Opening a thread for last night's and all future debates.

Let's try and keep this somewhat focused on these candidates and the primary, not the general election.

Anyways, I thought Klobuchar and Delaney did surprisingly well. Tulsi Gabbard had her moments on foreign policy. Castro made a name for himself.

Warren kinda treaded water. DiBlasio inserted himself effectively but is super unlikable. Beto got savaged and looked like he wouldnt stand up for himself. Most pundents seemed to think Booker did great, but I didn't think he was an effective communicator.

Coming in, I had started to like the sound of Warren because she has very big plans, but everything she proposes she tells you how she's going to pay for it. A 2% tax on everything over $50MM of personal income doesn't sound insane to me, but I'm also not a multi-millionaire / billionaire.

Watching the debates, Warren honestly didn't need to do much except have a couple good soundbites which I think she did with her openings and closings.

Castro really caught my attention, and I thought Booker did well. I liked Gabbard more than I thought I would, but primarily because she was driving the idea to get our troops home. Beto looked like a deer in headlights, think he needs to go back and fight to be a Senator and get more experience. I can't remember anything interesting that I heard from anyone else if I'm being honest.

Tonight should be crazy with Biden, Bernie, Harris, etc.

Didn't watch, but read that Tulsi Gabbard has won all the polls following the debate. She apparently won polling by a landslide. And that in spite of the fact that she was given the lowest amount of speaking time.

IMO, the Democratic Establishment will never allow Gabbard to win the nomination, however. Because she is a real anti-war candidate, and truly anti-Establishment and against the "military industrial complex" in many respects. She is one of the few in Washington DC arguing against war with Iran, for instance.

They will rig the results if they have to, just like they did in 2016 when they stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders -- via rigging the voting machines/results, as well as the rigged Democrat party process with the super-delegates, etc.

Will probably play out very similar to what happened to Ron Paul in 2008. Paul was the clear and runaway leader for the Republican nomination in real polling, but the debates were rigged to give Ron Paul the lowest amount of exposure and then the primary voting "results" were rigged to steal the nomination from Paul -- and install RINO John McCain as the nominee, who the Republican base hated.

Kamala Harris crushed it tonight. I think she's cemented herself as a very serious contender. Biden almost looks uninterested.

PackBacker07 said:

---

Kamala Harris crushed it tonight. I think she's cemented herself as a very serious contender. Biden almost looks uninterested.

---

Agreed - she was great. Mayor Pete wasn't too bad either. Gillibrand did a good job of keeping herself in the conversation. No one else really stood out.

statefan91 said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

Kamala Harris crushed it tonight. I think she's cemented herself as a very serious contender. Biden almost looks uninterested.

---

Agreed - she was great. Mayor Pete wasn't too bad either. Gillibrand did a good job of keeping herself in the conversation. No one else really stood out.

---

Great debate performance for sure. I don't like her on policy at all, but I'll give credit where it's due.

Biden really seems old with how he speaks and answers questions. He comes across as someone past his prime. At this point I think he may start flagging, but I'm sure who is the viable alternative. Any of his supporters jumping ship won't go to Harris/Warren/Bernie at first, they'll jump to another moderate. Maybe Buttigege

Coming from the perspective of a Republican who voted Libertarian last time, I think I'm going to have to again. Of all of them, Yang and Buttigieg seem the least bad just because they recognize the challenges presented by the stuff they're promising. Kamala definitely won the 2nd debate with her performance but I have a hard time thinking her policies would get support from moderates, even as opposed to trump's. We need a 3rd option here and we need to take the power back from the executive and return it to Congress where it belongs.

Cornpack said:

---

Coming from the perspective of a Republican who voted Libertarian last time, I think I'm going to have to again. Of all of them, Yang and Buttigieg seem the least bad just because they recognize the challenges presented by the stuff they're promising. Kamala definitely won the 2nd debate with her performance but I have a hard time thinking her policies would get support from moderates, even as opposed to trump's. We need a 3rd option here and we need to take the power back from the executive and return it to Congress where it belongs.

---

Without something like ranked choice voting, voting for a 3rd party at this point is throwing away a vote (in my opinion). The political machine of the two big parties makes it basically impossible for any level of Federal office to be a 3rd party. Don't get me wrong, I would very much like there to be more than two parties.

Both you and IseWolf22 mentioned not thinking her policies would work for moderates. Do you mind me asking which ones?

statefan91 said:

---

Cornpack said:

---

Coming from the perspective of a Republican who voted Libertarian last time, I think I'm going to have to again. Of all of them, Yang and Buttigieg seem the least bad just because they recognize the challenges presented by the stuff they're promising. Kamala definitely won the 2nd debate with her performance but I have a hard time thinking her policies would get support from moderates, even as opposed to trump's. We need a 3rd option here and we need to take the power back from the executive and return it to Congress where it belongs.

---

Without something like ranked choice voting, voting for a 3rd party at this point is throwing away a vote (in my opinion). The political machine of the two big parties makes it basically impossible for any level of Federal office to be a 3rd party. Don't get me wrong, I would very much like there to be more than two parties.

Both you and IseWolf22 mentioned not thinking her policies would work for moderates. Do you mind me asking which ones?

---

A vote for a candidate you actually like is never throwing it away. When you are given two crap choices, voters should feel comfortable voting 3rd party in protest as well. There is so much space between someone like Trump and someone like Bernie that it's inevitable that thousands of people will be deeply unhappy with both.
Republicans and Democrats will never give us ranked choice voting or anything that detracts from the 2 party stranglehold. I fundamentally reject the notion that I should lend my support to a party just because it's the lesser of two evils.

^All of that said, Trump's last 2.5 years have made me strongly consider crossing over if Democrats can give me someone I can stomach. But if they nominate someone I disagree with on virtually everything, I'll probably vote Libertarian again. I'll also vote in down ballot races, but I consider each of those separately. My tickets have always been split across R and D, with a little L sometimes

As for Harris, she's been placing herself fairly far left, not quite so much as Warren.
-Last night she said she'd Abolish private health insurance
-She supports of the Green New Deal (greater action on the climate will appear to moderates, but there is a lot more baked into the GND)
-When asked about how we'd pay for all the Democratic proposals, she went straight to what aboutism and pointed the finger at Republican tax cuts. She was also wrong on that, the media and Democrats rightly threw a fit for the cuts contributing to the deficit. Republicans just passed it anyways
-Also she wants to solve everything with executive action. Governance via EA is one of the worst things that's happened to our government in recent decades IMO

statefan91 said:

---

Cornpack said:

---

Coming from the perspective of a Republican who voted Libertarian last time, I think I'm going to have to again. Of all of them, Yang and Buttigieg seem the least bad just because they recognize the challenges presented by the stuff they're promising. Kamala definitely won the 2nd debate with her performance but I have a hard time thinking her policies would get support from moderates, even as opposed to trump's. We need a 3rd option here and we need to take the power back from the executive and return it to Congress where it belongs.

---

Without something like ranked choice voting, voting for a 3rd party at this point is throwing away a vote (in my opinion). The political machine of the two big parties makes it basically impossible for any level of Federal office to be a 3rd party. Don't get me wrong, I would very much like there to be more than two parties.

Both you and IseWolf22 mentioned not thinking her policies would work for moderates. Do you mind me asking which ones?

---

I personally don't buy into the "throwing away a vote" idea. It's closely tied into the idea that if you didn't vote for A then you essentially voted for B. That's operating on the neccessary assumption that one of them is entitled to my vote in the first place which I do not believe is the case. The two party system is like money, it only carries any weight because everyone collectively agrees it has weight.

As far as the policies go, just to focus on Harris because she seems like the big winner from the debates, she said she wants to make healthcare free for everyone, not enforce immigration laws, and include people in this country undocumented into that free healthcare. She has also said she'd like to see an end to private healthcare (which I think is telling only her and Bernie raised their hands for giving up their own private care). All of that stuff will definitely rile up the base of your party but it is not mainstream ideology. Her comment about doing stuff through executive order particularly bothered me as that's not how our government is designed to work.

This is of course primary politics and whoever the nominee is will scurry back to the middle to try to pander votes from moderates but I don't think their positions as they currently stand will be attractive to a large part of the population that just wants a moderate so they can return to percieved normalcy in the white house.

Appreciate and respect both of your opinions. My "throw away" comment was more in line with what Corn is saying unfortunately, in that in a Presidential election there are only two options, again unfortunately. By voting for Stein or Johnson in the 2016 election led to us having Trump. Some of the 3rd party voters are probably fine with that, but I'm just of the opinion that you vote for the better option of the two that aligns with the things you value.

I think Harris has been walking a tenuous line on healthcare, not really clear on what she wants. I think a Public Option makes the most sense personally, letting people keep their existing health care if they want it or buying into Medicaid. That may create a chain reaction of companies dropping their employer-sponsored health plans, but the big companies will likely keep theirs as a way to attract talent. I think it will be good for the economy as it will allow people to not feel trapped in a job to be able to keep insurance.

Border enforcement is an interesting question. I think we should be pumping money into 21st century solutions to the border rather than a wall. That includes improving the holding facilities, support staff for asylum considerations, etc. If you really want to prosecute and removal all illegal aliens you will likely kill the economy. I think they should absolutely be detaining and deporting violent criminals, but I struggle with those that haven't committed any crime except coming here and trying to work and live. How do you know if one of them will turn into one of those violent criminals? We're not in Minority Report yet but don't want to just let open the floodgates either. Above my paygrade for sure.

Understand the comment on ruling by EO. I don't like that either but we are at the point where the Senate is a legislative graveyard (save the most recent funding provided to the border). There is no opportunity for bi-partisan bills at this point, and McConnell seems to have no interest in protecting our elections, making it easier for citizens to vote, etc. It baffles my mind that this country makes it so difficult to vote, but it's easy to understand when you see who they make it harder to have the ability to vote. The scale-back of the VRA is one of the worst decisions ever by the SC, only closely followed by the recent ruling on political gerrymandering.

I have a special interest in the court system so let me comment on the last bit. I actually think they got it right on the gerrymandering case. Now don't get me wrong, I think gerrymandering is definitely an issue in politics, however constitutionally there isn't anything that says they aren't allowed to draw the lines however they want. The job of the court is just to interpret the constitution as it relates to the case and decide according. There isn't anything, one way or another, on the topic of gerrymandering in the constitution so they rightly left it alone. If there is going to be a change there then it would have to come through the legislature.

Oddly enough I actually believe the current gridlock is the best thing to come out of recent administrations. Yes, less stuff gets done however looking at some of the disastrous legislation that has gone through just in the most recent decades (looking specifically at you patriot act) it seems like a more preferable position to not give them the opportunity to mess things up; especially as both parties have shifted further right and further left. I think it was designed to be like this. Look at the congressional powers to declare war for example. It is supposed to be hard to do things like this because of the dramatic and instantaneous effects that it can have on a nation.

This just strengthens my own opinion that we need more involvement in our local elections from people because those "non-sexy" races for city council and district court judgeships are what will really have an impact on your daily lives.

One last aside. I think is the most civil conversation about politics between people of varying positions that I've ever seen online and of course it would happen on an NC State athletics board lmao.

statefan91 said:

---

Appreciate and respect both of your opinions. My "throw away" comment was more in line with what Corn is saying unfortunately, in that in a Presidential election there are only two options, again unfortunately. By voting for Stein or Johnson in the 2016 election led to us having Trump. Some of the 3rd party voters are probably fine with that, but I'm just of the opinion that you vote for the better option of the two that aligns with the things you value.

I think Harris has been walking a tenuous line on healthcare, not really clear on what she wants. I think a Public Option makes the most sense personally, letting people keep their existing health care if they want it or buying into Medicaid. That may create a chain reaction of companies dropping their employer-sponsored health plans, but the big companies will likely keep theirs as a way to attract talent. I think it will be good for the economy as it will allow people to not feel trapped in a job to be able to keep insurance.

Border enforcement is an interesting question. I think we should be pumping money into 21st century solutions to the border rather than a wall. That includes improving the holding facilities, support staff for asylum considerations, etc. If you really want to prosecute and removal all illegal aliens you will likely kill the economy. I think they should absolutely be detaining and deporting violent criminals, but I struggle with those that haven't committed any crime except coming here and trying to work and live. How do you know if one of them will turn into one of those violent criminals? We're not in Minority Report yet but don't want to just let open the floodgates either. Above my paygrade for sure.

Understand the comment on ruling by EO. I don't like that either but we are at the point where the Senate is a legislative graveyard (save the most recent funding provided to the border). There is no opportunity for bi-partisan bills at this point, and McConnell seems to have no interest in protecting our elections, making it easier for citizens to vote, etc. It baffles my mind that this country makes it so difficult to vote, but it's easy to understand when you see who they make it harder to have the ability to vote. The scale-back of the VRA is one of the worst decisions ever by the SC, only closely followed by the recent ruling on political gerrymandering.

---

Border / Immigration and Healthcare have some combined problems. Generally I'm in favor of allowing much greater numbers of immigrants into the US as I think legal immigration is the #1 thing that will curb illegal immigration. BUT, if you are going to guarantee health insurance care to every immigrant, you now have to slow the flow of unskilled immigrants or you will overwhelm the system. Free care is more than enough incentive to migrate even, if we can stabilize the central american economies. Open borders and free public healthcare may be an impossible combination.

I generally favor private and low regulation fixes to healthcare, but I am willing to concede that some type of care needs to be available to everyone. I'm not opposed to a voluntary public option. I also want all plans to be able to sell across state lines. Companies could drop their plans so that you arent dependent on your employer for care. The government plan would compete with private ones. As long as the government plan had to balance cost with expenditures, I think the private plans would out compete them for most of the middle class.

I agree with cornpack on the gerrymandering ruling. The SC shouldn't be judging election maps. That would only make the court even more political. Instead, each state should be responsible for coming up with a better system. Some states have gone with non-partisan computer models, which is the way to go IMO.

To both of you - I just don't understand how you put the onus on the State to do this, but the State is so gerrymandered that it's highly unlikely that there will be more proportional representation. And now State's are even more emboldened to throw any hint of balance to the wind based on the Supreme Court ruling. Not really following how you expect this to be taken care of. North Carolina doesn't allow citizen driven ballot initiatives to the best of my knowledge, so that's not an option either.

I guess I don't understand how the SC can rule that you can't have racial gerrymandering but you can have political gerrymandering. Don't you think those go hand in hand in most cases, especially in the South? If the NC Legislature redraws maps in 2020 with the further intent of reducing Democratic ability to compete for seats, don't you think that will sweep up the majority of African-American population? Now the NC Legislature can't be held accountable because they can simply posit that they were doing it for Political reasons instead of Racial reasons.

That's fine if you don't feel it's appropriate for the SC to draw the maps. But State's are actively disenfranchising voters and can now do it under the guise of "it's just politics..."

statefan91 said:

---

To both of you - I just don't understand how you put the onus on the State to do this, but the State is so gerrymandered that it's highly unlikely that there will be more proportional representation. And now State's are even more emboldened to throw any hint of balance to the wind based on the Supreme Court ruling. Not really following how you expect this to be taken care of. North Carolina doesn't allow citizen driven ballot initiatives to the best of my knowledge, so that's not an option either.

I guess I don't understand how the SC can rule that you can't have racial gerrymandering but you can have political gerrymandering. Don't you think those go hand in hand in most cases, especially in the South? If the NC Legislature redraws maps in 2020 with the further intent of reducing Democratic ability to compete for seats, don't you think that will sweep up the majority of African-American population? Now the NC Legislature can't be held accountable because they can simply posit that they were doing it for Political reasons instead of Racial reasons.

That's fine if you don't feel it's appropriate for the SC to draw the maps. But State's are actively disenfranchising voters and can now do it under the guise of "it's just politics..."

---

We elect our state representatives. We have the government we deserve. Until enough people in the state are fed up and elect people who will change the redistricting laws, we will be at the whim of a partisan committee. It's just pretty much impossible for the SC to define a clear standard on what is and isn't gerrymandering.
Also, what if Democrats control the legislature in 2020. Then they will get their opportunity to gerrymander the hell out of things and Republicans will howl.

Ok - understand we elect our representatives. Gerrymandering seeks to limit our ability to do so. Again, speaking in generalities, almost all voting changes since the scale back of VRA have been to reduce and restrict the ability of people to vote. Voting should be made as easy as possible.

statefan91 said:

---

Ok - understand we elect our representatives. Gerrymandering seeks to limit our ability to do so. Again, speaking in generalities, almost all voting changes since the scale back of VRA have been to reduce and restrict the ability of people to vote. Voting should be made as easy as possible.

---

I agree, voting should be super easy. Everyone should be auto enrolled and we should vote on a national holiday

But the SC shouldn't be striking down maps for overally partisian redistricting. There is no clear standard to judge on. It's up to the voters to make non-partisian redistricting a reality. I'd love to see an algorithm draw out districts

The whole concept of voting, democracy, and tyranny of the majority is a fundamentally flawed system. The vast majority of people are incompetent, lazy, uninformed, wicked, and stupid. Do you want your rights determined by a mob of idiots?

As for the Democrats, they are communists. Period. They have been for decades, and are now just starting to openly admit it. Their policies are specifically designed to destroy our nation, and lead us into a Cuba/Venezuela/Soviet style Third World banana republic tyranny.

I don't understand how people can actually support the Democrat party. WHY? Because you want to see the world burn? Uh yeah...let's vote to mass murder millions of unborn children, legalize sodomy, and force school children to go to "drag queen story time" for school field trips. Sounds great. Just turn the country into one giant Sodom and Gomorrah.

And let's rip up the Constitution and confiscate everyone's firearms. So that they are totally subjected to a gigantic powerful tyrannical government, per the Marxist agenda.

Also, let's totally destroy the concept of America as a sovereign nation, by dissolving the border completely and just let everyone in the world flood in by the tens of millions, and transform it into a 3rd world cesspit. Obviously because these illegal immigrants will overwhelmingly vote for communism (i.e., Democrats).

And I get it. A lot of these people are losers and wicked, and think they have the "right" to use the government to steal from those who work to pay for all their "free" stuff -- welfare/EBT, health care, subsidized housing, and trying for "free" college etc.

So, yeah...I guess if you hate God and hate traditional American values and the Constitution and the nation as it was intended to be by the Founders, then I can see why many people vote for these scoundrels.

Welp, there goes the neighborhood.

GuerrillaPack said:

---

I don't understand how people can actually support the Democrat party. WHY? Because you want to see the world burn? Uh yeah...let's vote to mass murder millions of unborn children, legalize sodomy, and force school children to go to "drag queen story time" for school field trips. Sounds great. Just turn the country into one giant Sodom and Gomorrah.

And let's rip up the Constitution and confiscate everyone's firearms. So that they are totally subjected to a gigantic powerful tyrannical government, per the Marxist agenda.

Also, let's totally destroy the concept of America as a sovereign nation, by dissolving the border completely and just let everyone in the world flood in by the tens of millions, and transform it into a 3rd world cesspit. Obviously because these illegal immigrants will overwhelmingly vote for communism (i.e., Democrats).

And I get it. A lot of these people are losers and wicked, and think they have the "right" to use the government to steal from those who work to pay for all their "free" stuff -- welfare/EBT, health care, subsidized housing, and trying for "free" college etc.

So, yeah...I guess if you hate God and hate traditional American values and the Constitution and the nation as it was intended to be by the Founders, then I can see why many people vote for these scoundrels.

---

I'll take the blame for jinxing it

Cornpack said:

---

I'll take the blame for jinxing it

---

Let's just ignore and continue?

God bless you guys for being able to watch these

IseWolf22 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

Ok - understand we elect our representatives. Gerrymandering seeks to limit our ability to do so. Again, speaking in generalities, almost all voting changes since the scale back of VRA have been to reduce and restrict the ability of people to vote. Voting should be made as easy as possible.

---

I agree, voting should be super easy. Everyone should be auto enrolled and we should vote on a national holiday

But the SC shouldn't be striking down maps for overally partisian redistricting. There is no clear standard to judge on. It's up to the voters to make non-partisian redistricting a reality. I'd love to see an algorithm draw out districts

---

But that's where I'm struggling to understand how to effect change except outside of the legislative branch. Taking NC for example, if you consider that there is no recourse for voters to be able to make non-partisan redistricting a reality. I don't believe ballot initiatives started by citizens are allowed in NC, so you have to depend on the legislature to take it up. The same legislature that just had someone leading their redistricting committee saying on record that the only reason he didn't gerrymander it further was because he couldn't figure out how.

Glasswolf said:

---

I'm a born again Christian, i love America and believe in every line of the constitution and I'm a life long registered Democrat. I'll be voting democratic this coming presidential election also.

---

Here, here!

Playing 5 foot off the left field or right field line is nuts.....too much room in between. We've got to work together and have some give and take. There's no need to be nutty with energy but there's plenty of need to make it as clean as possible to a point and that's not just in the US but in the world....we're all in it together!! Animals will tell you as well or better than scientists! Coal can't make it, so put good paying cleaner jobs where coal miners work and help their families with those jobs! You're nuts if you're against other energies than fossil fuels, just to be against them. Keep cleaning up oil burn off and make sure oil exploration pays for any mishaps but use it until a better way is found. Something has to be done about people coming into the US....we have laws about coming here. It's not a free for all, it can't be....no matter where you come from. Get in line and wait your turn. Too many people in good physical condition walk hundreds and thousands of miles for a hand out to get in free and take someones job and work hard doing it. There is a process.....go through the process and make sure the process is fair to all. I don't care for a wall but something has to be done if people can't help but break laws on the books as to entry! My uncle said....what would Jesus do? Sure Jesus would look after everyone but there are no countries without fair laws for all. Open the gates without laws and 1/3 of the world will be here and here won't be worth a damn any more because of that. Countries must band together to make sure no one is run over in their home country. I like Tim Ryan's common sense approach from what I've seen and he's much better in a single interview of questions than on a stage with chaos and unfair time to all and I see good ideas from everyone....even Trump....although he has no idea how to say it or make it work well. Dude is a habitual liar. I have 3 friends that lie so much that they actually believe some of what they make up and they don't hold a light to the professional. John Kasich
was a good Republican candidate in 2016 and I don't know what he's doing now but men/women like him are needed to help us all.

How the Moral Majority (born again) supports TWO Corinthians lying Trump that's a proven 4-6 time bankrupt womanizer while married, I have no idea. Maybe Russia can help again? The last person I thought could win the Republican ticket of 16-17 in 2016 did it. I don't really want a President and Vice President both from Ohio but if Dem. Ryan and Repub. Kasich banned together for 1 ticket, I could support that....out the gate working together and draw straws to see who gets the bigger job. Listen to everyone and just don't do farout kooky.

Thought this was a good summary I have with gerrymandering and the Supreme Court washing their hands of it:

"The greater challenge comes in states where no mechanism exists for a popular majority to undo the will of the gerrymanderers. In Colegrove (328 U.S. 549 1946), Felix Frankfurter determined gerrymandering a political problem. The popular will of the people of Illinois could turn to politics and state questions for a solution. When the High Court overturned the Tennessee gerrymander in Baker (369 U.S. 186 1962), it was the lack of any political solution other than a gerrymandered legislature which helped fuel the equal protection claim. Tennesseeans had no political solutions available, so the courts were the only source of redress. Justice Roberts essentially tells disadvantaged parties, they must win to change things. Yet, they must win on a rigged playing field where only extraordinary effort or performance such as wave elections overcomes the impact of clever line-drawing."

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105918

Would be interested in further thoughts about this issue for those that are saying the SC should not be overseeing it.

statefan91 said:

---

Thought this was a good summary I have with gerrymandering and the Supreme Court washing their hands of it:

"The greater challenge comes in states where no mechanism exists for a popular majority to undo the will of the gerrymanderers. In Colegrove (328 U.S. 549 1946), Felix Frankfurter determined gerrymandering a political problem. The popular will of the people of Illinois could turn to politics and state questions for a solution. When the High Court overturned the Tennessee gerrymander in Baker (369 U.S. 186 1962), it was the lack of any political solution other than a gerrymandered legislature which helped fuel the equal protection claim. Tennesseeans had no political solutions available, so the courts were the only source of redress. Justice Roberts essentially tells disadvantaged parties, they must win to change things. Yet, they must win on a rigged playing field where only extraordinary effort or performance such as wave elections overcomes the impact of clever line-drawing."

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105918

Would be interested in further thoughts about this issue for those that are saying the SC should not be overseeing it.

---

You have months to go and a Supreme Court position needs filling and Obama elects a very middle of the road thinking great nomination and they don't even push it through. Then on the 2nd guy the dumbass puts in....I'll pay for the 97% correct lie detector test and bet $100,000 to his favorite charity to $0 that Kavanaugh can't pass it when asked about the lady who said he did wrong. Same offer to Justice Thomas. Just takes a little time and it kind of proves the truth and the money goes to good causes. lmao on them taking me up. The American Way...where Unc got the idea Carolina Way.

Mitch the *****

The USA and world need people like Mr. Garland in the Supreme Court!

The communist/leftist Lamestream media is accusing Tulsi Gabbard of being "propped up by Russians", and smearing her as a "racist" -- because David Duke supports her campaign.

Wow, this is totally original. I don't remember these exact same tactics, and this exact same smear campaign being used against another politician. Not 3 years ago. Not ever.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/tulsi-gabbards-campaign-is-being-boosted-by-russophiles

Quote:

---

Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists

Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination is being underwritten by some of the nation's leading Russophiles.

Donors to her campaign in the first quarter of the year included: Stephen F. Cohen, a Russian studies professor at New York University and prominent Kremlin sympathizer; Sharon Tennison, a vocal Putin supporter who nonetheless found herself detained by Russian authorities in 2016; and an employee of the Kremlin-backed broadcaster RT, who appears to have donated under the alias "Goofy Grapes."

[...]

Though she has not courted their support, some prominent figures in the white nationalist community have flocked in Gabbard's direction. David Duke, the former KKK leader, has heaped praise on her. And on several occasions, Richard Spencer, the avowed white supremacist, has tweeted favorably about her, including once again this week.

---

The Marxist Establishment is pulling out the big guns. Even consulting Alinsky's Rules For Radicals, I bet.

If this doesn't work to propagandize the public into not supporting Tulsi, who knows....they may accuse her of raping someone next.

Oh, by the way, if you are wondering why David Duke still has accounts on YouTube and Twitter, while most other prominent "far-right" conservatives have been banned...it's because the Leftist Establishment uses David Duke as a go-to "boogeyman" for demonization purposes. They want him to stay around. Because they regularly use him as the "face" of the "far right", in order to demonize all "far right" causes. This is the case because of Duke's former association with the KKK. But when a leftist figure like former Senator Robert Byrd was in the KKK, it's suddenly no longer an issue.

And why is the Establishment so opposed to Tulsi Gabbard? Primarily, because she genuinely opposes war against Iran, Syria, and all of these other illegal wars of recent memory. This is how important this issue is to the Establishment. They have to keep the war machine going. They want the United States to fight wars in the Mid East in perpetuity. Never-ending. Because that keeps the profits flowing, and advances their globalist agenda. And now they've tricked "liberals" and Democrats into supporting the pro-war agenda. They supported Barack Obama when he continued the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and started new wars in Libya and Syria. And if Hillary had won and had her way, she would have started WW3 with Russia. And Establishment Democrats are now supporting war with Iran as well.

Please stop. I've ignored all your post but you are borderline posting crap like northwolf was on the scout (pp) network and they globally banned him

Glasswolf said:

---

Please stop. I've ignored all your post but you are borderline posting crap like northwolf was on the scout (pp) network and they globally banned him

---

Stop what? I'm on topic. I don't have freedom of speech here?

I have nothing to do with northwolf or anyone on the scout forum.