Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Let's Tell-all about Tulsi
#61
(01-25-2020, 09:11 AM)Marypoza Wrote:
(12-22-2019, 03:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(12-21-2019, 01:17 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote:
(12-19-2019, 12:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Tulsi votes "present" on impeachment, further showing that she has no principle and no ethics.

Sorry Boomer, but Xers and Millies love Tulsi for exactly this reason. Our Generations are being enslaved by your generations obsession with globalist "Principles" and so-called "ethics".

Younger generations love Tulsi, you say, but why does she only get 2% or less in the polls for the Democratic primary? I think people realize that Tulsi is a sham. I know you approve of monstrous dictators like Assad and Putin, but I don't, and I don't think it's because I'm a globalist boomer that I don't. I just appreciate people rising up for freedom and think they deserve some help if they ask for it, and I disapprove of them being called terrorists and mowed and bombed just for speaking out. And you talk about being enslaved, yet over and over again you support ruthless tyrants who enslave people.

She shows she has no principle, and this was not globalist principle, but the principle of not committing bribery and extortion and using the national office for personal gain. Tell me Cynic Hero, what is globalist about opposing that?

-- Tulsi certainly is right about it being partisan. Ms Nancy could of started impeachment proceedings against the Donald 4 any # of offenses committed over the last 2 years. Hell  she could of started impeachment proceedings against dubya 4 war crimes when she had the chance. But noooooo (q the l8 gr8 John Bulushi) impeachment was always "off the table"".... until the Donald went after Groper Joe. Then she wants 2 impeach. But she withholds the articles til "after the election". Until Bernie surges in2 1st place. So then she sends the articles 2 the Senate, forcing Bernie 2 go 2  DC 4 a trial. & having 2 charter a jet 2 get 2 his events when it's not in session. This political af. Tulsi was smart & probably prescient not 2 get any of this shit on her

& there u go with that Assad crap again. Tulsi has denounced Assad since she returned home her fact finding mission w/homeboy Dennis. Meanwhile most of these candidates, Bernie excepted, stand w/Bibi, who is way more dangerous than Assad could ever hope 2b. Assad is a pisspot. New reports have come out that he didn't even use the sarin gas. Bibi otoh, authorizes genocide every gd mofo day. Yet he always gets a pass. Gimme a mofo break

Bibi is a bad boy. He doesn't get a pass from me. But Assad has killed hundreds of thousands of this own people merely for protesting and asking for help. He is the worst monster of our time. Yet Tulsi persists in saying that the rising of the people against him is a "war of US regime change." She praises Putin's horrific bombing of innocent civilians. She supported Obama's drone attacks even though they kill many innocents. That all makes Tulsi complicit and amoral.

The impeachment process is not partisan. It was the impeachment of Bill Clinton that was that. It was that which debased impeachment. No president has ever been more deserving of impeachment and conviction than Trump. Tulsi was a coward for not supporting it. She did it for political purposes.

Nancy was too cowardly in her opposition to Bush, I agree, as was her caucus. Dubya was a war criminal, and funds for the war should have been cut off. As for impeachment of Trump, given the fanaticism of the mad 45%, I think it could be argued that Pelosi was wise to put off it until the evidence was solid. This was of course made more difficult by Trump's obstruction, which is greater by far than any previous president. If he is not removed from office, as seems likely given the mad 45%, then he is a mad dictator, and that's what 45% of the American people want.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#62
Eric--Younger generations love Tulsi, you say, but why does she only get 2% or less in the polls for the Democratic primary? 

 -- bcuz younger generations typically don't get polled. Pollsters tend 2 call landlines, Millies generally don't have landlines. There sample #s are rediculously small- 500, 700 or so ppl out of a nation of 330 million? Seriously? Their #s tend 2 skew 50+ yo. Then there's the poll parameters- some only poll Dems. So if u say no I'm not a Dem they say ok thanx,click. Then there's the framing of the questions- like asking a dude who's never beaten his wife, when did u stop beating your wife. The questions r multiple choice & the responses generally do not include an other or none of the above category bcuz the pollsters want 2 4ce their respondents 2 answer within certain defined parameters. This is when l usually hang up on the pollster. My answer doesn't fit in2 any of their boxes, they insist that I change it 2 fit in2 1 of their boxes, l see we're @ an impasse, & so I hang up. Bcuz my survey is then incomplete, my polling data is lost. So this is why the only polls I trust r the 1s held on certain Tuesdays of this year.

All that said, Tulsi does better in online polls. Millies, who r already online, can vote in these polls. So can independents, who seem 2 like Tulsi. I've seen Tulsi poll as high as 7-8% in some of these polls. Still single digits, but higher than Amy K. I'm interested in seeing how well Tulsi- & Yang, & Tom Steyer, & Bernie 4 that matter- do in the open primaries where Indies can vote. I'm guessing Bernie's gonna blow them away but Tulsi & the others could do well too


Me, earlier-- Tulsi certainly is right about it being partisan. Ms Nancy could of started impeachment proceedings against the Donald 4 any # of offenses committed over the last 2 years. Hell  she could of started impeachment proceedings against dubya 4 war crimes when she had the chance. But noooooo (q the l8 gr8 John Bulushi) impeachment was always "off the table"".... until the Donald went after Groper Joe. Then she wants 2 impeach. But she withholds the articles til "after the election". Until Bernie surges in2 1st place. So then she sends the articles 2 the Senate, forcing Bernie 2 go 2  DC 4 a trial. & having 2 charter a jet 2 get 2 his events when it's not in session. This political af. Tulsi was smart & probably prescient not 2 get any of this shit on her

& there u go with that Assad crap again. Tulsi has denounced Assad since she returned home her fact finding mission w/homeboy Dennis. Meanwhile most of these candidates, Bernie excepted, stand w/Bibi, who is way more dangerous than Assad could ever hope 2b. Assad is a pisspot. New reports have come out that he didn't even use the sarin gas. Bibi otoh, authorizes genocide every gd mofo day. Yet he always gets a pass. Gimme a mofo break

Eric-- Bibi is a bad boy. He doesn't get a pass from me. But Assad has killed hundreds of thousands of this own people merely for protesting and asking for help. He is the worst monster of our time

--Assad is "the worst monster of our time" but Bibi, who practices genocide, is merely a bad boy? Seriously? Yes Eric u r giving him a pass.

Eric-- Yet Tulsi persists in saying that the rising of the people against him is a "war of US regime change." She praises Putin's horrific bombing of innocent civilians. She supported Obama's drone attacks even though they kill many innocents. That all makes Tulsi complicit and amoral.

-- Syria is in the midst of a civil war. It's an internal affair, a Syrian thing if u will, so yeah we should butt out. What if some foreign power had interfered in our Civil War. The Confederacy may still have slaves.

Who is Vlad bombing these daze? Receipts plz. The Yemenis ? No wait that's us

 Tulsi does support "limited" use of drones, whatever limited means. Well nobody's perfect. But my guess is it's 2 avoid using ppl & endangering lives. On the whole Tulsi is anti-war & that's why the Millies like her. Afterall who is machine gun folder in these oil wars of choice? 

Eric--The impeachment process is not partisan. 
 
-- like hell

Eric -It was the impeachment of Bill Clinton that was that. It was that which debased impeachment. 

-- no argument there. U don't impeach over a bj

Eric-- No president has ever been more deserving of impeachment and conviction than Trump.  

--except he is not being impeached 4 any of his high crimes & misdemeanors. He is being impeached 4 going after Groper Joe. The Senate will not convict him so it is a waste of time & tax $ & it's being being used 2 hamstring Bernie & keep him off the campaign trail, which Bernie has found a way around. So yeah it is partisan & all it shows that Groper Joe is corrupt along with the Donald

Eric-- Tulsi is smart & probably prescient for not supporting it. Ms Nancy did it for political purposes. (there fixed it 4 ya Smile )

Nancy was too cowardly in her opposition to Bush, I agree, as was her caucus. Dubya was a war criminal, and funds for the war should have been cut off. As for impeachment of Trump, given the fanaticism of the mad 45%, I think it could be argued that Pelosi was wise to put off it until the evidence was solid. This was of course made more difficult by Trump's obstruction, which is greater by far than any previous president. If he is not removed from office, as seems likely given the mad 45%, then he is a mad dictator, and that's what 45% of the American people want.

-- then we need 2 vote Bernie 2 oust him in Nov don't we? Smile
Heart  Bernie/Tulsi 2020    Heart
Reply
#63
(01-25-2020, 10:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-25-2020, 09:11 AM)Marypoza Wrote:
(12-22-2019, 03:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(12-21-2019, 01:17 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote:
(12-19-2019, 12:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Tulsi votes "present" on impeachment, further showing that she has no principle and no ethics.

Sorry Boomer, but Xers and Millies love Tulsi for exactly this reason. Our Generations are being enslaved by your generations obsession with globalist "Principles" and so-called "ethics".

Younger generations love Tulsi, you say, but why does she only get 2% or less in the polls for the Democratic primary? I think people realize that Tulsi is a sham. I know you approve of monstrous dictators like Assad and Putin, but I don't, and I don't think it's because I'm a globalist boomer that I don't. I just appreciate people rising up for freedom and think they deserve some help if they ask for it, and I disapprove of them being called terrorists and mowed and bombed just for speaking out. And you talk about being enslaved, yet over and over again you support ruthless tyrants who enslave people.

She shows she has no principle, and this was not globalist principle, but the principle of not committing bribery and extortion and using the national office for personal gain. Tell me Cynic Hero, what is globalist about opposing that?

-- Tulsi certainly is right about it being partisan. Ms Nancy could of started impeachment proceedings against the Donald 4 any # of offenses committed over the last 2 years. Hell  she could of started impeachment proceedings against dubya 4 war crimes when she had the chance. But noooooo (q the l8 gr8 John Bulushi) impeachment was always "off the table"".... until the Donald went after Groper Joe. Then she wants 2 impeach. But she withholds the articles til "after the election". Until Bernie surges in2 1st place. So then she sends the articles 2 the Senate, forcing Bernie 2 go 2  DC 4 a trial. & having 2 charter a jet 2 get 2 his events when it's not in session. This political af. Tulsi was smart & probably prescient not 2 get any of this shit on her

& there u go with that Assad crap again. Tulsi has denounced Assad since she returned home her fact finding mission w/homeboy Dennis. Meanwhile most of these candidates, Bernie excepted, stand w/Bibi, who is way more dangerous than Assad could ever hope 2b. Assad is a pisspot. New reports have come out that he didn't even use the sarin gas. Bibi otoh, authorizes genocide every gd mofo day. Yet he always gets a pass. Gimme a mofo break

Bibi is a bad boy. He doesn't get a pass from me. But Assad has killed hundreds of thousands of this own people merely for protesting and asking for help. He is the worst monster of our time. Yet Tulsi persists in saying that the rising of the people against him is a "war of US regime change." She praises Putin's horrific bombing of innocent civilians. She supported Obama's drone attacks even though they kill many innocents. That all makes Tulsi complicit and amoral.

The impeachment process is not partisan. It was the impeachment of Bill Clinton that was that. It was that which debased impeachment. No president has ever been more deserving of impeachment and conviction than Trump. Tulsi was a coward for not supporting it. She did it for political purposes.

Nancy was too cowardly in her opposition to Bush, I agree, as was her caucus. Dubya was a war criminal, and funds for the war should have been cut off. As for impeachment of Trump, given the fanaticism of the mad 45%, I think it could be argued that Pelosi was wise to put off it until the evidence was solid. This was of course made more difficult by Trump's obstruction, which is greater by far than any previous president. If he is not removed from office, as seems likely given the mad 45%, then he is a mad dictator, and that's what 45% of the American people want.
How can you say it wasn't partisan when everyone already knows it was partisan? Are you sure that you're not the one wearing the dunce cap? Now, I don't care if you and the liberal squad continues lying to each other and lying to yourselves but don't expect your lies to spread much further from yourselves. You do realize that if Trump wins, it going to be liberals vs America with typical Democrats caught in the middle either grabbing a life boat and jumping ship or siding with America.
Reply
#64
(01-26-2020, 05:44 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Eric--Younger generations love Tulsi, you say, but why does she only get 2% or less in the polls for the Democratic primary? 

 -- bcuz younger generations typically don't get polled. Pollsters tend 2 call landlines, Millies generally don't have landlines. There sample #s are rediculously small- 500, 700 or so ppl out of a nation of 330 million? Seriously? Their #s tend 2 skew 50+ yo. Then there's the poll parameters- some only poll Dems. So if u say no I'm not a Dem they say ok thanx,click. Then there's the framing of the questions- like asking a dude who's never beaten his wife, when did u stop beating your wife. The questions r multiple choice & the responses generally do not include an other or none of the above category bcuz the pollsters want 2 4ce their respondents 2 answer within certain defined parameters. This is when l usually hang up on the pollster. My answer doesn't fit in2 any of their boxes, they insist that I change it 2 fit in2 1 of their boxes, l see we're @ an impasse, & so I hang up. Bcuz my survey is then incomplete, my polling data is lost. So this is why the only polls I trust r the 1s held on certain Tuesdays of this year.

All that said, Tulsi does better in online polls. Millies, who r already online, can vote in these polls. So can independents, who seem 2 like Tulsi. I've seen Tulsi poll as high as 7-8% in some of these polls. Still single digits, but higher than Amy K. I'm interested in seeing how well Tulsi- & Yang, & Tom Steyer, & Bernie 4 that matter- do in the open primaries where Indies can vote. I'm guessing Bernie's gonna blow them away but Tulsi & the others could do well too


Me, earlier-- Tulsi certainly is right about it being partisan. Ms Nancy could of started impeachment proceedings against the Donald 4 any # of offenses committed over the last 2 years. Hell  she could of started impeachment proceedings against dubya 4 war crimes when she had the chance. But noooooo (q the l8 gr8 John Bulushi) impeachment was always "off the table"".... until the Donald went after Groper Joe. Then she wants 2 impeach. But she withholds the articles til "after the election". Until Bernie surges in2 1st place. So then she sends the articles 2 the Senate, forcing Bernie 2 go 2  DC 4 a trial. & having 2 charter a jet 2 get 2 his events when it's not in session. This political af. Tulsi was smart & probably prescient not 2 get any of this shit on her

& there u go with that Assad crap again. Tulsi has denounced Assad since she returned home her fact finding mission w/homeboy Dennis. Meanwhile most of these candidates, Bernie excepted, stand w/Bibi, who is way more dangerous than Assad could ever hope 2b. Assad is a pisspot. New reports have come out that he didn't even use the sarin gas. Bibi otoh, authorizes genocide every gd mofo day. Yet he always gets a pass. Gimme a mofo break

Eric-- Bibi is a bad boy. He doesn't get a pass from me. But Assad has killed hundreds of thousands of this own people merely for protesting and asking for help. He is the worst monster of our time

--Assad is "the worst monster of our time" but Bibi, who practices genocide, is merely a bad boy? Seriously? Yes Eric u r giving him a pass.

Eric-- Yet Tulsi persists in saying that the rising of the people against him is a "war of US regime change." She praises Putin's horrific bombing of innocent civilians. She supported Obama's drone attacks even though they kill many innocents. That all makes Tulsi complicit and amoral.

-- Syria is in the midst of a civil war. It's an internal affair, a Syrian thing if u will, so yeah we should butt out. What if some foreign power had interfered in our Civil War. The Confederacy may still have slaves.

Who is Vlad bombing these daze? Receipts plz. The Yemenis ? No wait that's us

 Tulsi does support "limited" use of drones, whatever limited means. Well nobody's perfect. But my guess is it's 2 avoid using ppl & endangering lives. On the whole Tulsi is anti-war & that's why the Millies like her. Afterall who is machine gun folder in these oil wars of choice? 

Eric--The impeachment process is not partisan. 
 
-- like hell

Eric -It was the impeachment of Bill Clinton that was that. It was that which debased impeachment. 

-- no argument there. U don't impeach over a bj

Eric-- No president has ever been more deserving of impeachment and conviction than Trump.  

--except he is not being impeached 4 any of his high crimes & misdemeanors. He is being impeached 4 going after Groper Joe. The Senate will not convict him so it is a waste of time & tax $ & it's being being used 2 hamstring Bernie & keep him off the campaign trail, which Bernie has found a way around. So yeah it is partisan & all it shows that Groper Joe is corrupt along with the Donald

Eric-- Tulsi is smart & probably prescient for not supporting it. Ms Nancy did it for political purposes. (there fixed it 4 ya Smile )

Nancy was too cowardly in her opposition to Bush, I agree, as was her caucus. Dubya was a war criminal, and funds for the war should have been cut off. As for impeachment of Trump, given the fanaticism of the mad 45%, I think it could be argued that Pelosi was wise to put off it until the evidence was solid. This was of course made more difficult by Trump's obstruction, which is greater by far than any previous president. If he is not removed from office, as seems likely given the mad 45%, then he is a mad dictator, and that's what 45% of the American people want.

-- then we need 2 vote Bernie 2 oust him in Nov don't we? Smile
Yep, you guys don't have land lines and we don't answer phones and waste time participating in polls.
Reply
#65
(01-27-2020, 02:07 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(01-25-2020, 10:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-25-2020, 09:11 AM)Marypoza Wrote:
(12-22-2019, 03:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(12-21-2019, 01:17 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Sorry Boomer, but Xers and Millies love Tulsi for exactly this reason. Our Generations are being enslaved by your generations obsession with globalist "Principles" and so-called "ethics".

Younger generations love Tulsi, you say, but why does she only get 2% or less in the polls for the Democratic primary? I think people realize that Tulsi is a sham. I know you approve of monstrous dictators like Assad and Putin, but I don't, and I don't think it's because I'm a globalist boomer that I don't. I just appreciate people rising up for freedom and think they deserve some help if they ask for it, and I disapprove of them being called terrorists and mowed and bombed just for speaking out. And you talk about being enslaved, yet over and over again you support ruthless tyrants who enslave people.

She shows she has no principle, and this was not globalist principle, but the principle of not committing bribery and extortion and using the national office for personal gain. Tell me Cynic Hero, what is globalist about opposing that?

-- Tulsi certainly is right about it being partisan. Ms Nancy could of started impeachment proceedings against the Donald 4 any # of offenses committed over the last 2 years. Hell  she could of started impeachment proceedings against dubya 4 war crimes when she had the chance. But noooooo (q the l8 gr8 John Bulushi) impeachment was always "off the table"".... until the Donald went after Groper Joe. Then she wants 2 impeach. But she withholds the articles til "after the election". Until Bernie surges in2 1st place. So then she sends the articles 2 the Senate, forcing Bernie 2 go 2  DC 4 a trial. & having 2 charter a jet 2 get 2 his events when it's not in session. This political af. Tulsi was smart & probably prescient not 2 get any of this shit on her

& there u go with that Assad crap again. Tulsi has denounced Assad since she returned home her fact finding mission w/homeboy Dennis. Meanwhile most of these candidates, Bernie excepted, stand w/Bibi, who is way more dangerous than Assad could ever hope 2b. Assad is a pisspot. New reports have come out that he didn't even use the sarin gas. Bibi otoh, authorizes genocide every gd mofo day. Yet he always gets a pass. Gimme a mofo break

Bibi is a bad boy. He doesn't get a pass from me. But Assad has killed hundreds of thousands of this own people merely for protesting and asking for help. He is the worst monster of our time. Yet Tulsi persists in saying that the rising of the people against him is a "war of US regime change." She praises Putin's horrific bombing of innocent civilians. She supported Obama's drone attacks even though they kill many innocents. That all makes Tulsi complicit and amoral.

The impeachment process is not partisan. It was the impeachment of Bill Clinton that was that. It was that which debased impeachment. No president has ever been more deserving of impeachment and conviction than Trump. Tulsi was a coward for not supporting it. She did it for political purposes.

Nancy was too cowardly in her opposition to Bush, I agree, as was her caucus. Dubya was a war criminal, and funds for the war should have been cut off. As for impeachment of Trump, given the fanaticism of the mad 45%, I think it could be argued that Pelosi was wise to put off it until the evidence was solid. This was of course made more difficult by Trump's obstruction, which is greater by far than any previous president. If he is not removed from office, as seems likely given the mad 45%, then he is a mad dictator, and that's what 45% of the American people want.
How can you say it wasn't partisan when everyone already knows it was partisan? Are you sure that you're not the one wearing the dunce cap? Now, I don't care if you and the liberal squad continues lying to each other and lying to yourselves but don't expect your lies to spread much further from yourselves. You do realize that if Trump wins, it going to be liberals vs America with typical Democrats caught in the middle either grabbing a life boat and jumping ship or siding with America.

The moderate Democrats and liberal Democrats all support impeachment and want Trump removed. There may be a difference between these two factions, and sometimes it's bitter. But the difference between moderate Democrats and the Republicans and Trump is a widening chasm. I follow the news and the polls. I might advise this, so you are not so fooled by your dunce cap.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#66
(01-26-2020, 05:44 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Eric--Younger generations love Tulsi, you say, but why does she only get 2% or less in the polls for the Democratic primary? 

 -- bcuz younger generations typically don't get polled. Pollsters tend 2 call landlines, Millies generally don't have landlines. There sample #s are rediculously small- 500, 700 or so ppl out of a nation of 330 million? Seriously? Their #s tend 2 skew 50+ yo. Then there's the poll parameters- some only poll Dems. So if u say no I'm not a Dem they say ok thanx,click. Then there's the framing of the questions- like asking a dude who's never beaten his wife, when did u stop beating your wife. The questions r multiple choice & the responses generally do not include an other or none of the above category bcuz the pollsters want 2 4ce their respondents 2 answer within certain defined parameters. This is when l usually hang up on the pollster. My answer doesn't fit in2 any of their boxes, they insist that I change it 2 fit in2 1 of their boxes, l see we're @ an impasse, & so I hang up. Bcuz my survey is then incomplete, my polling data is lost. So this is why the only polls I trust r the 1s held on certain Tuesdays of this year.

All that said, Tulsi does better in online polls. Millies, who r already online, can vote in these polls. So can independents, who seem 2 like Tulsi. I've seen Tulsi poll as high as 7-8% in some of these polls. Still single digits, but higher than Amy K. I'm interested in seeing how well Tulsi- & Yang, & Tom Steyer, & Bernie 4 that matter- do in the open primaries where Indies can vote. I'm guessing Bernie's gonna blow them away but Tulsi & the others could do well too
I follow the polls, elections and the news, and I find the polls generally credible. I follow these things so I can make my predictions. I know when they are off, and by how much. The only poll that uses mostly landlines is the biased Rasmussen poll. The polls are not accurate for the whole campaign; just as a snapshot of a sample. But Tulsi has never been higher than about 2% in all the polls during the last year. She does have some candidate skills and appeal; I give her that. Probably her support is strongest among young people. But her foreign policy and other mistakes have cost her dearly, and she doesn't have enough qualifications yet to be president or veep. I would not count her out in the future if she wises up, admits her mistakes, starts to rely on facts, and achieves greater experience and status. But I am not at all confident that she can do all of that.

Quote:Me, earlier-- Tulsi certainly is right about it being partisan. Ms Nancy could of started impeachment proceedings against the Donald 4 any # of offenses committed over the last 2 years. Hell  she could of started impeachment proceedings against dubya 4 war crimes when she had the chance. But noooooo (q the l8 gr8 John Bulushi) impeachment was always "off the table"".... until the Donald went after Groper Joe. Then she wants 2 impeach. But she withholds the articles til "after the election". Until Bernie surges in2 1st place. So then she sends the articles 2 the Senate, forcing Bernie 2 go 2  DC 4 a trial. & having 2 charter a jet 2 get 2 his events when it's not in session. This political af. Tulsi was smart & probably prescient not 2 get any of this shit on her

& there u go with that Assad crap again. Tulsi has denounced Assad since she returned home her fact finding mission w/homeboy Dennis. Meanwhile most of these candidates, Bernie excepted, stand w/Bibi, who is way more dangerous than Assad could ever hope 2b. Assad is a pisspot. New reports have come out that he didn't even use the sarin gas. Bibi otoh, authorizes genocide every gd mofo day. Yet he always gets a pass. Gimme a mofo break
Tulsi praised Putin for his war crimes against Syrians. She even persisted in the debate in calling Assad's genocidal war a war of US regime change. She did not let up at all. She is doubling down on her lie about a monster who has killed 500,000 people and chased millions out of their homes and country and caused right-wing fascism to rise in Europe and America. Netanyahu has not killed 500,000 people. His body count is nowhere near as high. That may be just circumstance. Netanyahu is corrupt, racist, murderous and thuggish and I don't give him a pass at all. He is dangerous if he attacks Iran. But I don't see that Netanyahu is relevant to Tulsi's lies.

There was certainly credible evidence of Assad's gas attacks, and I don't believe the conspiracy theories that say otherwise. But the gas attacks pale in comparison to the total scope of Assad's and Putin's war crimes. Assad is by far the worst monster of our time.

The only impeachment trial in US history that is NOT partisan is the one against Drumpface.

Quote:we need 2 vote Bernie 2 oust him in Nov don't we? Smile

Yes.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#67
(01-27-2020, 03:23 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-26-2020, 05:44 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Eric--Younger generations love Tulsi, you say, but why does she only get 2% or less in the polls for the Democratic primary? 

 -- bcuz younger generations typically don't get polled. Pollsters tend 2 call landlines, Millies generally don't have landlines. There sample #s are rediculously small- 500, 700 or so ppl out of a nation of 330 million? Seriously? Their #s tend 2 skew 50+ yo. Then there's the poll parameters- some only poll Dems. So if u say no I'm not a Dem they say ok thanx,click. Then there's the framing of the questions- like asking a dude who's never beaten his wife, when did u stop beating your wife. The questions r multiple choice & the responses generally do not include an other or none of the above category bcuz the pollsters want 2 4ce their respondents 2 answer within certain defined parameters. This is when l usually hang up on the pollster. My answer doesn't fit in2 any of their boxes, they insist that I change it 2 fit in2 1 of their boxes, l see we're @ an impasse, & so I hang up. Bcuz my survey is then incomplete, my polling data is lost. So this is why the only polls I trust r the 1s held on certain Tuesdays of this year.

All that said, Tulsi does better in online polls. Millies, who r already online, can vote in these polls. So can independents, who seem 2 like Tulsi. I've seen Tulsi poll as high as 7-8% in some of these polls. Still single digits, but higher than Amy K. I'm interested in seeing how well Tulsi- & Yang, & Tom Steyer, & Bernie 4 that matter- do in the open primaries where Indies can vote. I'm guessing Bernie's gonna blow them away but Tulsi & the others could do well too
I follow the polls, elections and the news, and I find the polls generally credible. I follow these things so I can make my predictions. I know when they are off, and by how much. The only poll that uses mostly landlines is the biased Rasmussen poll. The polls are not  accurate for the whole campaign; just as a snapshot of a sample. But Tulsi has never been higher than about 2% in all the polls during the last year. She does have some candidate skills and appeal; I give her that. Probably her support is strongest among young people. But her foreign policy and other mistakes have cost her dearly, and she doesn't have enough qualifications yet to be president or veep. I would not count her out in the future if she wises up, admits her mistakes, starts to rely on facts, and achieves greater experience and status. But I am not at all confident that she can do all of that.

Quote:Me, earlier-- Tulsi certainly is right about it being partisan. Ms Nancy could of started impeachment proceedings against the Donald 4 any # of offenses committed over the last 2 years. Hell  she could of started impeachment proceedings against dubya 4 war crimes when she had the chance. But noooooo (q the l8 gr8 John Bulushi) impeachment was always "off the table"".... until the Donald went after Groper Joe. Then she wants 2 impeach. But she withholds the articles til "after the election". Until Bernie surges in2 1st place. So then she sends the articles 2 the Senate, forcing Bernie 2 go 2  DC 4 a trial. & having 2 charter a jet 2 get 2 his events when it's not in session. This political af. Tulsi was smart & probably prescient not 2 get any of this shit on her

& there u go with that Assad crap again. Tulsi has denounced Assad since she returned home her fact finding mission w/homeboy Dennis. Meanwhile most of these candidates, Bernie excepted, stand w/Bibi, who is way more dangerous than Assad could ever hope 2b. Assad is a pisspot. New reports have come out that he didn't even use the sarin gas. Bibi otoh, authorizes genocide every gd mofo day. Yet he always gets a pass. Gimme a mofo break
Tulsi praised Putin for his war crimes against Syrians. She even persisted in the debate in calling Assad's genocidal war a war of US regime change. She did not let up at all. She is doubling down on her lie about a monster who has killed 500,000 people and chased millions out of their homes and country and caused right-wing fascism to rise in Europe and America. Netanyahu has not killed 500,000 people. His body count is nowhere near as high. That may be just circumstance. Netanyahu is corrupt, racist, murderous and thuggish and I don't give him a pass at all. He is dangerous if he attacks Iran. But I don't see that Netanyahu is relevant to Tulsi's lies.

There was certainly credible evidence of Assad's gas attacks, and I don't believe the conspiracy theories that say otherwise. But the gas attacks pale in comparison to the total scope of Assad's and Putin's war crimes. Assad is by far the worst monster of our time.

The only impeachment trial in US history that is NOT partisan is the one against Drumpface.

Quote:we need 2 vote Bernie 2 oust him in Nov don't we? Smile

Yes.

-- sorry it's taken me a bit long 2 reply Eric, but l wanted 2 get a few receipts 1st. According to NYT  2day Tulsi got @ least 5% in 2 polls but doesn't say which 2

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019...ineup.html

she actually did qualify 4 the Dec Debate but the DNC threw 1 of those polls out even though it had been previously counted 4 other candidates

https://www.theepochtimes.com/gabbard-ac...61373.html

here is Tulsi denouncing Assad:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/01/politics/...index.html

Tulsi on Bibi:

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2019/04...bbard.html

speaking of Bibi & passes, here's Bibi giving Hitler a pass:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/world...icism.html

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/neta...-1.5411578

l thought the reports about Assad not using sarin gas were more recent but these are the most recent l could find- about anything concerning Assad & sarin gas. So unless u consider Newsweek & the Associated Press conspiracy theorists...

https://www.newsweek.com/wheres-evidence...ple-810123

https://apnews.com/bd533182b7f244a4b771c73a0b601ec5


so Vlad the Impuppeteer is interfering in the Syrian Civil War. That doesn't mean we should as well. it's an f-ing civil war Eric. We should stay out of it. that's what Tulsi meant when she referred 2 it as a regime change war, assuming u want the Govt 2 go in & take out Assad. That would be regime change. if the Govt did take out Assad, who should they replace him with? I believe the opposition 2 the Syrian govt is IS isn't it? they're monsters as well. 6 of 1 & 1/2 dozen of another. Assad may be a monster as u say, but l sincerely doubt he's responsible 4 right fascism in Europe & America. We have our own homegrown wingnuts 2 answer 4 that, starting with the Donald. 

l'm glad u don't give Bibi a pass Eric, but you're not running the f-ing Govt. Those idiots r giving Bibi an f-ing pass. My point about Bibi is that he's way more dangerous than Assad (Bibi has nukes, Assad don't) authorizes & abets genocide on a daily basis, & the Govt aids & abets him & Bibi's corrupt af
Heart  Bernie/Tulsi 2020    Heart
Reply
#68
(01-27-2020, 02:07 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: How can you say it wasn't partisan when everyone already knows it was partisan? Are you sure that you're not the one wearing the dunce cap? Now, I don't care if you and the liberal squad continues lying to each other and lying to yourselves but don't expect your lies to spread much further from yourselves. You do realize that if Trump wins, it going to be liberals vs America with typical Democrats caught in the middle either grabbing a life boat and jumping ship or siding with America.

Trump started is Presidency by opposing the very government he intended to lead, excoriating career civil servants, and cozying up to our adversaries. Add to that, he started to use the government as an ATM for his businesses, and stonewalled any oversight attempts. He is now the most corrupt politician to ever hold the Presidency. Arguing to the contrary only works if you ignore easily obtainable (and verifiable) facts. So here's the question: what fate awaits the many who knowingly support this guy? You can argue that the Fox News addicts didn't know any better, and that may even be true. But ignorance is only an excuse if it's not willful, and plugging your ears, covering your eyes and saying la-la-la fails the test.

Explain this to your grandchildren when they ask: what did you do to stop Trump? If may be a while before history has its say, but we know from the Nixon experience, it's not a full lifetime.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#69
(01-28-2020, 07:09 PM)Marypoza Wrote: so Vlad the Impuppeteer is interfering in the Syrian Civil War. That doesn't mean we should as well. it's an f-ing civil war Eric. We should stay out of it. that's what Tulsi meant when she referred 2 it as a regime change war, assuming u want the Govt 2 go in & take out Assad. That would be regime change. if the Govt did take out Assad, who should they replace him with? I believe the opposition 2 the Syrian govt is IS isn't it? they're monsters as well. 6 of 1 & 1/2 dozen of another. Assad may be a monster as u say, but l sincerely doubt he's responsible 4 right fascism in Europe & America. We have our own homegrown wingnuts 2 answer 4 that, starting with the Donald... 

The real problem with Assad and Putin is how far they've taken their efforts in Syria. They are purposely targeting hospitals and schools. That falls solidly in the category of genocide. Can we fix it? I doubt it, but some incredibly strong response is needed. Trump won't spank his buddy Vlad, but whoever replaces him needs to impose sanctions that cripple the Russian economy. Putin is already shaky, and an economic collapse may finally get his attention.

Not all strong actions lead to war.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#70
(01-28-2020, 07:09 PM)Marypoza Wrote:
(01-27-2020, 03:23 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-26-2020, 05:44 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Eric--Younger generations love Tulsi, you say, but why does she only get 2% or less in the polls for the Democratic primary? 

 -- bcuz younger generations typically don't get polled. Pollsters tend 2 call landlines, Millies generally don't have landlines. There sample #s are rediculously small- 500, 700 or so ppl out of a nation of 330 million? Seriously? Their #s tend 2 skew 50+ yo. Then there's the poll parameters- some only poll Dems. So if u say no I'm not a Dem they say ok thanx,click. Then there's the framing of the questions- like asking a dude who's never beaten his wife, when did u stop beating your wife. The questions r multiple choice & the responses generally do not include an other or none of the above category bcuz the pollsters want 2 4ce their respondents 2 answer within certain defined parameters. This is when l usually hang up on the pollster. My answer doesn't fit in2 any of their boxes, they insist that I change it 2 fit in2 1 of their boxes, l see we're @ an impasse, & so I hang up. Bcuz my survey is then incomplete, my polling data is lost. So this is why the only polls I trust r the 1s held on certain Tuesdays of this year.

All that said, Tulsi does better in online polls. Millies, who r already online, can vote in these polls. So can independents, who seem 2 like Tulsi. I've seen Tulsi poll as high as 7-8% in some of these polls. Still single digits, but higher than Amy K. I'm interested in seeing how well Tulsi- & Yang, & Tom Steyer, & Bernie 4 that matter- do in the open primaries where Indies can vote. I'm guessing Bernie's gonna blow them away but Tulsi & the others could do well too
I follow the polls, elections and the news, and I find the polls generally credible. I follow these things so I can make my predictions. I know when they are off, and by how much. The only poll that uses mostly landlines is the biased Rasmussen poll. The polls are not  accurate for the whole campaign; just as a snapshot of a sample. But Tulsi has never been higher than about 2% in all the polls during the last year. She does have some candidate skills and appeal; I give her that. Probably her support is strongest among young people. But her foreign policy and other mistakes have cost her dearly, and she doesn't have enough qualifications yet to be president or veep. I would not count her out in the future if she wises up, admits her mistakes, starts to rely on facts, and achieves greater experience and status. But I am not at all confident that she can do all of that.

Quote:Me, earlier-- Tulsi certainly is right about it being partisan. Ms Nancy could of started impeachment proceedings against the Donald 4 any # of offenses committed over the last 2 years. Hell  she could of started impeachment proceedings against dubya 4 war crimes when she had the chance. But noooooo (q the l8 gr8 John Bulushi) impeachment was always "off the table"".... until the Donald went after Groper Joe. Then she wants 2 impeach. But she withholds the articles til "after the election". Until Bernie surges in2 1st place. So then she sends the articles 2 the Senate, forcing Bernie 2 go 2  DC 4 a trial. & having 2 charter a jet 2 get 2 his events when it's not in session. This political af. Tulsi was smart & probably prescient not 2 get any of this shit on her

& there u go with that Assad crap again. Tulsi has denounced Assad since she returned home her fact finding mission w/homeboy Dennis. Meanwhile most of these candidates, Bernie excepted, stand w/Bibi, who is way more dangerous than Assad could ever hope 2b. Assad is a pisspot. New reports have come out that he didn't even use the sarin gas. Bibi otoh, authorizes genocide every gd mofo day. Yet he always gets a pass. Gimme a mofo break
Tulsi praised Putin for his war crimes against Syrians. She even persisted in the debate in calling Assad's genocidal war a war of US regime change. She did not let up at all. She is doubling down on her lie about a monster who has killed 500,000 people and chased millions out of their homes and country and caused right-wing fascism to rise in Europe and America. Netanyahu has not killed 500,000 people. His body count is nowhere near as high. That may be just circumstance. Netanyahu is corrupt, racist, murderous and thuggish and I don't give him a pass at all. He is dangerous if he attacks Iran. But I don't see that Netanyahu is relevant to Tulsi's lies.

There was certainly credible evidence of Assad's gas attacks, and I don't believe the conspiracy theories that say otherwise. But the gas attacks pale in comparison to the total scope of Assad's and Putin's war crimes. Assad is by far the worst monster of our time.

The only impeachment trial in US history that is NOT partisan is the one against Drumpface.

Quote:we need 2 vote Bernie 2 oust him in Nov don't we? Smile

Yes.

-- sorry it's taken me a bit long 2 reply Eric, but l wanted 2 get a few receipts 1st. According to NYT  2day Tulsi got @ least 5% in 2 polls but doesn't say which 2

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019...ineup.html

she actually did qualify 4 the Dec Debate but the DNC threw 1 of those polls out even though it had been previously counted 4 other candidates

https://www.theepochtimes.com/gabbard-ac...61373.html

here is Tulsi denouncing Assad:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/01/politics/...index.html

Tulsi on Bibi:

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2019/04...bbard.html

speaking of Bibi & passes, here's Bibi giving Hitler a pass:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/world...icism.html

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/neta...-1.5411578

l thought the reports about Assad not using sarin gas were more recent but these are the most recent l could find- about anything concerning Assad & sarin gas. So unless u consider Newsweek & the Associated Press conspiracy theorists...

https://www.newsweek.com/wheres-evidence...ple-810123

https://apnews.com/bd533182b7f244a4b771c73a0b601ec5


so Vlad the Impuppeteer is interfering in the Syrian Civil War. That doesn't mean we should as well. it's an f-ing civil war Eric. We should stay out of it. that's what Tulsi meant when she referred 2 it as a regime change war, assuming u want the Govt 2 go in & take out Assad. That would be regime change. if the Govt did take out Assad, who should they replace him with? I believe the opposition 2 the Syrian govt is IS isn't it? they're monsters as well. 6 of 1 & 1/2 dozen of another. Assad may be a monster as u say, but l sincerely doubt he's responsible 4 right fascism in Europe & America. We have our own homegrown wingnuts 2 answer 4 that, starting with the Donald. 

l'm glad u don't give Bibi a pass Eric, but you're not running the f-ing Govt. Those idiots r giving Bibi an f-ing pass. My point about Bibi is that he's way more dangerous than Assad (Bibi has nukes, Assad don't) authorizes & abets genocide on a daily basis, & the Govt aids & abets him & Bibi's corrupt af

Bibi is not way more dangerous than Assad. Yes Bibi is corrupt as f and has nukes and has killed thousands in Gaza and the West Bank. He and Trump are busy annexing Palestine. But Bibi is not relevant to the discussion of Tulsi, Assad, Putin and Obama and Tulsi's foreign policies. You are throwing him in here, even though we don't disagree about him.

Assad is a monster who has killed 500,000 people. Tulsi doubled down on her lie during the debate we all heard, saying the Syrian civil war is a US war of regime change. She approved of Putin's bombing of innocent civilians in Syria, which is a severe war crime. She approved of Obama's drone attacks. I have posted all these facts on this thread already.

Yes, we should stay out of Syria. But we were never in Syria, never proposed to invade and never proposed to throw him out by force of arms. Tulsi said we were in Syria, quite literally. It is her fantasy, and people believe it. Giving aid to rebels rising for freedom which they ask us for is not "involvement" in the war. It is valuable assistance against a genocidal tyrant murdering his people by the hundreds of thousands. 

The War in Syria started in 2011 with the people rising up for freedom in the Arab Spring. Reports of this mass movement for freedom, and protests against Assad's do-nothing policies in response to severe climate change-imposed drought, were broadcast by AP and other legit sources all over the world. Before long Assad was running them over with tanks and bombing them, just because they spoke out. The people formed the Free Syrian Army in response and fought bravely, and were on the verge of overthrowing the monster. They asked the US for aid, but none came. So some jihadis came in to help them instead. Assad promptly branded all the rebels as terrorists, and Tulsi believed him. After chemical attacks, Obama held off on this "red line" crossing by Assad in Summer 2013 and did nothing, but a phony program overseen by Russia to remove chemical weapons was carried out in response to Obama's threats. The US finally gave the rebels some aid, but it was too little too late. Meanwhile the Russians and Iranians and Hezbollah came into Syria with guns and bombs blazing. The tide turned as Assad and Putin bombed the whole country and chased out most of its people. Trump and western allies finally launched a few bombs on government sites in response to further chemical attacks. Nothing changed.

Assad is responsible directly for the rise of fascism in Europe and America. He didn't create it, but he mightily stoked it, by unleashing hundreds of thousands if not millions of refugees fleeing Assad into these countries. It was the justification and reason for Trump's travel bans against Muslim countries. Today's refugee crisis, of which the Syrian refugees are the largest component, is the greatest refugee crisis and mass movement of peoples ever in history, and I predicted it decades in advance for this period in history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douma_chemical_attack

What happened?

"Three months after the attack, the OPCW released its interim report into what happened in Douma. The report found no evidence of organophosphorus nerve agents like sarin either at the site or in samples from the casualties — something of a surprise, because the suspected use of sarin had been one of the justifications for American airstrikes back in April, and alleged Syrian chemical weapons facilities their primary target. But the investigators did find something else. In the aftermath of the attack, video shot by gas mask-clad activists had fastened on the two yellow gas canisters: one lying on a bed, filmed on April 8 by Douma Revolution, and the second perched on a top-floor balcony and apparently recorded the following evening by the White Helmets. The OPCW located both those cylinders, one at the apartment block and the other in a different building nearly a kilometer away. Samples collected at both locations turned up “various chlorinated organic chemicals” along with “the residues of explosive” — not quite the same thing as saying that chlorine had been used as a chemical weapon, but evidence that seemed to head in that direction. In its final report, we might expect the OPCW to make a more conclusive judgement."

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/09/doum...nce-syria/

Let's stick to facts, not fake news and propaganda from any side.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#71
(01-29-2020, 01:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-28-2020, 07:09 PM)Marypoza Wrote:
(01-27-2020, 03:23 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-26-2020, 05:44 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Eric--Younger generations love Tulsi, you say, but why does she only get 2% or less in the polls for the Democratic primary? 

 -- bcuz younger generations typically don't get polled. Pollsters tend 2 call landlines, Millies generally don't have landlines. There sample #s are rediculously small- 500, 700 or so ppl out of a nation of 330 million? Seriously? Their #s tend 2 skew 50+ yo. Then there's the poll parameters- some only poll Dems. So if u say no I'm not a Dem they say ok thanx,click. Then there's the framing of the questions- like asking a dude who's never beaten his wife, when did u stop beating your wife. The questions r multiple choice & the responses generally do not include an other or none of the above category bcuz the pollsters want 2 4ce their respondents 2 answer within certain defined parameters. This is when l usually hang up on the pollster. My answer doesn't fit in2 any of their boxes, they insist that I change it 2 fit in2 1 of their boxes, l see we're @ an impasse, & so I hang up. Bcuz my survey is then incomplete, my polling data is lost. So this is why the only polls I trust r the 1s held on certain Tuesdays of this year.

All that said, Tulsi does better in online polls. Millies, who r already online, can vote in these polls. So can independents, who seem 2 like Tulsi. I've seen Tulsi poll as high as 7-8% in some of these polls. Still single digits, but higher than Amy K. I'm interested in seeing how well Tulsi- & Yang, & Tom Steyer, & Bernie 4 that matter- do in the open primaries where Indies can vote. I'm guessing Bernie's gonna blow them away but Tulsi & the others could do well too
I follow the polls, elections and the news, and I find the polls generally credible. I follow these things so I can make my predictions. I know when they are off, and by how much. The only poll that uses mostly landlines is the biased Rasmussen poll. The polls are not  accurate for the whole campaign; just as a snapshot of a sample. But Tulsi has never been higher than about 2% in all the polls during the last year. She does have some candidate skills and appeal; I give her that. Probably her support is strongest among young people. But her foreign policy and other mistakes have cost her dearly, and she doesn't have enough qualifications yet to be president or veep. I would not count her out in the future if she wises up, admits her mistakes, starts to rely on facts, and achieves greater experience and status. But I am not at all confident that she can do all of that.

Quote:Me, earlier-- Tulsi certainly is right about it being partisan. Ms Nancy could of started impeachment proceedings against the Donald 4 any # of offenses committed over the last 2 years. Hell  she could of started impeachment proceedings against dubya 4 war crimes when she had the chance. But noooooo (q the l8 gr8 John Bulushi) impeachment was always "off the table"".... until the Donald went after Groper Joe. Then she wants 2 impeach. But she withholds the articles til "after the election". Until Bernie surges in2 1st place. So then she sends the articles 2 the Senate, forcing Bernie 2 go 2  DC 4 a trial. & having 2 charter a jet 2 get 2 his events when it's not in session. This political af. Tulsi was smart & probably prescient not 2 get any of this shit on her

& there u go with that Assad crap again. Tulsi has denounced Assad since she returned home her fact finding mission w/homeboy Dennis. Meanwhile most of these candidates, Bernie excepted, stand w/Bibi, who is way more dangerous than Assad could ever hope 2b. Assad is a pisspot. New reports have come out that he didn't even use the sarin gas. Bibi otoh, authorizes genocide every gd mofo day. Yet he always gets a pass. Gimme a mofo break
Tulsi praised Putin for his war crimes against Syrians. She even persisted in the debate in calling Assad's genocidal war a war of US regime change. She did not let up at all. She is doubling down on her lie about a monster who has killed 500,000 people and chased millions out of their homes and country and caused right-wing fascism to rise in Europe and America. Netanyahu has not killed 500,000 people. His body count is nowhere near as high. That may be just circumstance. Netanyahu is corrupt, racist, murderous and thuggish and I don't give him a pass at all. He is dangerous if he attacks Iran. But I don't see that Netanyahu is relevant to Tulsi's lies.

There was certainly credible evidence of Assad's gas attacks, and I don't believe the conspiracy theories that say otherwise. But the gas attacks pale in comparison to the total scope of Assad's and Putin's war crimes. Assad is by far the worst monster of our time.

The only impeachment trial in US history that is NOT partisan is the one against Drumpface.

Quote:we need 2 vote Bernie 2 oust him in Nov don't we? Smile

Yes.

-- sorry it's taken me a bit long 2 reply Eric, but l wanted 2 get a few receipts 1st. According to NYT  2day Tulsi got @ least 5% in 2 polls but doesn't say which 2

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019...ineup.html

she actually did qualify 4 the Dec Debate but the DNC threw 1 of those polls out even though it had been previously counted 4 other candidates

https://www.theepochtimes.com/gabbard-ac...61373.html

here is Tulsi denouncing Assad:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/01/politics/...index.html

Tulsi on Bibi:

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2019/04...bbard.html

speaking of Bibi & passes, here's Bibi giving Hitler a pass:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/world...icism.html

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/neta...-1.5411578

l thought the reports about Assad not using sarin gas were more recent but these are the most recent l could find- about anything concerning Assad & sarin gas. So unless u consider Newsweek & the Associated Press conspiracy theorists...

https://www.newsweek.com/wheres-evidence...ple-810123

https://apnews.com/bd533182b7f244a4b771c73a0b601ec5


so Vlad the Impuppeteer is interfering in the Syrian Civil War. That doesn't mean we should as well. it's an f-ing civil war Eric. We should stay out of it. that's what Tulsi meant when she referred 2 it as a regime change war, assuming u want the Govt 2 go in & take out Assad. That would be regime change. if the Govt did take out Assad, who should they replace him with? I believe the opposition 2 the Syrian govt is IS isn't it? they're monsters as well. 6 of 1 & 1/2 dozen of another. Assad may be a monster as u say, but l sincerely doubt he's responsible 4 right fascism in Europe & America. We have our own homegrown wingnuts 2 answer 4 that, starting with the Donald. 

l'm glad u don't give Bibi a pass Eric, but you're not running the f-ing Govt. Those idiots r giving Bibi an f-ing pass. My point about Bibi is that he's way more dangerous than Assad (Bibi has nukes, Assad don't) authorizes & abets genocide on a daily basis, & the Govt aids & abets him & Bibi's corrupt af

Bibi is not way more dangerous than Assad. Yes Bibi is corrupt as f and has nukes and has killed thousands in Gaza and the West Bank. He and Trump are busy annexing Palestine. But Bibi is not relevant to the discussion of Tulsi, Assad, Putin and Obama and Tulsi's foreign policies. You are throwing him in here, even though we don't disagree about him.

Assad is a monster who has killed 500,000 people. Tulsi doubled down on her lie during the debate we all heard, saying the Syrian civil war is a US war of regime change. She approved of Putin's bombing of innocent civilians in Syria, which is a severe war crime. She approved of Obama's drone attacks. I have posted all these facts on this thread already.

Yes, we should stay out of Syria. But we were never in Syria, never proposed to invade and never proposed to throw him out by force of arms. Tulsi said we were in Syria, quite literally. It is her fantasy, and people believe it. Giving aid to rebels rising for freedom which they ask us for is not "involvement" in the war. It is valuable assistance against a genocidal tyrant murdering his people by the hundreds of thousands. 

The War in Syria started in 2011 with the people rising up for freedom in the Arab Spring. Reports of this mass movement for freedom, and protests against Assad's do-nothing policies in response to severe climate change-imposed drought, were broadcast by AP and other legit sources all over the world. Before long Assad was running them over with tanks and bombing them, just because they spoke out. The people formed the Free Syrian Army in response and fought bravely, and were on the verge of overthrowing the monster. They asked the US for aid, but none came. So some jihadis came in to help them instead. Assad promptly branded all the rebels as terrorists, and Tulsi believed him. After chemical attacks, Obama held off on this "red line" crossing by Assad in Summer 2013 and did nothing, but a phony program overseen by Russia to remove chemical weapons was carried out in response to Obama's threats. The US finally gave the rebels some aid, but it was too little too late. Meanwhile the Russians and Iranians and Hezbollah came into Syria with guns and bombs blazing. The tide turned as Assad and Putin bombed the whole country and chased out most of its people.  Trump and western allies finally launched a few bombs on government sites in response to further chemical attacks. Nothing changed.

Assad is responsible directly for the rise of fascism in Europe and America. He didn't create it, but he mightily stoked it, by unleashing hundreds of thousands if not millions of refugees fleeing Assad into these countries. It was the justification and reason for Trump's travel bans against Muslim countries. Today's refugee crisis, of which the Syrian refugees are the largest component, is the greatest refugee crisis and mass movement of peoples ever in history, and I predicted it decades in advance for this period in history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douma_chemical_attack

What happened?

"Three months after the attack, the OPCW released its interim report into what happened in Douma. The report found no evidence of organophosphorus nerve agents like sarin either at the site or in samples from the casualties — something of a surprise, because the suspected use of sarin had been one of the justifications for American airstrikes back in April, and alleged Syrian chemical weapons facilities their primary target. But the investigators did find something else. In the aftermath of the attack, video shot by gas mask-clad activists had fastened on the two yellow gas canisters: one lying on a bed, filmed on April 8 by Douma Revolution, and the second perched on a top-floor balcony and apparently recorded the following evening by the White Helmets. The OPCW located both those cylinders, one at the apartment block and the other in a different building nearly a kilometer away. Samples collected at both locations turned up “various chlorinated organic chemicals” along with “the residues of explosive” — not quite the same thing as saying that chlorine had been used as a chemical weapon, but evidence that seemed to head in that direction. In its final report, we might expect the OPCW to make a more conclusive judgement."

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/09/doum...nce-syria/

Let's stick to facts, not fake news and propaganda from any side.

-- what fake news?
Heart  Bernie/Tulsi 2020    Heart
Reply
#72
(01-29-2020, 09:30 PM)Marypoza Wrote:
(01-29-2020, 01:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-28-2020, 07:09 PM)Marypoza Wrote:
(01-27-2020, 03:23 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-26-2020, 05:44 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Eric--Younger generations love Tulsi, you say, but why does she only get 2% or less in the polls for the Democratic primary? 

 -- bcuz younger generations typically don't get polled. Pollsters tend 2 call landlines, Millies generally don't have landlines. There sample #s are rediculously small- 500, 700 or so ppl out of a nation of 330 million? Seriously? Their #s tend 2 skew 50+ yo. Then there's the poll parameters- some only poll Dems. So if u say no I'm not a Dem they say ok thanx,click. Then there's the framing of the questions- like asking a dude who's never beaten his wife, when did u stop beating your wife. The questions r multiple choice & the responses generally do not include an other or none of the above category bcuz the pollsters want 2 4ce their respondents 2 answer within certain defined parameters. This is when l usually hang up on the pollster. My answer doesn't fit in2 any of their boxes, they insist that I change it 2 fit in2 1 of their boxes, l see we're @ an impasse, & so I hang up. Bcuz my survey is then incomplete, my polling data is lost. So this is why the only polls I trust r the 1s held on certain Tuesdays of this year.

All that said, Tulsi does better in online polls. Millies, who r already online, can vote in these polls. So can independents, who seem 2 like Tulsi. I've seen Tulsi poll as high as 7-8% in some of these polls. Still single digits, but higher than Amy K. I'm interested in seeing how well Tulsi- & Yang, & Tom Steyer, & Bernie 4 that matter- do in the open primaries where Indies can vote. I'm guessing Bernie's gonna blow them away but Tulsi & the others could do well too
I follow the polls, elections and the news, and I find the polls generally credible. I follow these things so I can make my predictions. I know when they are off, and by how much. The only poll that uses mostly landlines is the biased Rasmussen poll. The polls are not  accurate for the whole campaign; just as a snapshot of a sample. But Tulsi has never been higher than about 2% in all the polls during the last year. She does have some candidate skills and appeal; I give her that. Probably her support is strongest among young people. But her foreign policy and other mistakes have cost her dearly, and she doesn't have enough qualifications yet to be president or veep. I would not count her out in the future if she wises up, admits her mistakes, starts to rely on facts, and achieves greater experience and status. But I am not at all confident that she can do all of that.

Quote:Me, earlier-- Tulsi certainly is right about it being partisan. Ms Nancy could of started impeachment proceedings against the Donald 4 any # of offenses committed over the last 2 years. Hell  she could of started impeachment proceedings against dubya 4 war crimes when she had the chance. But noooooo (q the l8 gr8 John Bulushi) impeachment was always "off the table"".... until the Donald went after Groper Joe. Then she wants 2 impeach. But she withholds the articles til "after the election". Until Bernie surges in2 1st place. So then she sends the articles 2 the Senate, forcing Bernie 2 go 2  DC 4 a trial. & having 2 charter a jet 2 get 2 his events when it's not in session. This political af. Tulsi was smart & probably prescient not 2 get any of this shit on her

& there u go with that Assad crap again. Tulsi has denounced Assad since she returned home her fact finding mission w/homeboy Dennis. Meanwhile most of these candidates, Bernie excepted, stand w/Bibi, who is way more dangerous than Assad could ever hope 2b. Assad is a pisspot. New reports have come out that he didn't even use the sarin gas. Bibi otoh, authorizes genocide every gd mofo day. Yet he always gets a pass. Gimme a mofo break
Tulsi praised Putin for his war crimes against Syrians. She even persisted in the debate in calling Assad's genocidal war a war of US regime change. She did not let up at all. She is doubling down on her lie about a monster who has killed 500,000 people and chased millions out of their homes and country and caused right-wing fascism to rise in Europe and America. Netanyahu has not killed 500,000 people. His body count is nowhere near as high. That may be just circumstance. Netanyahu is corrupt, racist, murderous and thuggish and I don't give him a pass at all. He is dangerous if he attacks Iran. But I don't see that Netanyahu is relevant to Tulsi's lies.

There was certainly credible evidence of Assad's gas attacks, and I don't believe the conspiracy theories that say otherwise. But the gas attacks pale in comparison to the total scope of Assad's and Putin's war crimes. Assad is by far the worst monster of our time.

The only impeachment trial in US history that is NOT partisan is the one against Drumpface.

Quote:we need 2 vote Bernie 2 oust him in Nov don't we? Smile

Yes.

-- sorry it's taken me a bit long 2 reply Eric, but l wanted 2 get a few receipts 1st. According to NYT  2day Tulsi got @ least 5% in 2 polls but doesn't say which 2

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019...ineup.html

she actually did qualify 4 the Dec Debate but the DNC threw 1 of those polls out even though it had been previously counted 4 other candidates

https://www.theepochtimes.com/gabbard-ac...61373.html

here is Tulsi denouncing Assad:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/01/politics/...index.html

Tulsi on Bibi:

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2019/04...bbard.html

speaking of Bibi & passes, here's Bibi giving Hitler a pass:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/world...icism.html

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/neta...-1.5411578

l thought the reports about Assad not using sarin gas were more recent but these are the most recent l could find- about anything concerning Assad & sarin gas. So unless u consider Newsweek & the Associated Press conspiracy theorists...

https://www.newsweek.com/wheres-evidence...ple-810123

https://apnews.com/bd533182b7f244a4b771c73a0b601ec5


so Vlad the Impuppeteer is interfering in the Syrian Civil War. That doesn't mean we should as well. it's an f-ing civil war Eric. We should stay out of it. that's what Tulsi meant when she referred 2 it as a regime change war, assuming u want the Govt 2 go in & take out Assad. That would be regime change. if the Govt did take out Assad, who should they replace him with? I believe the opposition 2 the Syrian govt is IS isn't it? they're monsters as well. 6 of 1 & 1/2 dozen of another. Assad may be a monster as u say, but l sincerely doubt he's responsible 4 right fascism in Europe & America. We have our own homegrown wingnuts 2 answer 4 that, starting with the Donald. 

l'm glad u don't give Bibi a pass Eric, but you're not running the f-ing Govt. Those idiots r giving Bibi an f-ing pass. My point about Bibi is that he's way more dangerous than Assad (Bibi has nukes, Assad don't) authorizes & abets genocide on a daily basis, & the Govt aids & abets him & Bibi's corrupt af

Bibi is not way more dangerous than Assad. Yes Bibi is corrupt as f and has nukes and has killed thousands in Gaza and the West Bank. He and Trump are busy annexing Palestine. But Bibi is not relevant to the discussion of Tulsi, Assad, Putin and Obama and Tulsi's foreign policies. You are throwing him in here, even though we don't disagree about him.

Assad is a monster who has killed 500,000 people. Tulsi doubled down on her lie during the debate we all heard, saying the Syrian civil war is a US war of regime change. She approved of Putin's bombing of innocent civilians in Syria, which is a severe war crime. She approved of Obama's drone attacks. I have posted all these facts on this thread already.

Yes, we should stay out of Syria. But we were never in Syria, never proposed to invade and never proposed to throw him out by force of arms. Tulsi said we were in Syria, quite literally. It is her fantasy, and people believe it. Giving aid to rebels rising for freedom which they ask us for is not "involvement" in the war. It is valuable assistance against a genocidal tyrant murdering his people by the hundreds of thousands. 

The War in Syria started in 2011 with the people rising up for freedom in the Arab Spring. Reports of this mass movement for freedom, and protests against Assad's do-nothing policies in response to severe climate change-imposed drought, were broadcast by AP and other legit sources all over the world. Before long Assad was running them over with tanks and bombing them, just because they spoke out. The people formed the Free Syrian Army in response and fought bravely, and were on the verge of overthrowing the monster. They asked the US for aid, but none came. So some jihadis came in to help them instead. Assad promptly branded all the rebels as terrorists, and Tulsi believed him. After chemical attacks, Obama held off on this "red line" crossing by Assad in Summer 2013 and did nothing, but a phony program overseen by Russia to remove chemical weapons was carried out in response to Obama's threats. The US finally gave the rebels some aid, but it was too little too late. Meanwhile the Russians and Iranians and Hezbollah came into Syria with guns and bombs blazing. The tide turned as Assad and Putin bombed the whole country and chased out most of its people.  Trump and western allies finally launched a few bombs on government sites in response to further chemical attacks. Nothing changed.

Assad is responsible directly for the rise of fascism in Europe and America. He didn't create it, but he mightily stoked it, by unleashing hundreds of thousands if not millions of refugees fleeing Assad into these countries. It was the justification and reason for Trump's travel bans against Muslim countries. Today's refugee crisis, of which the Syrian refugees are the largest component, is the greatest refugee crisis and mass movement of peoples ever in history, and I predicted it decades in advance for this period in history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douma_chemical_attack

What happened?

"Three months after the attack, the OPCW released its interim report into what happened in Douma. The report found no evidence of organophosphorus nerve agents like sarin either at the site or in samples from the casualties — something of a surprise, because the suspected use of sarin had been one of the justifications for American airstrikes back in April, and alleged Syrian chemical weapons facilities their primary target. But the investigators did find something else. In the aftermath of the attack, video shot by gas mask-clad activists had fastened on the two yellow gas canisters: one lying on a bed, filmed on April 8 by Douma Revolution, and the second perched on a top-floor balcony and apparently recorded the following evening by the White Helmets. The OPCW located both those cylinders, one at the apartment block and the other in a different building nearly a kilometer away. Samples collected at both locations turned up “various chlorinated organic chemicals” along with “the residues of explosive” — not quite the same thing as saying that chlorine had been used as a chemical weapon, but evidence that seemed to head in that direction. In its final report, we might expect the OPCW to make a more conclusive judgement."

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/09/doum...nce-syria/

Let's stick to facts, not fake news and propaganda from any side.

-- what fake news?

Apparently the first gas attack in 2013 was saran gas. The second was chlorine, not saran. The fake news and propaganda comes from both sides. From the rebels, that the second attack was saran. From Assad and his apologists like Tulsi that the attacks did not happen or were caused by the rebels.

The article makes my point and seeks to clear up the distortions.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#73
(01-27-2020, 03:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The moderate Democrats and liberal Democrats all support impeachment and want Trump removed. There may be a difference between these two factions, and sometimes it's bitter. But the difference between moderate Democrats and the Republicans and Trump is a widening chasm. I follow the news and the polls. I might advise this, so you are not so fooled by your dunce cap.
So, what are the primary differences between the more moderate liberal Democrats and the liberal Democrats that we see these days? So, is there any difference between them these days or are the two liberal groups pretty much viewed by most as equals these days? Yep, the blue dunce caps that you and the liberal Democrats in the House are either viewed as wearing or as being permanently attached today are becoming more and more obvious to more and more practical, better educated and more knowledgeable Americans these days. Yes, the difference between us and the liberal Democrats is becoming more clear to Democratic voters who don't like/don't support/ morally oppose/don't believe in the direction the liberal Democrats have decided to take the Democratic party these days.
Reply
#74
(01-29-2020, 11:51 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(01-28-2020, 07:09 PM)Marypoza Wrote: so Vlad the Impuppeteer is interfering in the Syrian Civil War. That doesn't mean we should as well. it's an f-ing civil war Eric. We should stay out of it. that's what Tulsi meant when she referred 2 it as a regime change war, assuming u want the Govt 2 go in & take out Assad. That would be regime change. if the Govt did take out Assad, who should they replace him with? I believe the opposition 2 the Syrian govt is IS isn't it? they're monsters as well. 6 of 1 & 1/2 dozen of another. Assad may be a monster as u say, but l sincerely doubt he's responsible 4 right fascism in Europe & America. We have our own homegrown wingnuts 2 answer 4 that, starting with the Donald... 

The real problem with Assad and Putin is how far they've taken their efforts in Syria.  They are purposely targeting hospitals and schools.  That falls solidly in the category of genocide.  Can we fix it?  I doubt it, but some incredibly strong response is needed.  Trump won't spank his buddy Vlad, but whoever replaces him needs to impose sanctions that cripple the Russian economy.  Putin is already shaky, and an economic collapse may finally get his attention.

Not all strong actions lead to war.
As we've learned, the radical Islamic groups like ISIS or political remnants of dictatorships like the Baathist's who have no druthers will use and set up shop in placed like hospitals and schools which they know we won't just bomb like they're doing. If Putin is already shaky, then leaving it alone for now is probably best.
Reply
#75
(01-30-2020, 03:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-29-2020, 09:30 PM)Marypoza Wrote:
(01-29-2020, 01:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-28-2020, 07:09 PM)Marypoza Wrote:
(01-27-2020, 03:23 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I follow the polls, elections and the news, and I find the polls generally credible. I follow these things so I can make my predictions. I know when they are off, and by how much. The only poll that uses mostly landlines is the biased Rasmussen poll. The polls are not  accurate for the whole campaign; just as a snapshot of a sample. But Tulsi has never been higher than about 2% in all the polls during the last year. She does have some candidate skills and appeal; I give her that. Probably her support is strongest among young people. But her foreign policy and other mistakes have cost her dearly, and she doesn't have enough qualifications yet to be president or veep. I would not count her out in the future if she wises up, admits her mistakes, starts to rely on facts, and achieves greater experience and status. But I am not at all confident that she can do all of that.

Tulsi praised Putin for his war crimes against Syrians. She even persisted in the debate in calling Assad's genocidal war a war of US regime change. She did not let up at all. She is doubling down on her lie about a monster who has killed 500,000 people and chased millions out of their homes and country and caused right-wing fascism to rise in Europe and America. Netanyahu has not killed 500,000 people. His body count is nowhere near as high. That may be just circumstance. Netanyahu is corrupt, racist, murderous and thuggish and I don't give him a pass at all. He is dangerous if he attacks Iran. But I don't see that Netanyahu is relevant to Tulsi's lies.

There was certainly credible evidence of Assad's gas attacks, and I don't believe the conspiracy theories that say otherwise. But the gas attacks pale in comparison to the total scope of Assad's and Putin's war crimes. Assad is by far the worst monster of our time.

The only impeachment trial in US history that is NOT partisan is the one against Drumpface.


Yes.

-- sorry it's taken me a bit long 2 reply Eric, but l wanted 2 get a few receipts 1st. According to NYT  2day Tulsi got @ least 5% in 2 polls but doesn't say which 2

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019...ineup.html

she actually did qualify 4 the Dec Debate but the DNC threw 1 of those polls out even though it had been previously counted 4 other candidates

https://www.theepochtimes.com/gabbard-ac...61373.html

here is Tulsi denouncing Assad:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/01/politics/...index.html

Tulsi on Bibi:

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2019/04...bbard.html

speaking of Bibi & passes, here's Bibi giving Hitler a pass:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/world...icism.html

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/neta...-1.5411578

l thought the reports about Assad not using sarin gas were more recent but these are the most recent l could find- about anything concerning Assad & sarin gas. So unless u consider Newsweek & the Associated Press conspiracy theorists...

https://www.newsweek.com/wheres-evidence...ple-810123

https://apnews.com/bd533182b7f244a4b771c73a0b601ec5


so Vlad the Impuppeteer is interfering in the Syrian Civil War. That doesn't mean we should as well. it's an f-ing civil war Eric. We should stay out of it. that's what Tulsi meant when she referred 2 it as a regime change war, assuming u want the Govt 2 go in & take out Assad. That would be regime change. if the Govt did take out Assad, who should they replace him with? I believe the opposition 2 the Syrian govt is IS isn't it? they're monsters as well. 6 of 1 & 1/2 dozen of another. Assad may be a monster as u say, but l sincerely doubt he's responsible 4 right fascism in Europe & America. We have our own homegrown wingnuts 2 answer 4 that, starting with the Donald. 

l'm glad u don't give Bibi a pass Eric, but you're not running the f-ing Govt. Those idiots r giving Bibi an f-ing pass. My point about Bibi is that he's way more dangerous than Assad (Bibi has nukes, Assad don't) authorizes & abets genocide on a daily basis, & the Govt aids & abets him & Bibi's corrupt af

Bibi is not way more dangerous than Assad. Yes Bibi is corrupt as f and has nukes and has killed thousands in Gaza and the West Bank. He and Trump are busy annexing Palestine. But Bibi is not relevant to the discussion of Tulsi, Assad, Putin and Obama and Tulsi's foreign policies. You are throwing him in here, even though we don't disagree about him.

Assad is a monster who has killed 500,000 people. Tulsi doubled down on her lie during the debate we all heard, saying the Syrian civil war is a US war of regime change. She approved of Putin's bombing of innocent civilians in Syria, which is a severe war crime. She approved of Obama's drone attacks. I have posted all these facts on this thread already.

Yes, we should stay out of Syria. But we were never in Syria, never proposed to invade and never proposed to throw him out by force of arms. Tulsi said we were in Syria, quite literally. It is her fantasy, and people believe it. Giving aid to rebels rising for freedom which they ask us for is not "involvement" in the war. It is valuable assistance against a genocidal tyrant murdering his people by the hundreds of thousands. 

The War in Syria started in 2011 with the people rising up for freedom in the Arab Spring. Reports of this mass movement for freedom, and protests against Assad's do-nothing policies in response to severe climate change-imposed drought, were broadcast by AP and other legit sources all over the world. Before long Assad was running them over with tanks and bombing them, just because they spoke out. The people formed the Free Syrian Army in response and fought bravely, and were on the verge of overthrowing the monster. They asked the US for aid, but none came. So some jihadis came in to help them instead. Assad promptly branded all the rebels as terrorists, and Tulsi believed him. After chemical attacks, Obama held off on this "red line" crossing by Assad in Summer 2013 and did nothing, but a phony program overseen by Russia to remove chemical weapons was carried out in response to Obama's threats. The US finally gave the rebels some aid, but it was too little too late. Meanwhile the Russians and Iranians and Hezbollah came into Syria with guns and bombs blazing. The tide turned as Assad and Putin bombed the whole country and chased out most of its people.  Trump and western allies finally launched a few bombs on government sites in response to further chemical attacks. Nothing changed.

Assad is responsible directly for the rise of fascism in Europe and America. He didn't create it, but he mightily stoked it, by unleashing hundreds of thousands if not millions of refugees fleeing Assad into these countries. It was the justification and reason for Trump's travel bans against Muslim countries. Today's refugee crisis, of which the Syrian refugees are the largest component, is the greatest refugee crisis and mass movement of peoples ever in history, and I predicted it decades in advance for this period in history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douma_chemical_attack

What happened?

"Three months after the attack, the OPCW released its interim report into what happened in Douma. The report found no evidence of organophosphorus nerve agents like sarin either at the site or in samples from the casualties — something of a surprise, because the suspected use of sarin had been one of the justifications for American airstrikes back in April, and alleged Syrian chemical weapons facilities their primary target. But the investigators did find something else. In the aftermath of the attack, video shot by gas mask-clad activists had fastened on the two yellow gas canisters: one lying on a bed, filmed on April 8 by Douma Revolution, and the second perched on a top-floor balcony and apparently recorded the following evening by the White Helmets. The OPCW located both those cylinders, one at the apartment block and the other in a different building nearly a kilometer away. Samples collected at both locations turned up “various chlorinated organic chemicals” along with “the residues of explosive” — not quite the same thing as saying that chlorine had been used as a chemical weapon, but evidence that seemed to head in that direction. In its final report, we might expect the OPCW to make a more conclusive judgement."

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/09/doum...nce-syria/

Let's stick to facts, not fake news and propaganda from any side.

-- what fake news?

Apparently the first gas attack in 2013 was saran gas. The second was chlorine, not saran. The fake news and propaganda comes from both sides. From the rebels, that the second attack was saran. From Assad and his apologists like Tulsi that the attacks did not happen or were caused by the rebels.

The article makes my point and seeks to clear up the distortions.

-- ok l thought u were referring 2 my receipts. NYT, the AP, CNN, Newsweek r generally accepted as sources. Thanx 4 posting that article. That is what l was talking about- the Govt bombs Assad's gas warehouse then comes 2 find out there was no evidence he used sarin gas. I didn't know about the chlorine gas, only googled 4 sarin. Still they only found 2 canisters, which is 2 canisters 2 many, but it's not like Assad is spraying the whole country with chlorine gas either. 1 of them was found on a bed. What makes u think IS didn't leave it there. The RN interviewed 4 the piece claimed they only treated treated ppl 4 smoke inhalation & rocket injuries the nite of that attack. The article also said the ppl living living in Damascus were getting tired of being shot @ by rocket volleys from Douma. So it's not like Assad vs the Syrian ppl as u claim. Evidently some Syrians don't like IS either.. Like l said in the other thread Eric, there r no good players in this shitshow. They're gawdawful on all sides & we should just stay out of this f-ing mess
Heart  Bernie/Tulsi 2020    Heart
Reply
#76
(01-29-2020, 11:51 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(01-28-2020, 07:09 PM)Marypoza Wrote: so Vlad the Impuppeteer is interfering in the Syrian Civil War. That doesn't mean we should as well. it's an f-ing civil war Eric. We should stay out of it. that's what Tulsi meant when she referred 2 it as a regime change war, assuming u want the Govt 2 go in & take out Assad. That would be regime change. if the Govt did take out Assad, who should they replace him with? I believe the opposition 2 the Syrian govt is IS isn't it? they're monsters as well. 6 of 1 & 1/2 dozen of another. Assad may be a monster as u say, but l sincerely doubt he's responsible 4 right fascism in Europe & America. We have our own homegrown wingnuts 2 answer 4 that, starting with the Donald... 

The real problem with Assad and Putin is how far they've taken their efforts in Syria.  They are purposely targeting hospitals and schools.  That falls solidly in the category of genocide.  Can we fix it?  I doubt it, but some incredibly strong response is needed.  Trump won't spank his buddy Vlad, but whoever replaces him needs to impose sanctions that cripple the Russian economy.  Putin is already shaky, and an economic collapse may finally get his attention.

Not all strong actions lead to war.

-- no but will sanctions work?
Heart  Bernie/Tulsi 2020    Heart
Reply
#77
(01-30-2020, 08:49 PM)Marypoza Wrote:
(01-30-2020, 03:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-29-2020, 09:30 PM)Marypoza Wrote:
(01-29-2020, 01:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-28-2020, 07:09 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- sorry it's taken me a bit long 2 reply Eric, but l wanted 2 get a few receipts 1st. According to NYT  2day Tulsi got @ least 5% in 2 polls but doesn't say which 2

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019...ineup.html

she actually did qualify 4 the Dec Debate but the DNC threw 1 of those polls out even though it had been previously counted 4 other candidates

https://www.theepochtimes.com/gabbard-ac...61373.html

here is Tulsi denouncing Assad:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/01/politics/...index.html

Tulsi on Bibi:

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2019/04...bbard.html

speaking of Bibi & passes, here's Bibi giving Hitler a pass:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/world...icism.html

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/neta...-1.5411578

l thought the reports about Assad not using sarin gas were more recent but these are the most recent l could find- about anything concerning Assad & sarin gas. So unless u consider Newsweek & the Associated Press conspiracy theorists...

https://www.newsweek.com/wheres-evidence...ple-810123

https://apnews.com/bd533182b7f244a4b771c73a0b601ec5


so Vlad the Impuppeteer is interfering in the Syrian Civil War. That doesn't mean we should as well. it's an f-ing civil war Eric. We should stay out of it. that's what Tulsi meant when she referred 2 it as a regime change war, assuming u want the Govt 2 go in & take out Assad. That would be regime change. if the Govt did take out Assad, who should they replace him with? I believe the opposition 2 the Syrian govt is IS isn't it? they're monsters as well. 6 of 1 & 1/2 dozen of another. Assad may be a monster as u say, but l sincerely doubt he's responsible 4 right fascism in Europe & America. We have our own homegrown wingnuts 2 answer 4 that, starting with the Donald. 

l'm glad u don't give Bibi a pass Eric, but you're not running the f-ing Govt. Those idiots r giving Bibi an f-ing pass. My point about Bibi is that he's way more dangerous than Assad (Bibi has nukes, Assad don't) authorizes & abets genocide on a daily basis, & the Govt aids & abets him & Bibi's corrupt af

Bibi is not way more dangerous than Assad. Yes Bibi is corrupt as f and has nukes and has killed thousands in Gaza and the West Bank. He and Trump are busy annexing Palestine. But Bibi is not relevant to the discussion of Tulsi, Assad, Putin and Obama and Tulsi's foreign policies. You are throwing him in here, even though we don't disagree about him.

Assad is a monster who has killed 500,000 people. Tulsi doubled down on her lie during the debate we all heard, saying the Syrian civil war is a US war of regime change. She approved of Putin's bombing of innocent civilians in Syria, which is a severe war crime. She approved of Obama's drone attacks. I have posted all these facts on this thread already.

Yes, we should stay out of Syria. But we were never in Syria, never proposed to invade and never proposed to throw him out by force of arms. Tulsi said we were in Syria, quite literally. It is her fantasy, and people believe it. Giving aid to rebels rising for freedom which they ask us for is not "involvement" in the war. It is valuable assistance against a genocidal tyrant murdering his people by the hundreds of thousands. 

The War in Syria started in 2011 with the people rising up for freedom in the Arab Spring. Reports of this mass movement for freedom, and protests against Assad's do-nothing policies in response to severe climate change-imposed drought, were broadcast by AP and other legit sources all over the world. Before long Assad was running them over with tanks and bombing them, just because they spoke out. The people formed the Free Syrian Army in response and fought bravely, and were on the verge of overthrowing the monster. They asked the US for aid, but none came. So some jihadis came in to help them instead. Assad promptly branded all the rebels as terrorists, and Tulsi believed him. After chemical attacks, Obama held off on this "red line" crossing by Assad in Summer 2013 and did nothing, but a phony program overseen by Russia to remove chemical weapons was carried out in response to Obama's threats. The US finally gave the rebels some aid, but it was too little too late. Meanwhile the Russians and Iranians and Hezbollah came into Syria with guns and bombs blazing. The tide turned as Assad and Putin bombed the whole country and chased out most of its people.  Trump and western allies finally launched a few bombs on government sites in response to further chemical attacks. Nothing changed.

Assad is responsible directly for the rise of fascism in Europe and America. He didn't create it, but he mightily stoked it, by unleashing hundreds of thousands if not millions of refugees fleeing Assad into these countries. It was the justification and reason for Trump's travel bans against Muslim countries. Today's refugee crisis, of which the Syrian refugees are the largest component, is the greatest refugee crisis and mass movement of peoples ever in history, and I predicted it decades in advance for this period in history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douma_chemical_attack

What happened?

"Three months after the attack, the OPCW released its interim report into what happened in Douma. The report found no evidence of organophosphorus nerve agents like sarin either at the site or in samples from the casualties — something of a surprise, because the suspected use of sarin had been one of the justifications for American airstrikes back in April, and alleged Syrian chemical weapons facilities their primary target. But the investigators did find something else. In the aftermath of the attack, video shot by gas mask-clad activists had fastened on the two yellow gas canisters: one lying on a bed, filmed on April 8 by Douma Revolution, and the second perched on a top-floor balcony and apparently recorded the following evening by the White Helmets. The OPCW located both those cylinders, one at the apartment block and the other in a different building nearly a kilometer away. Samples collected at both locations turned up “various chlorinated organic chemicals” along with “the residues of explosive” — not quite the same thing as saying that chlorine had been used as a chemical weapon, but evidence that seemed to head in that direction. In its final report, we might expect the OPCW to make a more conclusive judgement."

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/09/doum...nce-syria/

Let's stick to facts, not fake news and propaganda from any side.

-- what fake news?

Apparently the first gas attack in 2013 was saran gas. The second was chlorine, not saran. The fake news and propaganda comes from both sides. From the rebels, that the second attack was saran. From Assad and his apologists like Tulsi that the attacks did not happen or were caused by the rebels.

The article makes my point and seeks to clear up the distortions.

-- ok l thought u were referring 2 my receipts. NYT, the AP, CNN, Newsweek r generally accepted as sources. Thanx 4 posting that article. That is what l was talking about- the Govt bombs Assad's gas warehouse then comes 2 find out there was no evidence he used sarin gas. I didn't know about the chlorine gas, only googled 4 sarin. Still they only found 2 canisters, which is 2 canisters 2 many, but it's not like Assad is spraying the whole country with chlorine gas either. 1 of them was found on a bed. What makes u think IS didn't leave it there. The RN interviewed 4 the piece claimed they only treated treated ppl 4 smoke inhalation & rocket injuries the nite of that attack. The article also said the ppl living living in Damascus were getting tired of being shot @ by rocket volleys from Douma. So it's not like Assad vs the Syrian ppl as u claim. Evidently some Syrians don't like is either.. Like l said in the other thread Eric, there r no good players in the shitshow. They're gawdawful on all sides & we should just shy out of this mess

You need to cut yourself away from Tulsi and what she says about Syria. What's this about "the IS leaving it there?" Come on, the IS is in Eastern Syria and Western Iraq, what's left of it. The IS were a group of horrific killer gangsters who seized some open, mostly-deserted territory and wrecked havoc and terror. They have nothing to do with the fight against Assad, and never did. Assad invited them in so he could blame them. Again, you believe Tulsi too much. The rebels are not IS terrorists, and no they do not use poison gas. They don't have access to such weapons. They were merely the common people of Syria defending themselves and their right to speak. They lost, for now. Assad killed them or exiled them.

It is exactly Assad vs. the Syrian people, or at least it was for several years. It's not the Syrian peoples' fault that they were bombed out of their country and are not fighting there anymore. Only a few jihadis are left in a small north-western province now, as far as I know. The Free Syrian army and their people were the good guys. Tulsi is wrong; they were the good guys and Assad and his henchmen were the bad guys. That is definite fact. Anything else is pure propaganda. I know the facts. Tulsi DOES NOT.

I know Tulsi doesn't want the US to invade Syria, or Iran. That's fine. But the US has NOT invaded Syria. The West should have helped them more, but that doesn't mean we should have sent troops or made a major bombing campaign there. On the other hand, do I care if the USA bombed some of Assad's government buildings? Would I protest? Hell no!

The first gas attack in 2013 was sarin gas. The second was not, but you can't blame the Syrian people for thinking it was. It helps to know the facts and not propaganda and delusional lies from Tulsi.

Tulsi is a liar; she doesn't deserve your support. Bernie does; Tulsi does not. Don't get them confused. I have investigated her. Her voting record is to the right of Nancy Pelosi's. She is not a true progressive. She supports Putin's bombing of hospitals and schools. She supports Obama's drone attacks. She supports the war on terror. She is a Hindu nationalist who supports Modi and opposes Islam. She considered joining Trump's gang of thieves. She failed to vote to impeach him just for political purposes. She fails to supports people rising up for freedom and calls them terrorists. Shame on her! Tulsi Gabbard is not your friend. She is falling in the polls, and has been dropped from real clear politics' polling average. She discredited herself with all who have understood who she is, which is most voters. Much already posted here.

I am against cruel dictators wherever they are, and I root for the people rising up wherever they are. I support the rebels in Hong Kong, Iran and Iraq now, and those all over South America. The USA should not invade their countries or bomb them to change their regimes for them. But if they ask the USA and The West for aid, we should consider it. Allowing genocide to happen while doing nothing is wrong. 500,000 people being killed and millions forced out into Europe and other countries by a monster for no reason is our business. We are citizens of the world, and these were my fellow humans.

Sorry we disagree. I understand your point that we should avoid wars and taking sides in internal civil wars. I was passionately opposed to the US wars in Vietnam and Iraq and the US support for the Contras in Nicaragua, and I protested and wrote congress and the president against them. I campaigned hard for McGovern in 1972. I am against regime change wars.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#78
(01-30-2020, 06:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(01-29-2020, 11:51 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(01-28-2020, 07:09 PM)Marypoza Wrote: so Vlad the Impuppeteer is interfering in the Syrian Civil War. That doesn't mean we should as well. it's an f-ing civil war Eric. We should stay out of it. that's what Tulsi meant when she referred 2 it as a regime change war, assuming u want the Govt 2 go in & take out Assad. That would be regime change. if the Govt did take out Assad, who should they replace him with? I believe the opposition 2 the Syrian govt is IS isn't it? they're monsters as well. 6 of 1 & 1/2 dozen of another. Assad may be a monster as u say, but l sincerely doubt he's responsible 4 right fascism in Europe & America. We have our own homegrown wingnuts 2 answer 4 that, starting with the Donald... 

The real problem with Assad and Putin is how far they've taken their efforts in Syria.  They are purposely targeting hospitals and schools.  That falls solidly in the category of genocide.  Can we fix it?  I doubt it, but some incredibly strong response is needed.  Trump won't spank his buddy Vlad, but whoever replaces him needs to impose sanctions that cripple the Russian economy.  Putin is already shaky, and an economic collapse may finally get his attention.

Not all strong actions lead to war.
As we've learned, the radical Islamic groups like ISIS or political remnants of dictatorships like the Baathist's who have no druthers will use and set up shop in placed like hospitals and schools which they know we won't just bomb like they're doing. If Putin is already shaky, then leaving it alone for now is probably best.

What a bunch of crazy rot, Classic.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#79
(01-29-2020, 11:43 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(01-27-2020, 02:07 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: How can you say it wasn't partisan when everyone already knows it was partisan? Are you sure that you're not the one wearing the dunce cap? Now, I don't care if you and the liberal squad continues lying to each other and lying to yourselves but don't expect your lies to spread much further from yourselves. You do realize that if Trump wins, it going to be liberals vs America with typical Democrats caught in the middle either grabbing a life boat and jumping ship or siding with America.

Trump started is Presidency by opposing the very government he intended to lead, excoriating career civil servants, and cozying up to our adversaries.  Add to that, he started to use the government as an ATM for his businesses, and stonewalled any oversight attempts.  He is now the most corrupt politician to ever hold the Presidency.  Arguing to the contrary only works if you ignore easily obtainable (and verifiable) facts.  So here's the question: what fate awaits the many who knowingly support this guy?  You can argue that the Fox News addicts didn't know any better, and that may even be true.  But ignorance is only an excuse if it's not willful, and plugging your ears, covering your eyes and saying la-la-la fails the test.

Explain this to your grandchildren when they ask: what did you do to stop Trump?  If may be a while before history has its say, but we know from the Nixon experience, it's not a full lifetime.
I don't blame him for doing that back then. I assume that you're not aware of the real Nixon like stuff involving a bunch of liberals that was going on behind the scenes while he was running for President and first entering into office. I'm sure you could justify it for some reason or another and do what liberals do best, turn it into something else in a way that make a big scene and a big mess to clean up. I hope maturity and the understanding of modern day deadliness set in but I'm not holding my breath because judgement doesn't seem to be very good on the liberal side these days. So, I expect the results of it not to be hyped and plastered over TV sets like it was back then. You see government has a major integrity problem that didn't exist nearly as much back then. So, what fate await the liberals when liberals can no longer win and have to accept full responsibility for it's lack of competence and capabilities?
Reply
#80
(01-31-2020, 01:05 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-30-2020, 06:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(01-29-2020, 11:51 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(01-28-2020, 07:09 PM)Marypoza Wrote: so Vlad the Impuppeteer is interfering in the Syrian Civil War. That doesn't mean we should as well. it's an f-ing civil war Eric. We should stay out of it. that's what Tulsi meant when she referred 2 it as a regime change war, assuming u want the Govt 2 go in & take out Assad. That would be regime change. if the Govt did take out Assad, who should they replace him with? I believe the opposition 2 the Syrian govt is IS isn't it? they're monsters as well. 6 of 1 & 1/2 dozen of another. Assad may be a monster as u say, but l sincerely doubt he's responsible 4 right fascism in Europe & America. We have our own homegrown wingnuts 2 answer 4 that, starting with the Donald... 

The real problem with Assad and Putin is how far they've taken their efforts in Syria.  They are purposely targeting hospitals and schools.  That falls solidly in the category of genocide.  Can we fix it?  I doubt it, but some incredibly strong response is needed.  Trump won't spank his buddy Vlad, but whoever replaces him needs to impose sanctions that cripple the Russian economy.  Putin is already shaky, and an economic collapse may finally get his attention.

Not all strong actions lead to war.
As we've learned, the radical Islamic groups like ISIS or political remnants of dictatorships like the Baathist's that have druthers will set up shop in hospitals and schools which they know we won't just bomb like they're doing. If Putin is already shaky, then leaving it alone for now is probably best.

What a bunch of crazy rot, Classic.
Ok. You've seen what happened in Egypt and you've seem what happened in Libya, do we need to see what happens in Syria  for people like you to learn what not to do again.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)