*** OFFICIAL 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Race Thread ***

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diggydow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

guys please diggy is super busy organizing her political future or something and he needs his hands free to carry all the white grease paint and red wigs.

---

You conduct yourself like a high school mean girl w/out any real interest in getting to the truth, whereas Blake makes good-faith attempts to understand the truth + what others are actually thinking.

You strawman everyone who disagrees w/ you and refuse to acknowledge rebuttals, instead painting those in disagreement as Russian spies, or cult members, or crazy people.

You conduct yourself without honor, and reveal your true self in your anonymity.

---

But we love him anyway. Tine is consistent, have to give him that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diggydow

I think she meant that his actions were impeachable but then the investigation became an unfocused, wide-ranging, partisan circus, so she wouldn't vote for it.

Why do you think she voted Present?

---

let's look at her explanation for not voting in favor of impeachment:

"I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process"

i was a fan of hers. she's not an idiot. she knows that any impeachment of donald trump is going to be partisan, regardless of what he's been accused of. does she really mean that she would never vote for impeachment under any circumstances?

she's also using false equivalence to compare the democrats with the republicans. republicans will not even address the substance of what trump's been accused of. meanwhile trump's conduct is undisputed.

assuming that tulsi knows these things, which she does, the possible reasons for her actions become more troubling.

at best, she pulled the present vote out because it gives her wiggle room to keep her future career options open.

at worst, she already has a deal with fox or is planning a 3rd party run. her announcement that she's not seeking reelection to the house even though she has zero chance of getting the dem nomination certainly raises some questions, no?

---

Or she’s running to the middle.

20% think he should be locked up.
20% think it’s complete and total bullshit and Biden should be locked up
60% think the truth is somewhere between the above two and the whole thing is bad political theater.

I respect her for trying to give “the middle” a shout out in the middle of this even if it’s in her self interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diggydow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

guys please diggy is super busy organizing her political future or something and he needs his hands free to carry all the white grease paint and red wigs.

---

You conduct yourself like a high school mean girl w/out any real interest in getting to the truth, whereas Blake makes good-faith attempts to understand the truth + what others are actually thinking.

You strawman everyone who disagrees w/ you and refuse to acknowledge rebuttals, instead painting those in disagreement as Russian spies, or cult members, or crazy people.

You conduct yourself without honor, and reveal your true self in your anonymity.

---

One of my regrets is that I don’t have a collection of “The Best of Sonatine”.

Druff revealed he was working on this independent of me. An e-reader was proposed. He wanted to use the proceeds to fund an off Broadway musical based on his life and bracelets

Ex Team PokerStars Pro Vicky Coren (Mitchell) threatened Druff with an injunction as she already wrote and staged “A Lump In My Throat in 2000 and later broadcast on BBC in 2001.

he needs his hands free to carry all the white grease paint and red wigs
amazing. Tine is just flexing at your expense. He needs his exercise

I peeked in on SrslySirius and he was going on about Vicky Coren and I’m a huge fan too. Loved her book from back in the day. She led an interesting life and is funny as shit. Right up there with ‘tine.

Predictably, she told PStars to get bent. Girl has a code.

Disagree? https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/sta...53618935308288

(Sorry Blake, I will respond to you shortly.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diggydow

Disagree? https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/sta...53618935308288

(Sorry Blake, I will respond to you shortly.)

---

She’s going to come out of this looking the best of the bunch over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diggydow

Disagree? https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/sta...53618935308288

(Sorry Blake, I will respond to you shortly.)

---

that was well said and is the kind of talk that drew me to her from the outset, but i disagree with her.

i view trump's actions of refusing to give military aid to ukraine unless they helped him win an election as flatout treasonous. reminder that he only released the aid when there was a report of a whistleblower.

because that is so absurdly disloyal to his office, impeachment is a no-brainer to me.

i can't support tulsi falsely equating the democrats with republicans here. this falsely minimizes what trump did and couldn't play better as a GOP made-up talking point.

Embedded Tweet

В ногах правды нет.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Embedded Tweet

В ногах правды нет.

---

GOOD POST, 6TOEDTINE

diggy any truth to the rumor that tulsi was legit raised in a weird religious cult?

https://i.redd.it/wwhqagb1jrk21.jpg

https://i.redd.it/398mq22eeaa21.jpg

All the tards are clogging up traffic near LMU this afternoon

also tulsi dies her hair and has terrible skin.

makes me wonder if diggy has terrible skin and dies his hair.

tbh.

"As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists."

—Tulsi Gabbard, 2004

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pdWAcK6Eh8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diggydow

I think she meant that his actions were impeachable but then the investigation became an unfocused, wide-ranging, partisan circus, so she wouldn't vote for it.

Why do you think she voted Present?

---

let's look at her explanation for not voting in favor of impeachment:

"I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process"

i was a fan of hers. she's not an idiot. she knows that any impeachment of donald trump is going to be partisan, regardless of what he's been accused of. does she really mean that she would never vote for impeachment under any circumstances?

she's also using false equivalence to compare the democrats with the republicans. republicans will not even address the substance of what trump's been accused of. meanwhile trump's conduct is undisputed.

assuming that tulsi knows these things, which she does, the possible reasons for her actions become more troubling.

at best, she pulled the present vote out because it gives her wiggle room to keep her future career options open.

at worst, she already has a deal with fox or is planning a 3rd party run. her announcement that she's not seeking reelection to the house even though she has zero chance of getting the dem nomination certainly raises some questions, no?

---

Her point was that the scope of the investigation became wide-ranging and partisan, w/ Trump being accused of being a traitor + attention being drawn to his Russia bullshit, which had nothing to do w/ the case.

I have no idea where the Fox speculation comes from, besides that it's propaganda that's been planted into your mind and you've slowly come to believe it w/out evidence.

And I don't know why you insist on claiming she has zero chance of getting the nomination. Kerry was at 4% at this point, as was Carter, as was Clinton (Clinton was a little higher).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diggydow

Disagree? https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/sta...53618935308288

(Sorry Blake, I will respond to you shortly.)

---

that was well said and is the kind of talk that drew me to her from the outset, but i disagree with her.

i view trump's actions of refusing to give military aid to ukraine unless they helped him win an election as flatout treasonous. reminder that he only released the aid when there was a report of a whistleblower.

because that is so absurdly disloyal to his office, impeachment is a no-brainer to me.

i can't support tulsi falsely equating the democrats with republicans here. this falsely minimizes what trump did and couldn't play better as a GOP made-up talking point.

---

The Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. Both corrupt, corporatist parties. They couldn't keep the impeachment inquiry narrow, and instead expanded it to an overall indictment of everything Trump, basically admitting that it was to overturn the 2016 election result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheXFactor

boomer comics

---

Tulsi has said that if atrocities are happening elsewhere, the US should join w/ other countries in a coalition to stop them, instead of constantly taking unilateral action that somehow, coincidentally, aligns w/ corporate interests every time.

That, and it's interesting that nobody cares that HRC and Obama were both against gay marriage, and that Tulsi came out in favor of it before either of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

diggy any truth to the rumor that tulsi was legit raised in a weird religious cult?

---

That is true, and she won't disavow it, because she's still attached. It would concern me if I saw it impacting her legislation / policies in any single way, but I haven't. That, and anyone who actually believes in Christianity or whatever is also part of a cult.

Cult + Time = Religion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

"As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists."

—Tulsi Gabbard, 2004

---

"Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman."

-- Hillary Clinton, 2000

Weird how zero people cared in 2016 about HRC's previous position. Could it have been b/c she represented the corporate DNC establishment and didn't threaten their monetary interests?

and yet you have nothing to say in defense of your skin and hair.


curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

and yet you have nothing to say in defense of your skin and hair.


curious.

---

You're being really racist right now.

If you are disparaging the Regular Show we are going to have a problem there pal

true story i'm pro homosexual extremism.

Debate is starting. Tulsi need not apply

Tulsi has come very far from being raised in a beach-cult w/ a super-conservative father. Given her growth and action on behalf of LGBT rights, I don't see what more you could want from her.

That, and you completely ignore the comparison to HRC and Obama.

The truth is not on your side. All you can do is deal in innuendos to distract from the real message Tulsi is pushing.

Key Points
-Tulsi recently released a video affirming her deep commitment to fighting for equality and protecting for our LGBTQ community https://youtu.be/eLb3KVBErig
-Tulsi is a vocal advocate of equality for our LGBTQ+ community
-She is a member of the LGBT Equality Caucus in the House
-Tulsi has been given a 100% for her voting record and endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBT lobby organization in the country
-"With the many challenges facing the LGBT community, we're honored to count Tulsi as an ally in standing up for issues of fairness. From her cosponsorship of the Equality Act to supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples and fighting for persons with HIV/AIDS, we applaud Tulsi's commitment to fundamental equal rights for all." - Mike Mings, Director Human Rights Campaign PAC
-The Human Rights Campaign represents a force of more than 1.5 million members and supporters nationwide. As the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer civil rights organization, HRC envisions a world where LGBTQ people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.
-Tulsi believes that “equal treatment and opportunity are fundamental rights for all Americans. Discrimination on the basis of national origin, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief, gender, or race undermines core American principles of respect and individual freedom.”
-Tulsi is committed to fight to ensure all individuals are treated equally under the law regardless of race, sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
-Tulsi has received a 100% rating for her voting record in favor of LGBT legislation.

Legislation
-H.R.5 Equality Act of 2019 To prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes
-H.R.1244 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that all provisions shall apply to legally married same-sex couples in the same manner as other married couples, and for other purposes.
-H.R 2532 Respect for Marriage Act
-H.R.2119 Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act of 2017, To prohibit, as an unfair or deceptive act or practice, commercial sexual orientation conversion therapy
-H.Res.124 — Expressing opposition to banning service in the Armed Forces by openly transgender individuals.
-H.R. 1755 Employment Non-Discrimination Act
-H.R. 2839 Restore Honor to Service Members Act
-H.R. 197 Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act
-H.R. 683 Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act
-H.R. 1199 Safe Schools Improvement Act
-H.R. 932 Healthy Families Act
-H. Res. 549 Designating June 26th as LGBT Equality Day
-H. Res. 208 Equality for All Resolution, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in areas that include credit, employment, education, federally funded programs, housing, jury service, and public -accommodations
H.R. 3273 LGBT Data Inclusion Act
Signed the Marriage Equality Amicus Briefs
Advocated for LGBT Housing / Privacy Rights
Advocated to End Bullying and Harassment in Schools
Tulsi signs letter urging President Trump to reverse transgender military ban https://votesmart.org/public-stateme...n#.XBfzFBNKikZ
H.R. 2282 Equality Act of 2017 which amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diggydow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

that was well said and is the kind of talk that drew me to her from the outset, but i disagree with her.

i view trump's actions of refusing to give military aid to ukraine unless they helped him win an election as flatout treasonous. reminder that he only released the aid when there was a report of a whistleblower.

because that is so absurdly disloyal to his office, impeachment is a no-brainer to me.

i can't support tulsi falsely equating the democrats with republicans here. this falsely minimizes what trump did and couldn't play better as a GOP made-up talking point.

---

The Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. Both corrupt, corporatist parties. They couldn't keep the impeachment inquiry narrow, and instead expanded it to an overall indictment of everything Trump, basically admitting that it was to overturn the 2016 election result.

---

you completely dodged everything i said.

can you also please tell me wtf "They couldn't keep the impeachment inquiry narrow," means?

umm... yes, they did. it was focused solely on trump's attempted extortion of the ukraine. that's it. why do you keep saying otherwise? is your goal to try to convince people that don't follow the news? yeah, i'm probably the wrong audience for you.

"the dems expanded it to an overall indictment of everything Trump, basically admitting that it was to overturn the 2016 election result."

i swear to god i try to keep things civil and then i read shit like this and it makes it difficult.

clearly your sentence is not true.

there are two articles of impeachment. the first is for attempting to extort the ukraine for his political gain. the second is for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas relating to the extortion plot (obstruction).

if you really didn't know that these are the only two articles of impeachment, you shouldn't be offering an opinion because it's so poorly informed. if you did know better, you're deliberately lying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diggydow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

"As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists."

—Tulsi Gabbard, 2004

---

"Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman."

-- Hillary Clinton, 2000

Weird how zero people cared in 2016 about HRC's previous position. Could it have been b/c she represented the corporate DNC establishment and didn't threaten their monetary interests?

---

Diggy, I’ve been sympathetic to your spirited defense of Tulsi Gabbard for a number of pages, but what she did with her “Present” votes on impeachment was totally inconsistent with her own professed belief about the facts of Trump’s guilt. I’ll let YouTuber David Doel, host of The Rational National YouTube show, explain.

https://youtu.be/W5ehmAdGf9U

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diggydow

The Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. Both corrupt, corporatist parties. They couldn't keep the impeachment inquiry narrow, and instead expanded it to an overall indictment of everything Trump, basically admitting that it was to overturn the 2016 election result.

---

you completely dodged everything i said. can you also please tell me wtf "They couldn't keep the impeachment inquiry narrow," means?

umm yes, they did. it was focused solely on trump's attempted extortion of the ukraine. that's it. why do you keep saying otherwise? is your goal to try to convince people that don't follow the news? yeah, i'm probably the wrong audience for you.

"the dems expanded it to an overall indictment of everything Trump, basically admitting that it was to overturn the 2016 election result."

i swear to god i try to keep things civil and then i read shit like this and it makes it difficult. clearly that sentence is not true.

there are two articles of impeachment. the first is for attempting to extort the ukraine for his political gain. the second is for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas relating to the extortion plot (obstruction).

if you really didn't know that these are the only two articles of impeachment, you shouldn't be offering an opinion because it's so poorly informed. if you did know better, you're deliberately lying.

---

Why would I deliberately lie? That would run counter to everything I've said in this thread from the beginning.

The truth is that I haven't given a fuck about this impeachment the entire time. I've only seen highlights from it w/ absurdities, which made the whole thing seem like a charade, since they were already planning on impeaching Trump before they found out about this Ukraine thing.

My impression was that the investigation was not narrow because they also spoke about Trump saying, "Russia, if you're listening“ - that joke, and completely unrelated bullshit like that, which proved that it was purely partisan and the Ukraine thing is just a pretext for doing what they had been planning on doing all along.

They should have impeached Trump on what Tulsi introduced the censure for:

ok but if you freely admit you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't be offering an opinion.

it's ok to change your opinion of tulsi when you get new facts.

Diggy, is Tulsi as beautiful in person as on tv? Serious question, asking or a friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diggydow

The Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. Both corrupt, corporatist parties. They couldn't keep the impeachment inquiry narrow, and instead expanded it to an overall indictment of everything Trump, basically admitting that it was to overturn the 2016 election result.

---

you completely dodged everything i said.

can you also please tell me wtf "They couldn't keep the impeachment inquiry narrow," means?

umm... yes, they did. it was focused solely on trump's attempted extortion of the ukraine. that's it. why do you keep saying otherwise? is your goal to try to convince people that don't follow the news? yeah, i'm probably the wrong audience for you.

"the dems expanded it to an overall indictment of everything Trump, basically admitting that it was to overturn the 2016 election result."

i swear to god i try to keep things civil and then i read shit like this and it makes it difficult.

clearly your sentence is not true.

there are two articles of impeachment. the first is for attempting to extort the ukraine for his political gain. the second is for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas relating to the extortion plot (obstruction).

if you really didn't know that these are the only two articles of impeachment, you shouldn't be offering an opinion because it's so poorly informed. if you did know better, you're deliberately lying.

---

Blake surely you will agree the second article is bullshit. Every president and has ignored congressional subpoenas. Every president. Hell obama and holder did it regularly. It undermines whatever legitimacy one wants to attribute to the first one. There are three co-equal branches of government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

ok but if you freely admit you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't be offering an opinion.

it's ok to change your opinion of tulsi when you get new facts.

---

That's true. Have you been following the impeachment proceedings closely? If so, have you found that they were narrowly focused?

Is the little China’min still in it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devidee

Is the little China’min still in it?

---

Yes. The big 4, plus Klobuchar, Steyer and Yang. China still in, but the Russian got voted off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

you completely dodged everything i said.

can you also please tell me wtf "They couldn't keep the impeachment inquiry narrow," means?

umm... yes, they did. it was focused solely on trump's attempted extortion of the ukraine. that's it. why do you keep saying otherwise? is your goal to try to convince people that don't follow the news? yeah, i'm probably the wrong audience for you.

"the dems expanded it to an overall indictment of everything Trump, basically admitting that it was to overturn the 2016 election result."

i swear to god i try to keep things civil and then i read shit like this and it makes it difficult.

clearly your sentence is not true.

there are two articles of impeachment. the first is for attempting to extort the ukraine for his political gain. the second is for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas relating to the extortion plot (obstruction).

if you really didn't know that these are the only two articles of impeachment, you shouldn't be offering an opinion because it's so poorly informed. if you did know better, you're deliberately lying.

---

Blake surely you will agree the second article is bullshit. Every president and has ignored congressional subpoenas. Every president. Hell obama and holder did it regularly. It undermines whatever legitimacy one wants to attribute to the first one. There are three co-equal branches of government.

---

completely agree with you as to the 2nd, which is why i was focusing on the first. although i disagree that the dumb 2nd article invalidates the first one. they must have poll tested the word "obstruction" and went with it. they shouldn't have, but oh well.

re the obstruction charge, i don't even understand the concept of it. every target of a subpoena gets to make objections. that's what courts are for. if the house got a court order that trump refused, they may have something. as it stands, it's an idiotic charge.

jesus was a black man from mars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

jesus was a black man from mars.

---

And gay according to a new series I'm watching

Oof, tough moment for Sanders there.
"Why do you think there's not more diversity on the debate stage?"
Sanders: "I'm going to ignore that question and talk about climate change"
Moderator: "Can you please answer the question that was asked"
*big applause from audience*