Tulsi Gabbard 2020 campaign megathread

[John Dule]

The funny thing about all her defenders is the proof is in the pudding. Her polling is horrid.

She sucks, now proven.

Interesting. Incidentally, a recent poll showed that most Americans want illegal aliens to be removed by ICE, and since the majority obviously defines what is factually and morally correct in a society, you ought to start pushing for that too. Illegals suck. Now proven.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The funny thing about all her defenders is the proof is in the pudding. Her polling is horrid.

She sucks, now proven.

Interesting. Incidentally, a recent poll showed that most Americans want illegal aliens to be removed by ICE, and since the majority obviously defines what is factually and morally correct in a society, you ought to start pushing for that too. Illegals suck. Now proven.

Not Democratic primary voters.

[Saint Milei]

No slander of my queen shall ever be tolerated

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No slander of my queen shall ever be tolerated

Tell that to the voters rejecting her en masse.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The funny thing about all her defenders is the proof is in the pudding. Her polling is horrid.

She sucks, now proven.

Funny timing to bring up her polling now that she just got a qualifying poll for the September debate.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I love how some here think voters actually care about a military record. When's the last time any Presidential candidate ever significantly benefited from that?

[Kleine Scheiße]

She never had a good chance, but there is an opening for Tulsi Gabbard. Her branding has been absolutely dismal and she has been running a pretty flat campaign.

[brucejoel99]

Much of the Tulsi hate is totally irrational.

Not as irrational as her Assad love.

A card carrying member of the TDS (Tulsi Derangement Syndrome) Squad I see.

So believing we should have all the facts before intervening to overthrow a foreign government and insert ourselves into a foreign countries civil war — which makes matters worse for all civilians every time we’ve done it, is “Love for Assad”? Tulsi believes there should be a much higher bar before committing ourselves to wars all around the world, that the UN and other such organizations should be respected — and that generally, overthrowing foreign governments isn’t such a great idea. You can both oppose a dictator and also believe it isn’t within anyone’s best interests to unilaterally overthrow them.

Y'all, is it possible that iBizzBee is just Tulsi Gabbard's Atlas account?

Anyway, though, here are the top results of that "simple google search" you referred to:

Gabbard: 'Assad is not the enemy of the United States'

Gabbard declines to say whether Assad is a war criminal

How Tulsi Gabbard became Assad's mouthpiece in Washington

Tulsi Gabbard says she has no regrets about meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad

There's no disputing the fact that Assad is a brutal dictator who has used chemical weapons against his people. To do so, as Tulsi Gabbard has, isn't only a disgrace; it's beyond disgusting.

Honestly, I wish. Especially considering I have an Elizabeth Warren / Bernie Sanders signature.

Once again though, your misinformed opinion is born out of the fact that Tulsi has seen, as a former veteran herself, the harm that a rush to war causes. She isn’t easily swayed by bellicose rhetoric like most senators were in the lead up to the Iraq war, for instance.

“I think that the evidence needs to be gathered, and as I have said before, if there is evidence that he has committed war crimes, he should be prosecuted as such,” Gabbard told CNN host Dana Bash during a town hall event in Austin, Texas.

“I served in a war in Iraq — a war that was launched based on lies, and a war that was launched without evidence. And so the American people were duped,” Gabbard said. “So as a soldier, as an American, as a member of Congress, it is my duty and my responsibility to exercise skepticism any time anyone tries to send our service members into harm’s way or use our military to go in and start a new war.”

When asked later in the interview if she thought Assad was a good person, Gabbard said, "No, I don't," and asked if Russian President Vladimir Putin was an adversary to the US, she responded, "Yes."

Later Wednesday, Gabbard tweeted that "warmongers" were wrong to label her as a "'cozy' with evil regimes."

"We heard attacks from warmongers in politics/media before. Those opposed to Iraq/Libya/Syria regime change wars are called "dicatator-lovers" or "cozy" with evil regimes. Rather than defend their position, they resort to name-calling & smears. American people wont fall for this,"

Now, you’re free to disagree. But I want a Commander in Chief like this, - someone who isn’t afraid to gather the facts, assess the risks, understand the situation on the ground, before rushing to war. That’s what’s in the best interests of our people, foreign people, our veterans, and everyone.

But sure, let’s distort the view of a US military veteran who believes interventionism as it’s been practiced for the past 80 years isn’t in our, or anyone’s, benefit.

But she's not "gather[ing] the facts, assess[ing] the risks, [&] understand[ing] the situation on the ground." If she were, then she wouldn't openly dispute that Assad is a brutal dictator. Plus, you can be anti-war but still understand that Assad is terrible; hell, there were plenty of people who understood that Saddam was a dictator but still opposed the Iraq War for legitimate reasons (& that's not even mentioning the fact that that no legitimate presidential contender is calling for an Iraq War-level conflict in Syria). That isn't her, though. So, if anybody is distorting the view of a US military veteran here, it's you, because, while you yourself are personally free to oppose interventionism with regards to Syria, don't go around claiming that that's all that she's doing, because it's not. She's openly being an Assad apologist.

[Saint Milei]

https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2019/07/tulsi-gabbard-co-sponsors-audit-fed-bill.html?fbclid=IwAR2CQTeT5MHgkLyWDOlgQsrj_BTDTTLFmsnsMGInZdQgtoL8rRa2JjVK-E0


YASSSSSS QUEEN

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

She didn’t drop out yet?

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

The manipulation/censorship by social media companies finally affected someone on the left side of politics and she's striking back.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/07/25/tulsi-gabbard-democrat-candidate-sues-google/1828271001/

WASHINGTON – On Thursday, member of Congress and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard launched a lawsuit against Google claiming "serious and continuing violations of Tulsi’s right to free speech" because of Google's suspension of the Gabbard campaign's advertising account during the first Democratic presidential debate.

The campaign asks for an immediate court injunction to stop further meddling from Google and payment of financial damages.

"On June 28, 2019, millions of Americans asked Google about Tulsi Gabbard," the lawsuit says. "Tulsi sought to answer them. But Google silenced her."

[Crumpets]

1. "In response, Google says 'automated systems that flag unusual activity on all advertiser accounts -- including large spending changes' were to blame for the suspension of Gabbard's account. Google says their automated systems aim to 'prevent fraud and protect our customers.'"

2. Even if this weren't automated, Google has every right to censor anyone it feels like, just as we have every right to not use Google (seriously, Bing works just fine).

3. I'm curious, did this happen to any of the other candidates? It says she was "briefly" the most searched candidate on Google, which tells me other candidates would have been in similar situations over the course of the night.

[Person Man]

1. "In response, Google says 'automated systems that flag unusual activity on all advertiser accounts -- including large spending changes' were to blame for the suspension of Gabbard's account. Google says their automated systems aim to 'prevent fraud and protect our customers.'"

2. Even if this weren't automated, Google has every right to censor anyone it feels like, just as we have every right to not use Google (seriously, Bing works just fine).

3. I'm curious, did this happen to any of the other candidates? It says she was "briefly" the most searched candidate on Google, which tells me other candidates would have been in similar situations over the course of the night.

We do have a problem with becoming over reliant on large estates that basically take over a lot of the powers that governments have. Censorship for one.

[Person Man]

This ^ and this issue will be good to sort out in the courts.  Yes, you can use other search engines but it's like when you're trying to find an ISP in your area and all you have is Comcast and some podunk dial-up or satellite company. There's not much of a choice there.

The regulatory capture of the FCC was just some mafia level sh**t. That's for sure.  Both lower level data connection infrastructure and application level data infrastructure have become more like utilities. The only other issue is how we sustain innovation. Is what's happening right now tolerable or essential for fully developing this infrastructure and once this infrastructure "matures" (when they are unlikely to get much more out of it). Of course when we "max out" internet applications on this current paradigm, this becomes less of an issue.

[Crumpets]

1. "In response, Google says 'automated systems that flag unusual activity on all advertiser accounts -- including large spending changes' were to blame for the suspension of Gabbard's account. Google says their automated systems aim to 'prevent fraud and protect our customers.'"

2. Even if this weren't automated, Google has every right to censor anyone it feels like, just as we have every right to not use Google (seriously, Bing works just fine).

3. I'm curious, did this happen to any of the other candidates? It says she was "briefly" the most searched candidate on Google, which tells me other candidates would have been in similar situations over the course of the night.

We do have a problem with becoming over reliant on large estates that basically take over a lot of the powers that governments have. Censorship for one.

You'll have a lot easier time convincing me we need to break up Google than that we should make it have to pay out to presidential candidates when they don't raise as much money as they think they should have been able to using a private platform on the grounds of "free speech violations."

[brucejoel99]

WASHINGTON – On Thursday, member of Congress and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard launched a lawsuit against Google claiming "serious and continuing violations of Tulsi’s right to free speech" because of Google's suspension of the Gabbard campaign's advertising account during the first Democratic presidential debate.

The campaign asks for an immediate court injunction to stop further meddling from Google and payment of financial damages.

"On June 28, 2019, millions of Americans asked Google about Tulsi Gabbard," the lawsuit says. "Tulsi sought to answer them. But Google silenced her."

You'd think a government official would know free speech only protects citizens from their government & not each other.

[brucejoel99]

WASHINGTON – On Thursday, member of Congress and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard launched a lawsuit against Google claiming "serious and continuing violations of Tulsi’s right to free speech" because of Google's suspension of the Gabbard campaign's advertising account during the first Democratic presidential debate.

The campaign asks for an immediate court injunction to stop further meddling from Google and payment of financial damages.

"On June 28, 2019, millions of Americans asked Google about Tulsi Gabbard," the lawsuit says. "Tulsi sought to answer them. But Google silenced her."

You'd think a government official would know free speech only protects citizens from their government & not each other.

So you agree with the Citizens United ruling, that corporations are people?

What does Citizens United have to do with this? The issue at stake here in the Gabbard case is that Google isn't a governmental body & that Gabbard isn't protected by the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment when it comes to what she claims Google has done to her.

[izixs]

WASHINGTON – On Thursday, member of Congress and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard launched a lawsuit against Google claiming "serious and continuing violations of Tulsi’s right to free speech" because of Google's suspension of the Gabbard campaign's advertising account during the first Democratic presidential debate.

The campaign asks for an immediate court injunction to stop further meddling from Google and payment of financial damages.

"On June 28, 2019, millions of Americans asked Google about Tulsi Gabbard," the lawsuit says. "Tulsi sought to answer them. But Google silenced her."

You'd think a government official would know free speech only protects citizens from their government & not each other.

So you agree with the Citizens United ruling, that corporations are people?

What does Citizens United have to do with this? The issue at stake here in the Gabbard case is that Google isn't a governmental body & that Gabbard isn't protected by the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment when it comes to what she claims Google has done to her.

The point was that corporations aren't people; they are entities. And this isn't about just free speech, it's about possible election rigging by corporations. Platforms are supposed to be neutral to keep Section 230 protections, but when they manipulate data like this - it endangers the process just like any Russian bots on Facebook would with disinformation.

And here I though Republicans hated regulations because socialism or some other boogieman.

Oh wait... what is Section 230 of the communications decency actually about? From my reading it appears to be about: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"

That... doesn't appear to apply to this situation. Like, at all. Because it is all about sharing of information via the platform vs editing it/providing extra material. But when the action taken is just not to share it at all, that is not a form of modification that would make google the publisher or speaker of that information. Silence on a subject does not mean you are speaking weirdly enough.

But... maybe you mean a different section 230 of something else entirely? Please, do be specific if that's the case.

[DrScholl]

Why would anybody want to mess with a candidate polling at 0% for the most part? I'm starting to think she's not right in the head.

[brucejoel99]

WASHINGTON – On Thursday, member of Congress and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard launched a lawsuit against Google claiming "serious and continuing violations of Tulsi’s right to free speech" because of Google's suspension of the Gabbard campaign's advertising account during the first Democratic presidential debate.

The campaign asks for an immediate court injunction to stop further meddling from Google and payment of financial damages.

"On June 28, 2019, millions of Americans asked Google about Tulsi Gabbard," the lawsuit says. "Tulsi sought to answer them. But Google silenced her."

You'd think a government official would know free speech only protects citizens from their government & not each other.

So you agree with the Citizens United ruling, that corporations are people?

What does Citizens United have to do with this? The issue at stake here in the Gabbard case is that Google isn't a governmental body & that Gabbard isn't protected by the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment when it comes to what she claims Google has done to her.

The point was that corporations aren't people; they are entities. And this isn't about just free speech, it's about possible election rigging by corporations. Platforms are supposed to be neutral to keep Section 230 protections, but when they manipulate data like this - it endangers the process just like any Russian bots on Facebook would with disinformation.

It is neutral. That's literally why this "incident" happened. Her account tripped an automatic flag, & was temporarily disabled. This isn't Google trying to silence her campaign. It's Google having a policy in place & applying it to everybody, regardless of who they are.

Let me be clear: it'd be REALLY stupid to think that Google is actively attempting to silence a candidate polling at below 1% in a presidential primary by disabling their campaign account for 6 hours. That's just stupid. There's honesty no other adequate description. No rational person could actually conclude that this was intentional.

Tulsi Gabbard's campaign engaged in behavior that would've tripped up any kind of anti-spam alerting system. You can't have your official campaign advertising account act like a spam bot & then be shocked when an automated system shuts it down. Or, I mean, you can, & if you're Gabbard's campaign, I guess that's exactly what happened, but you really shouldn't.

[Saint Milei]

she out here wreckin cop harris

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Tulsi belongs in Debate 3. She surprised me tonight. Uber confidence.

[Saint Milei]

She didn’t drop out yet?

Say that again sis?

[Joe Haydn]

My opinion of Gabbard really went up tonight after her brave attack on Harris. While there are definitely blemishes in her past, her current positions on most of the issues are now pretty good. Overall, she’s probably better than at least half of the other people running.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

She didn’t drop out yet?

Say that again sis?

She didn't drop out yet?