Um...no. She's not attacking Bernie or Yang because it's not good for her brand. They are both extremely popular online. That's her audience. Their supporters attack the EFF out of people online for disparaging the candidate. Tulsi doesn't want that heat. Also, she wants to complain that the establishment is holding her back. Better to be able to claim that others are in that boat with her.
I think she's being principled on her position by not attacking others who hold the same position, I believe that she believes what she's saying she's standing for. The establishment is attacking her, she's literally being smeared as a Russian troll who loves dictators. Sorry, just not buying the whole she secretly a republican who wants to work at fox and is a Russian troll angle.
she has flipped on issues during this campaign in a matter of days once she realized she had a receptive audience on Fox. Very principled indeed lol. I don’t think she’s a Republican I think she’s an opportunist who is going to make a bunch of money when this over
[QUOTE="justtxyank, post: 12720401, member: 16238"]she has flipped on issues during this campaign in a matter of days once she realized she had a receptive audience on Fox. Very principled indeed lol. I don’t think she’s a Republican I think she’s an opportunist who is going to make a bunch of money when this over[/QUOTE] examples and sources please
Morons scheduled the debate on an NBA basketball night . . . what did they think was going to happen? https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/tv-ratings-msnbc-democratic-debates-1203411983/
Bookers line about Biden was hillarious , but the follow up “mar1juana is already legal for privileged people.” I thought was pretty deep. Having gone to a small liberal arts college you’re only concerned about your RA , def not the police when you ehm, partake on campus. I buy and consume now . And the only part I’m worried about is the commute back to my place. Booker transitioned from “privileged” to race , and I think stats back him up. Playing devils advocate tho , I will say , I’ve smoked in a variety of situations and with a variety of groups . Cruising around with a blunt is generally a more dangerous , public, method of consumption that will result in you getting caught . And it wasn’t my college friends that introduced me to cruising lol Sorry if that came off as racist. I promise I have black friends So I just thought that was an interesting comment by booker and one that made me think a bit . As far as the rest of the debate goes there wasn’t much worth nothing . Unless a candidate gets asked a really tough question or is made to strongly defend a policy then we aren’t gonna learn much. Asking Bernie about what his crowds chant , or asking warren some blanket “do you think there should be more people in the military” , or asking Yang after you don’t call on him for the first 30 minutes “how would you deal with a terrorist attack.” Of course there was talk about impeachment after a whole week and day of impeachment. MSNBC is trying to get trump re-elected . As far as who I thought did well Booker Pete Biden (at least relative to how he usually does)
Pro-war, pro-regime change, pro "world police" are all bipartisan positions for Dem's and GOP (and oddly, only when convenient to monetary interest for certain groups). Continuously increasing a massively over resourced military budget is bipartisan, drone bombing is bi-partisan. Trump being attacked is bipartisan for talks of leaving the middle east is, for seeking peace with NK.
Yeah all of that is something that the democratic party advocates. Have you missed what Obama ran on and his sequestration on military budgets. That is not what Trump is being attacked for its because he doesn't have a real plan for the middle east or NK. Military spending went down under Obama and Trump ran on that. Nobody is currently running on regime change or increasing military spending so exactly how is running against the party norm?
What did the vote look like for Trump's military budget increase? Was it overwhelmingly bipartisan? Dems hate everything Trump does with a passion right, he's an egomaniacal man-child who shouldn't be in control of our military right? Apparently not, both parties voted YES to 10% military increase for Trump. Nobody seems to be attacking that Trump doesn't have a plan or good plan with a caveat that his overall direction is a good idea. I haven't seen that. Everybody seems to be attacking the entire idea of leaving the middle east or entertaining peace talks with NK, from my view.
