Why the hell is Tulsi still in the race?

[blaseblah]

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.

She's super young. She never had a real shot. This was a good opportunity to get her name out there. Now folks know who she is.

 

[Jack V Savage]

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 make a statement that in the discussion I'm currently having, I have not discussed whether Gabbard is a Russian asset. Rather than try to understand and engage with the points I've made, the other guy wants to shift it to that. And then you try to score cheap rhetorical points by bringing up older arguments.

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.

That's the whole point, though. Rather than addressing the points I was making, which I think were pretty clear and uncontroversial, the guy wanted to shift to argue against a more-contentious point that wasn't being discussed. So the general point is the heart of this side discussion.

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.

If they were contradictory, they would contradict. They don't. I'm just discussing different issues. And my view on Gabbard is irrelevant to this discussion. We were talking about whether Republicans were trying to get on Gabbard's good side and encourage a third-party run and whether Russia likes her. Those are both matters of objective fact that are irrelevant to the issue of what one feels about Gabbard or about whether she can be classified as a Russian asset. However, the idiot TS feels that acknowledging the truth of those claims is uncomfortable so he preferred to try to change the subject to the Russian asset one, and apparently you agree with that dishonest tactic.

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?

It's not at odds at all. That would mean that it contradicts. It doesn't. The claim that you interjected on was that it was a misrepresentation to describe the claim that Russia likes her and that Republicans are grooming her for a third party as being the same as that she's a "Russian asset." It's dishonest and illegitimate to make a deliberately false claim.

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.

This is not my view. My view is that if I say X is true, and you say, "no Y is false," and I say we're not discussing Y, someone else saying, "you have said Y before," is just trying to score cheap rhetorical points. And my two points (we're not discussing Y, and Y is true) are not contradictory.

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.

Well, that's no problem because I don't do that. I do object to bad argumentation, though.

Let me quote myself from another, similar discussion:

Making consistently honest, good-faith arguments based on sound reasoning and accurate facts is a learned skill that most people have not acquired or do not apply consistently. "Thinking, Fast and Slow" discusses people's tendency to substitute easy questions for hard ones. Example: If the question is “Should I invest in Ford Motor Company stock?” the easier question to answer is “Do I like Ford cars?” Kahneman notes that most people don't even know they're doing that. Good illustration was a while back when someone posted a propaganda poster that claimed that economists estimated that the TPP would cost millions of jobs. I pointed out that that was absurdly far from reality. The response of a couple of people was that "if the TPP is so great, why doesn't Clinton support it?" (???) and something along the lines of "fuck you, the TPP is bad." I couldn't get them to see that the question of whether the TPP was bad or good was unrelated to the fact that the picture contained an absurd lie. Likewise, a lot of answers to questions about the state of the country for most people boil down to "do you support Trump?" That's an easy question to answer. What's happened to trends in GDP takes (a few seconds of) research.

And of course I know that such bad arguments are natural and common, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to point out when people are trying to make them.

 

[lilelvis]

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?

Someone has to collect the “bangable” vote, especially since Clamala bailed.
I couldn’t imagine hunching around on nasty ole Warren or lamey klobuwhatsit.

 

[Utahraptor Ostrommaysi]

She's super young. She never had a real shot. This was a good opportunity to get her name out there. Now folks know who she is.

Yes, and the worked for a while, but now it's time for her to step aside.

 

[Utahraptor Ostrommaysi]

Someone has to collect the “bangable” vote, especially since Clamala bailed.
I couldn’t imagine hunching around on nasty ole Warren or lamey klobuwhatsit.

Well I guess you straight dudes and lesbians need at least one bangable candidate on stage. I'm just salty that Andrew Yang isn't in the race anymore, with him gone the only bangable candidate for my fellow gay dudes and straight chicks is Pete Buttigieg and...no...just...no. Pete is a decent looking guy but his slimy and fake personality is such a turn off for me.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

In context, clearly I wasn't saying ever in my life, but in this discussion.

Don't tear up your transmission slamming into reverse that hard on your back track, Jack.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Don't tear up your transmission slamming into reverse that hard on your back track, Jack.

No backtrack at all. I can't believe you're not able to see that "X is true" and "I didn't say X in this particular discussion" are different statements that don't contradict.

 

[guns&moses]

You're asking how we know that Republicans appear to be grooming her for a third-party and how we know that Russia likes her? For the first, there's the constant praise on Fox and Breitbart and for the second, there's positive RT and Sputnik coverage of her along with trolls.



Yes. I love war. Just the thought of people dying makes me happy. Ultra's known for scrupulous honesty in representing other people's views.

With her statistical unpopularity with Dems, and with the Fox and Breibart co-signatures, do you think she'd syphon from Trump instead with a third party run? I've though about this quite a bit and I keep coming back to her appealing more to Trumpers than the Bernie folks.

Then again, I don't think it makes enough difference either way to tip a state and award EC votes.

 

[Jack V Savage]

With her statistical unpopularity with Dems, and with the Fox and Breibart co-signatures, do you think she'd syphon from Trump instead with a third party run? I've though about this quite a bit and I keep coming back to her appealing more to Trumpers than the Bernie folks.

Then again, I don't think it makes enough difference either way to tip a state and award EC votes.

Don't know. I think it's possible. Might depend on the nominee. That's why I'm less convinced than some others that she will run (I think he decision will be based on what is in the best interests of the GOP).

 

[Pseudo Sane]

Okay. Since you are Fisking my responses, I suppose I'll return the favour.

I make a statement that in the discussion I'm currently having, I have not discussed whether Gabbard is a Russian asset. Rather than try to understand and engage with the points I've made, the other guy wants to shift it to that. And then you try to score cheap rhetorical points by bringing up older arguments.

Three points here. First, you are misrepresenting how the 'Russian asset' issue arose, which, for someone so ostentatiously concerned with intellectual rigour, leads me to conclude this is probably deliberate. Here are the quotes, which I'll set out directly, because you seem to forget how things went down:

@nac386 makes a crack about her wanting to stay in (the point of the thread), in order to file more lawsuits:

Maybe she's sticking around hoping to find more reasons to file frivolous lawsuits?

@Utahraptor Ostrommaysi first raises the Russian asset issue, in the context of the lawsuit:

I mean Hillary calling her a Russian asset was pure BS, but there is no way Tulsi is winning that lawsuit.

You then decide to chime in, contradicting Utahraptor, in the context of his claim that she is obviously not a Russian asset. In that context, you appear to be implying she is a 'Russian asset' because you put forward two propositions which you appear to think counter his position, namely that Tulsi is being groomed to run third party by the Republicans and that she is a favourite of Russia.

Well, Clinton said that Gabbard was being groomed by Republicans to run third party and that she's a favorite of Russia, both of which appear to be true statements.

Since I apparently need to grind this out, at this point you are already taking the position that she is 'a Russian asset' by implication, so you have already, of your own initiative, chosen to engage in this side issue (which you have elsewhere implied is somehow beneath you).

Utah asks you for proof of your claim:

And your proof for that is?

You respond:

You're asking how we know that Republicans appear to be grooming her for a third-party and how we know that Russia likes her? For the first, there's the constant praise on Fox and Breitbart and for the second, there's positive RT and Sputnik coverage of her along with trolls.

At this point you've chosen, on your own, to go off and discuss this side issue with Utah, as to whether she is a Russian asset. Just to be clear, if in your mind you you have moved the conversation away from the Russian asset issue at this point, by your own criteria, you are being dishonest and acting without sufficient intellectual rigour, since whether she was a Russian asset was what was being discussed when you chose to jump into the discussion, uninvited.

Utah responds again, substantively, to your point:

Granted Tulsi does get a lot praise from right wing news media, but that doesn't prove that the Republicans are grooming her for a third-party run. Let alone that she is a Russian asset.
So it's okay for you to accuse Tulsi of being a Russian asset, and therefore either a useful idiot at best, or a traitor to this country at worst, but it's not okay for someone on here to twist your words a little bit? LOL okay.

You respond, denying accusing Tulsi of being a Russian asset, despite the fact that you have already implied, to anyone following the argument between the two of you, that you think she is a Russian asset:

Well, I didn't accuse Tulsi of being a Russian asset, and twisting people's words does nothing good for discussions. It just really depends what you're here for. Some of us like to engage with ideas and develop our own thinking, and some people are just taking their anger out on the world or thinking that they can actually change people's minds by lying on an MMA forum. Takes all kinds, you know?

At this point you are taking a position that seems contrary to what you have said before in the thread and elsewhere, so I call you on it. You obviously think Tulsi is a Russian asset, since you have bothered to contradict Utah on this point, and you have said so elsewhere. Instead of clarifying your position, you take umbrage and accuse Utah of twisting your words.

So in summary, you were the one who actually chose to start a discussion on the Russian asset claim, and then acted bewildered when called on it.

Second, you never restricted your statement about Tulsi being a Russian asset to the discussion you are currently having, as you have subsequently claimed you did, and on a forum where there are ongoing discussions, posting history is fair game. Since you obviously think that she's a Russian asset, I continue to maintain that denying this belief, in the context in which you chose to do so, is disingenuous. If the fault lies anywhere, it is with you for your lack of precision.

Third, you are displaying a remarkable lack of intellectual charity in characterizing my point as purely rhetorical.

That's the whole point, though. Rather than addressing the points I was making, which I think were pretty clear and uncontroversial, the guy wanted to shift to argue against a more-contentious point that wasn't being discussed. So the general point is the heart of this side discussion.

For the reasons set out above, this is bullshit. You had, yourself, already shifted the argument in the direction of discussing whether Tulsi was a Russian asset. There was no derail by Utah. Furthermore, I honestly doubt you can distinguish between the claim you explicitly made in this thread (that she is a favourite of Russia and receives Russian support) and the claim that she is a 'Russian asset'. If you can, please do so.

If they were contradictory, they would contradict. They don't. I'm just discussing different issues. And my view on Gabbard is irrelevant to this discussion. We were talking about whether Republicans were trying to get on Gabbard's good side and encourage a third-party run and whether Russia likes her. Those are both matters of objective fact that are irrelevant to the issue of what one feels about Gabbard or about whether she can be classified as a Russian asset. However, the idiot TS feels that acknowledging the truth of those claims is uncomfortable so he preferred to try to change the subject to the Russian asset one, and apparently you agree with that dishonest tactic.

Your view on Gabbard was not irrelevant. You were not discussing the main issue of the thread, which was why Tulsi is still running; you chose to raise the issue of Republicans trying to get on Gabbard's good side and Russian support of Tulsi in response to Utah stating that Clinton's claim Tulsi was a Russian asset is BS. You are reversing the chronology here, and I have trouble seeing why you would do this, except so you could make the demonstrably false claim that Utah was trying to change the topic, when if anyone was, it was you.

It's not at odds at all. That would mean that it contradicts. It doesn't. The claim that you interjected on was that it was a misrepresentation to describe the claim that Russia likes her and that Republicans are grooming her for a third party as being the same as that she's a "Russian asset." It's dishonest and illegitimate to make a deliberately false claim.

Again, you are reversing chronology. You are the one who brought up Russian feelings about Tulsi and being groomed by Republicans without the context of Utah's claim that she was not a Russian asset. It's right there in the thread. You have slung a few insults my way at this point. What would you call someone who keeps trying to muddy the waters of the chronology?

All I was trying to do on this was get to the bottom of what you actually think about Tulsi, since you are so coy about it and have stated the you believe she is a Russian asset in the past, and because it was relevant to the discussion which was going on. Most of what you've done since I pointed this out is bluster and mischaracterize what occurred.

By the way, if there is daylight, in your view, between the claims you have made in this thread, and what, in your view, makes Tulsi Russian asset, please let us know. That's really all I wanted to know from the beginning.

 

[Madmick]

Trying to help Trump, probably. Wouldn't be surprised if she gets a show on Fox after it's over, and staying in longer probably helps that effort.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Three points here. First, you are misrepresenting how the 'Russian asset' issue arose, which, for someone so ostentatiously concerned with intellectual rigour, leads me to conclude this is probably deliberate. Here are the quotes, which I'll set out directly, because you seem to forget how things went down:

@nac386 makes a crack about her wanting to stay in (the point of the thread), in order to file more lawsuits:


@Utahraptor Ostrommaysi first raises the Russian asset issue, in the context of the lawsuit:


You then decide to chime in, contradicting Utahraptor, in the context of his claim that she is obviously not a Russian asset. In that context, you appear to be implying she is a 'Russian asset' because you put forward two propositions which you appear to think counter his position, namely that Tulsi is being groomed to run third party by the Republicans and that she is a favourite of Russia.

Incorrect. I pointed out that Clinton's actual claim was that she was being groomed to run third party by Republicans and that she was a favorite of Russia. I said that those two claims were correct.

Since I apparently need to grind this out, at this point you are already taking the position that she is 'a Russian asset' by implication, so you have already, of your own initiative, chosen to engage in this side issue (which you have elsewhere implied is somehow beneath you).

No, we're not even discussing whether she's a Russian asset. I'm saying that the claims that Clinton actually made were correct.

At this point you've chosen, on your own, to go off and discuss this side issue with Utah, as to whether she is a Russian asset.

The side issue is his desire to change the subject. Clinton made two correct, and uncontroversial statements about Gabbard. Then, as these things go, people who took offense to the statements tried to misrepresent them to be more controversial (still very much justifiable, but the key point here is that it's a dishonest argument tactic to shift like that). If I said, "I don't think the death penalty is appropriate for shoplifting," and you responded, "you think the death penalty is always bad, but it's good sometimes because X," that's a dishonest argument tactic--and that's true even if I do happen to oppose the death penalty in general. Are you understanding this? I think I've made the point a few times, and you keep responding as if I haven't.

So in summary, you were the one who actually chose to start a discussion on the Russian asset claim, and then acted bewildered when called on it.

Incorrect, as I've demonstrated.

For the reasons set out above, this is bullshit. You had, yourself, already shifted the argument in the direction of discussing whether Tulsi was a Russian asset. There was no derail by Utah.

I cannot see how you can make this claim given that you quoted the two posts that clearly contradict it. Here they are again:

"I mean Hillary calling her a Russian asset was pure BS, but there is no way Tulsi is winning that lawsuit."

"Well, Clinton said that Gabbard was being groomed by Republicans to run third party and that she's a favorite of Russia, both of which appear to be true statements."

Key point seems to be that you don't understand this. Clinton did not, in fact, call Gabbard a Russian asset, but she did say that she was being groomed by Republicans to run third party and that's she's a favorite of Russia. Both of those two statements--that were not calling Gabbard a Russian asset--are true. Do you understand? Utah brought up the Russian asset thing, and I pulled the discussion away from that and toward the actual claim. Then he responded first to ask for evidence, which I provided, and then acted as if the clarification never happened.

Furthermore, I honestly doubt you can distinguish between the claim you explicitly made in this thread (that she is a favourite of Russia and receives Russian support) and the claim that she is a 'Russian asset'. If you can, please do so.

I don't care to, really. Previous discussion were bogged down around semantics so in this one, I specifically kept the focus on the substance while avoiding using the term. But it turns out that people *want* to bog it down because the substance isn't really in dispute, but people want to muddy the waters.

Again, you are reversing chronology. You are the one who brought up Russian feelings about Tulsi and being groomed by Republicans without the context of Utah's claim that she was not a Russian asset. It's right there in the thread. You have slung a few insults my way at this point. What would you call someone who keeps trying to muddy the waters of the chronology?

I call your attempts at that dishonest. It's baffling to me that you actually quoted the exchange that definitively refutes your claim and then you continue to make the claim.

To repeat:

This is Utah, not me, raising the "Russian asset" issue:

"I mean Hillary calling her a Russian asset was pure BS, but there is no way Tulsi is winning that lawsuit."

This is me, noting that it's not about the "Russian asset" issue:

"Well, Clinton said that Gabbard was being groomed by Republicans to run third party and that she's a favorite of Russia, both of which appear to be true statements."

 

[BFoe]

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 was reported long before a Hillary said anything. This article is a year old.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...20-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261

 

[Mamba Mentality]

Trying to help Trump, probably. Wouldn't be surprised if she gets a show on Fox after it's over, and staying in longer probably helps that effort.

Haha you hate her because she shits on Hillary.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

She's super young. She never had a real shot. This was a good opportunity to get her name out there. Now folks know who she is.

Yeah but now her political career in Hawaii is basically over because of it. She’s losing her House seat and her popularity here has taken a huge hit (she hasn’t done any work here, missed the most votes out of any Representative. She missed 85% of the votes!).

So she’s either hoping for a cabinet position or for full time on FOX News.

 

[RoosterHucklebuck]

This was reported long before a Hillary said anything. This article is a year old.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...20-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261

So where does Hillary get that she is a traitor? Is Bernie a traitor too?

 

[Fluffernutter]

Bernie's Sec Def?

 

[Rational Poster]

She bought all her chest oil up front.

 

[Steve-French]

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.

I think I figured it out Jack is actually Joy Behar from the view

 

[blaseblah]

Yeah but now her political career in Hawaii is basically over because of it. She’s losing her House seat and her popularity here has taken a huge hit (she hasn’t done any work here, missed the most votes out of any Representative. She missed 85% of the votes!).

So she’s either hoping for a cabinet position or for full time on FOX News.

No offense to Hawaii but staying as a representative there wasn't going to do anything for her political career. Her best bet is to get a position with Bernie. Lol at Fox though.