliver the goods for your cronies in either Party. The contest now is between the wing nuts; who can scare off the most moderates and sane voters loses; so far that's the Democrats and their insane racist terrorist loving vermin, but the far right nutjobs should never be counted out; it's their raving lunacy that keeps the races close.