CNN's blatant and bizarre Tulsi Gabbard snub

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Tulsi is too out spoken. She doesn't heel well. Regardless if I agree with her on things, I like that about her. I can live with it.

CNN and the MSM cannot live with it. She is an outsider in that world.

She will go down the Ron Paul/Bernie/Trump road. Nothing to be ashamed about but don't expect a warm welcome in the media.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: xpert11

Id vote for Yang

I definitely think his platform of bringing awareness to automation is important. Not many candidates have talked about it. I don't know if his solution is the way to go, but at least it's being talked about now.

originally posted by: FlyingSquirrel
Are they snubbing Yang and the other last place candidates in polling?

Could it be that they don't waste articles on them because they aren't popular and no one cares?

Nope, they invited people polling worse than her.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: xpert11

Id vote for Yang

Shouldn't he be mixing in some good old fashioned Democratic Yin ?
Philosophical question.

a reply to: ABNARTY

I like that she remains a Democrat yet takes on the perceived enemies of conservative voters, ie, Clinton and CNN and other media outlets. I like that she is honoring ''term limits' and after having served as a comgresswoman for 8 years, will not be seeking re-election to the House.

I trust in her honorable intentions much more than I do with most of the others running but then I have always been a dreamer.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Tulsi didn't vote to impeach Trump.

Therefor she has dishonored her House and must do the honorable thing to regain face.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I am with you here Stinker. This issue is not only not being talked about but rather almost completely ignored. And that is foolishness. Especially for a party that has always prided itself on it's forward vision.

The spark of Donald Trump in the Republican Primaries in 16 lit a fuse, where an outsider gained enough attention to bring focused attention to major ills in our society. Hopefully, if not in 2020, at least in 2024 we can have more voices like Yang and others gain entry to not only the Democrat primary season but the Republican Primary season as well. Once we difuse this monolithic approach we might see other voices forming a third party and maybe even a fourth.

This of course would have to be not only in the Executive race but the congressional races as well. Wouldn't it be great to see a handful or so of independent or third party member of both houses playing a wild card hand to force those two monoliths to bargain and make concessions again

a reply to: DBCowboy
I agree. She was almost always against it and in the end voted her conscience and her understanding of the nature of our electorate. And while most of the rest of the Dems acted like the Repubs in the Senate and vote along with the rest of their party, Gabbard recognized that her party was not completely behind the impeachment surge. I"m thinking that there may come a time when those who hid like frightened children behind the foolishness of the majority will be inspired by here tenacity and turn that party upright again.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

You can place the blame on an adherence to ideology, but maybe she voted as a rational person, the republicans (in a rare moment of lucidity) voted rationally as well.

This, this Tulsi issue, is writ large in our elections in general.

If a democrat has the temerity to actually vote for Trump in 2020 and tell people about it, it is likely, a death sentence.

Maybe just in social media, credit ratings, ability to get a job or an apartment, but a social death sentence all the same.

That's how polarized things are now.

a reply to: DBCowboy

While I consider your notion of a ''death sentence'' as over the top for voting against party lines, we must in all honesty realize the party line shunning is real. And in this realization should also notice the shunning of Rommey by his party as retribution for his voting to admit witnesses during the Senate hearings?

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: DBCowboy

While I consider your notion of a ''death sentence'' as over the top for voting against party lines, we must in all honesty realize the party line shunning is real. And in this realization should also notice the shunning of Rommey by his party as retribution for his voting to admit witnesses during the Senate hearings?

I see the shunning as Romney following a corrupt narrative, which is that any of the witnesses could even have the remote possibility of an unbiased testimony to offer up. And people know this with ease. Romney knows it too, but is listening to the little devil on his shoulder whispering in his ear to roll the other way.

Not just because he voted against the party line.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: DBCowboy

While I consider your notion of a ''death sentence'' as over the top for voting against party lines, we must in all honesty realize the party line shunning is real. And in this realization should also notice the shunning of Rommey by his party as retribution for his voting to admit witnesses during the Senate hearings?

Romney was a dick long before Trump entered the scene.

originally posted by: Metallicus
The nominee will end up being Bloomberg after all the other candidates have finished destroying each other. Hillary has already chosen him to be the next nominee regardless of what the voters have to say.

Equally importantly he has the money to do it.

$Billions.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I"m thinking that there may come a time when those who hid like frightened children behind the foolishness of the majority will be inspired by here tenacity and turn that party upright again.

We're talking about the Democratic party, correct?

What color is the sky in your world?

Asking for a friend...

a reply to: TerryMcGuire