Why the hell is Tulsi still in the race?

I’ve got a bet against @PolishHeadlock2 about Tulsi running 3rd party (me against, him for). Would you like to hop in as well since you think it appears to be true? I’d gladly go double or nothing from my end.

I'm not sure if she will. I think there's some concern that she'll pull more from the right. I'd be more comfortable betting on her getting a show on Fox or some kind of paycheck from the right-wing mediasphere.
 
Okay, But I doubt she will ever be a serious contender for President.

I think that she could have been if the Dems were smart and supported her from the start. Unfortunately, she wasn't their primary choice (like any of these other clowns are better)

Looking at her attributes and military history, I think that she could have won.
 
I'm not sure if she will. I think there's some concern that she'll pull more from the right. I'd be more comfortable betting on her getting a show on Fox or some kind of paycheck from the right-wing mediasphere.

Now that aspect I wouldn’t bet against

Solid chance she gets repetitive paid appearances on Fox as a “Dem” voice on issues
 
I think that she could have been if the Dems were smart and supported her from the start. Unfortunately, she wasn't their primary choice (like any of these other clowns are better)

Looking at her attributes and military history, I think that she could have won.
Tulsi has the same problem that Yang had, she has a passionate and very vocal online base but she was never able to attract people outside of her hardcore base of supporters.
Yes it's important to build a base of ride or die supporters and it's important to maintain your base, but it's even more important get as many non ride or die supporters to vote for you as you can.
If Tulsi was better at reaching people outside of her base she might have had a chance, but it's too late for that now.
 
Last edited:
I think that she could have been if the Dems were smart and supported her from the start. Unfortunately, she wasn't their primary choice (like any of these other clowns are better)

Looking at her attributes and military history, I think that she could have won.
I’ve definitely looked at her attributes.
 
Tulsi has the same problem that Yang had, she has a passionate and very vocal online base but she was never able to attract people outside of her hardcore base of supporters.
Yes it's important to build a base of ride or die supporters and it's important to maintain your base, but it's even more important get as many non ride or die supporters to vote for you as you can.
If Tulsi was better at reaching people outside of her base she might have had a chance, but it's too late for that now.

It also doesn't help when you have old jealous hags like Hillary Clinton claiming that you are a traitor to your country as well as being groomed by the Russians.

 
This is coming from someone who generally likes Tulsi, and considers her my second choice just behind Bernie. But for the love of God Tulsi, drop out already. You have no chance at this point.
Seriously, does Tulsi really want to be known as the woman who got crushed in all 50 states for the rest of her political career? Tulsi needs to drop out and endorse Bernie already.
What do you think Sherdog?

Agreed.
 
This is all I've got

90
 
This is all I've got

90


I think she's hot but my girl ruined her for me.

she pointed out to me that she has a giant head & could pass as a trans
now, that's all I can notice/see.


maxresdefault.jpg
 
I was a backer of Tulsi when she announced but when the vote to impeach happened and she voted...

"Present".

I was like..



If she voted "Aye", I could roll with it. If she voted "Nay", I could roll with it, but she voted... "Present."

Funk dat.
 
I think she's hot but my girl ruined her for me.

she pointed out to me that she has a giant head & could pass as a trans
now, that's all I can notice/see.


maxresdefault.jpg

that’s just the effect of a wide angle lens and her being a few inches closer.
 
I think she's hot but my girl ruined her for me.

she pointed out to me that she has a giant head & could pass as a trans
now, that's all I can notice/see.


maxresdefault.jpg
there were videos of them together on Instagram or some shit where my girl showed me, & it was pretty evident. oh well.
 
In context, clearly I wasn't saying ever in my life, but in this discussion.



Good but irrelevant.



But being honest, there was no misrepresentation, and your attempt to shift the discussion was deceitful.



Factually she is, but I wasn't saying that in the discussion because it was about something else. Did you see my point about discussing what we're discussing instead of seeing every discussion as a chance to litigate worldviews? I didn't think it was hard to understand.



I think it's more that you're ashamed about your actions. I expect you'll get over it.

I'm going to take one last crack at understanding where you are coming from.

You make a statement that you have not accused Tulsi of being a Russian asset. This seems at odds with your general attitude towards her on the forum, so I take a cursory look at your posting history, and it shows that you have explicitly called her a Russian asset. I point this out. Rather than explain this apparent contradiction in your thinking, which is certainly germane to the issue at hand, you attack me and call me dishonest for pointing this out.

I'm going to set aside your general point about worldview, which I think has some merit in terms of how one ought to order one's opinions, but has limited relevance to this discussion. It should be obvious that I am not litigating worldviews. I am trying to figure out what your real position is on Tulsi Gabbard, because you are offering up positions in different threads which are, on their face, contradictory. In no way, shape, or form, is that 'litigating worldviews'; your opinion on Gabbard is a discrete issue, and when you say different things in different places, that raises some questions.

Just so I'm clear, is it your position that it was dishonest or illegitimate of me to point out that what you are saying in this thread is directly at odds with statements you have made in other threads when similar topics have arisen? And if so, why? You appear to be implying some unspoken rule siloing off each thread so that the discussion must begin tabula rasa, but this is hardly a sensible way to continue ongoing discussions in a forum.

You seem to think I should have let this go, but I don't see how anyone can hope to have a discussion with you on any topic when you attack other posters for trying to nail down your position.
 
Back
Top