Tulsi Gabbard

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated G through PG-13.
DoubtingThomas
God
Posts: 3913
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am

Tulsi Gabbard

Post by DoubtingThomas »

According to the nypost,

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has come to the defense of Sic et Non. Bernie Sanders in his war of words with fellow Democratic presidential candidate Sic et Non. Elizabeth Warren.

Gabbard, a Hawaii Democrat, shared a personal anecdote about a meeting she had with Sanders before declaring her own 2020 candidacy, saying the Democratic socialist from Vermont was nothing but supportive.

“We had a nice one-on-one conversation and I informed him that I would be running for President,” Gabbard tweeted Monday. “In that meeting, he showed me the greatest respect and encouragement, just as he always has.”

https://nypost.com/2020/01/14/tulsi-gab ... rren-feud/

CNN is just garbage. If the nypost report is accurate then it would only mean that CNN does't really care about objective journalism for not reporting it. CNN is destroying democracy. If Sanders doesn't win the nomination I will probably just stay home on election day.
Last edited by DoubtingThomas on Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17547
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by EAllusion »

Sounds very similar to you in 2016, minus the increasingly bizarre insistence that Sanders was winning long after it was clear that he had lost. That worked out great, though, didn't it?

Anyway, it is entirely possible that Sanders had different comments for the candidate that was absolutely zero threat to his candidacy compared to the one that was. It's entirely plausible that he shared honest opinions about the prospects of female candidates that would be mildly discouraging to the one that could harm his presidential ambitions.

User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 32666
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by Jersey Girl »

I think CNN is kind of skewed. That said, here's a CNN thing about Warren confronting Sanders after the debate when a hot mic picked up the exchange. This when all we could originally see was that she dismissed his attempt at a post-debate handshake.

"I think you called me a liar on national TV." ~ Warren

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 ... -politics/
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb

User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 32666
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by Jersey Girl »

ETA: He doesn't realize that he effectively DID call her a liar. DT what do you think about that?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb

DoubtingThomas
God
Posts: 3913
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by DoubtingThomas »

EAllusion wrote:Sounds very similar to you in 2016, minus the increasingly bizarre insistence that Sanders was winning long after it was clear that he had lost. That worked out great, though, didn't it?

I prefer Yang, but Sanders is the best candidate of the top 4. I do like his foreign policy views and I hopefully he wins. Kamala Harris was never the front runner, do you remember what you told me?

EAllusion wrote:Anyway, it is entirely possible that Sanders had different comments for the candidate that was absolutely zero threat to his candidacy compared to the one that was. It's entirely plausible that he shared honest opinions about the prospects of female candidates that would be mildly discouraging to the one that could harm his presidential ambitions.

Sure, everything is possible. But Warren has a history of making up stories for political points.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... cause-she/

It is also possible that she misunderstood, misheard, or is simply not remembering correctly.
Last edited by DoubtingThomas on Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

DoubtingThomas
God
Posts: 3913
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by DoubtingThomas »

Jersey Girl wrote:ETA: He doesn't realize that he effectively DID call her a liar. DT what do you think about that?

I don't agree.

User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 32666
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by Jersey Girl »

DoubtingThomas wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:ETA: He doesn't realize that he effectively DID call her a liar. DT what do you think about that?

I don't agree.

What don't you agree with?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17547
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by EAllusion »

DoubtingThomas wrote:I prefer Yang, but Sanders is the best candidate of the top 4. I do like his foreign policy and I hopefully he wins. Kamala Harris was never the front runner, do you remember what you told me?

What I told you was that she was a plausible front runner, which was the consensus view of both professional forecasters and betting markets for good reasons, but also that no one Democrat was likely to win in a crowded field, so she, like every other candidate, shouldn't be viewed as likely to win. You said this was nonsense, largely because you didn't want to believe it, and attacked honest reporters like Harry Enten as engaging in a conspiracy for sharing that view.

What was said then is still true. If I tell you now that the Chiefs are the team most likely to win the Superbowl and it ends up being the Titans, this doesn't mean I'm wrong. That's how probability works.

You let what you want to be the case determine what you think is likely the case. That is a theme that both explains your posts on Harris and why you aggressively shared Bernie bro propaganda in 2016 meant to paint a rosier picture for his campaign than what actually was happening.

Sure, everything is possible. But Warren has a history of making up stories for political points.

Bernie Sanders has a history of making up stories for political points. But you really like Bernie Sanders, so you try to play up Warren as an essentially dishonest political actor even though she really isn't. Because of sexist stereotyping, it is pretty easy to paint female political candidates as dishonest snakes, though, and Sanders wouldn't be wrong if he thinks that it's a harder path for a liberal woman to win for reasons like that.

It is also possible that she misunderstood, misheard, or is simply not remembering correctly.

Weird that you don't allow that for Bernie Sanders. Maybe Bernie Sanders told her about roadblocks women face - real ones that played a significant role in why Clinton lost - and she reasonably interpreted that as Sanders telling her a woman can't win and/or discouraging her from running. And Sanders takes umbrage because he didn't literally say that, even if that would be the obvious subtext.

DoubtingThomas
God
Posts: 3913
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by DoubtingThomas »

Jersey Girl wrote:What don't you agree with?

I don't think he effectively called her a liar. There are other possibilities, but I do suspect that she is lying.

User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 32666
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by Jersey Girl »

DoubtingThomas wrote:This thing? This???

Sure, everything is possible. But Warren has a history of making up stories for political points.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... cause-she/

Let me pull out a couple or three excerpts:

The Massachusetts senator now says she lost the job because she was pregnant. She didn’t say that in the past. Is it possible to reconcile the two accounts?

Weeks after Warren’s resignation, one local newspaper reported that Warren resigned "to raise a family," and another said she "resigned for personal reasons."

And if Warren had been forced out of the job because she was pregnant, it’s not likely school officials would have said so publicly.

And finally this:

One thing that’s important to remember: At the time, it was common for women to be forced out of teaching jobs after they became pregnant.

You bet it was common. It was also common for women not to secure positions if during the interview they were asked if they already had or were planning to start a family. How do I know? Some years after Warren's experience I (a young newlywed) sat in an office with a Colonel who asked me the same questions during a job interview. I answered as honestly as I could. I didn't get the job.

Today those questions cannot be legally asked.

Back to the so-called lie.

Weeks after Warren’s resignation, one local newspaper reported that Warren resigned "to raise a family," and another said she "resigned for personal reasons."

Notice that these are the reports of local newspapers NOT reports from Warren herself, nor are either of these statements supported by a copy of the resignation itself.

Oh and by the way, "to raise a family" IS a personal reason.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb

DoubtingThomas
God
Posts: 3913
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by DoubtingThomas »

EAllusion wrote:Weird that you don't allow that for Bernie Sanders.

I do. I said, "everything is possible". Can you please think about what I am saying? Do you have any evidence that Warren is telling the truth?

EAllusion wrote:an essentially dishonest political actor even though she really isn't.

How do you know? I don't think Sanders is honest on everything, but I am not aware that he makes up stories for political points. If I am wrong please give me a reference.

Here is my reference.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... cause-she/

EAllusion wrote: You said this was nonsense, largely because you didn't want to believe it, and attacked honest reporters like Harry Enten as engaging in a conspiracy for sharing that view.

Yes because there was no scientific polling at the time and Kamala Harris had no name recognition. You kept defending the CNN headline as a horse race coverage. It is not a conspiracy theory, it was just the bandwagon effect and free coverage.

EAllusion wrote:What I told you was that she was a plausible front runner, which was the consensus view of both professional forecasters and betting markets for good reasons

You defended CNN headline. Yes because of the free coverage and the bandwagon effect, but the poll numbers never showed that she was the front runner.
Last edited by DoubtingThomas on Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:08 am, edited 2 times in total.

DoubtingThomas
God
Posts: 3913
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by DoubtingThomas »

So, Warren indicates that her lack of credentials might have been an issue. Regardless, the school board offered to renew her job.

Warren noted that she later "went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, ‘I don’t think this is going to work out for me.’ And I was pregnant with my first baby. So, I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, ‘What am I going to do?’ And my husband’s view of it was, ‘Stay home. We have children, we’ll have more children, you’ll love this.’ And I was very restless about it."

Warren’s story is different as a senator and on the presidential campaign trail.

DoubtingThomas
God
Posts: 3913
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by DoubtingThomas »

EAllusion wrote:Because of sexist stereotyping

It is not a good thing to see sexism everywhere. Just give me some evidence.

User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 32666
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by Jersey Girl »

DoubtingThomas wrote:Here is my reference.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... cause-she/

The statements in that article can be reconciled.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17547
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by EAllusion »

DoubtingThomas wrote:I do. I said, "everything is possible".

You said that while dismissing one possibility and taken the other as a basis for form judgement. That's not being agnostic on the matter.

Can you please think about what I am saying? Do you have any evidence that Warren is telling the truth?

You're calling her a liar. The burden is on you, buddy.


Wait, what? This is not a story that Warren made up. Your link doesn't even assert that. There are examples of her being sketchy for political purposes, but this ain't it.

If you trust politfact, just do a search on Sanders and instances in which he was marked as lying. There are lots.

Yes because there was no scientific polling at the time

Yes there was.

and Kamala Harris had no name recognition.

This statement is contradicted by the first one, and isn't really accurate in context.

You kept defending the CNN headline as a horse race coverage. It is not a conspiracy theory, it was just the bandwagon effect and free coverage.

What? I defended Harry Enten, formly of 538, now of CNN, for arguing that of the candidates, it was reasonable to assert Harris was a weak frontrunner. The case for this was reasonable. Again, it was the consensus view of political forecasters in general, and this was reflected in prediction markets. I was also careful to point out that because no candidate has the majority of probability of winning, they technically all are likely to lose.

Right now, Joe Biden is a the clear Democratic frontrunner. He, and he alone, is the most likely to win the nomination and no one else is all that close to him. It's also the case that Joe Biden is likely to lose the Democratic nomination. If you can't keep these thoughts in your head at the same time, you need to think about math a little harder.

EAllusion wrote: but the poll numbers never showed that she was the front runner.

You said there were no polls. That aside, there's more to forecasting that far out than looking at polls. If it were that simple, Donald Trump has already lost. But it's not that simple.

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17547
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by EAllusion »

DoubtingThomas wrote:
So, Warren indicates that her lack of credentials might have been an issue. Regardless, the school board offered to renew her job.

Warren noted that she later "went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, ‘I don’t think this is going to work out for me.’ And I was pregnant with my first baby. So, I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, ‘What am I going to do?’ And my husband’s view of it was, ‘Stay home. We have children, we’ll have more children, you’ll love this.’ And I was very restless about it."

Warren’s story is different as a senator and on the presidential campaign trail.


It's not "different." I just has more details. It's not contradictory to simply exclude that she was not retained for a teaching job because she was pregnant. People do this all the time because they have views, sometimes ones that change, on what is appropriate to include in brief biographical information in different contexts. This may simply have gone from something she didn't want to discuss in public, or felt would be harmful to her to discuss in public, to something she viewed as important or worthwhile to share. There's nothing about such a change that would indicate lying. That's just human nature. You can't infer lying from that kind of fact pattern.

This is your evidence that Warren is a giant liar, so it's safe to assume she's lying about Bernie? Yeah, cool.

User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 20348
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

You wanna know what Trump's lying has done for me? I literally don't care if a candidate has lied about their past now. Now that I've seen lying about who you are, what you've done, and what you're doing is gladly accepted because 'that's what politicians do', I just can't muster the enthusiasm for placing someone in the office of the Presidency who values telling the truth to the American people.

- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3152
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by Dr Exiled »

I think it is clear that CNN has it out for Bernie, no matter which side one takes in the he said/she said dust-up.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/january-democratic-debate-2020-cnn-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-938365/

From the article:

“CNN reported yesterday — and Senator Sanders, Senator Warren confirmed in a statement — that, in 2018, you told her you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?”

Not “did you say that,” but “why did you say that?”

Sanders denied it, then listed the many reasons the story makes no sense: He urged Warren herself to run in 2016, campaigned for a female candidate who won the popular vote by 3 million votes, and has been saying the opposite in public for decades. “There’s a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States,” he said.

Phillip asked him to clarify: He never said it? “That is correct,” Sanders said. Phillip turned to Warren and deadpanned: “Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?”

That “when” was as transparent a media “____ you” as we’ve seen in a presidential debate. It evoked memories of another infamous CNN ambush, when Bernard Shaw in 1988 crotch-kicked Mike Dukakis with a question about whether he’d favor the death penalty for someone who raped and murdered his wife, Kitty.


The leading questions are so obvious. It's like 2016 all over again when Wolf Blitzer was talking about super delegates and how they were all for Clinton during the California primary when the polls were still open.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 21638
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by moksha »

DoubtingThomas wrote:I prefer Yang, but Sanders is the best candidate of the top 4.

Buttigieg, he is smart, young and honest - the exact opposite traits of Trump.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 14755
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:59 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by Some Schmo »

I can't stand CNN these days. The network feels like it's suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and Trump/the right-wing nuts are their kidnapper.

They are only slightly less obviously in the bag for Trump than Fox. Maybe the Democrats should start whining that CNN is fake news... bring them back around to reality.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.

User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 14755
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:59 am

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Post by Some Schmo »

On the issue of whether Bernie said a woman couldn't win or not... my guess is he said something that suggested it, and Warren remembers the implication as though it was a quote. The truth is in the middle.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 3 guests