True story: HRC never uttered Tulsi's name, only referring to an unnamed presidential candidate and using the pronoun "she" or "her." Everyone assumed she was talking about Tulsi, and Tulsi rather loudly proclaimed her indignance with HRC and the "Democratic establishment" (cue ominous music), but I personally file that under "telling on yourself a little."
So instead, my vote in the presidential election is worth roughly one-third of the vote of the some random person 70 miles to the north of me for... reasons. Why should that be the case? Am I only one-third of a person? And before you start with some "you have one vote, as does a Wyomingite" sophistry, understand that Wyoming gets three EC votes for 600,000 people, while Colorado gets nine EC votes for 6 million people. So each Wyomingite is worth approximately 1/200,000th of an EC vote, while each Coloradan is worth 1/700,000 of an EC vote? So how is my vote equivalent to a random Wyomingite?
How does an area get to be a population center, moron? By having lots of...PEOPLE!!! You are dense as ******** about this. Winning New York City should be more important than winning Raleigh or Akron. By your logic, the president should be the candidate who wins 26 or more states. White people. You identify as a white person, not someone who lives in a major American city.
Her response was bad, to be sure. A better response should have been, "you lost to Donald Trump. Why should any Democrat listen to you?"
I am not dense, I just value the differing needs and opinions of those that don't live in a city. You, like your other partisan moron friends, seem to think the opinions and needs of those that choose to live outside of the cities are irrelevant. And, interestingly enough, do live in a city, a major city even. Imagine that.
Well obviously Russia is going to capitalize. Look, I really don't care about Tulsi. She didn't qualify for November debates. Her last debate performance was forgettable. I'm pretty sure her donations were drying up. All the metrics pointed to her maybe not even lasting until Iowa. Then HRC decides to take a big shit right in the middle of the campaign with no new evidence. No follow up. Just people retweeting RT articles as if that counts as evidence of wrongdoing by Tulsi. Completely makes the Democrats look ridiculous. Then you have all these establishment drones tweeting outrage over Tulsi, essentially giving her like 48 hours of free media coverage. Now Tulsi picked up like 50,000 new Twitter followers and probably millions in donations over the weekend. Good job people. This is exactly how Trump was fueled. Just couldn't let it go. Just couldn't let Tulsi drift into irrelevance quietly. Just had to stir shit up. If this is a precursor to 2020, don't be surprised if it's a repeat of 2016. Dems are basically playing the McCarthyism card. Guilt by adjacency. Russia also supported the people that McCarthy accused. Except McCarthy had the decency to drag his suspects in front of Congress. Today we just conduct trial by Twitter. Mob rules. It doesn't matter how shitty Trump is, voters are going to stick it to Dems again unless someone can realize that this is stupid strategy that always backfires.
I agree. While I disagree that this is some sort of precursor for why Trump is going to win or something, I think we can all agree that Hilary made a misstep in bringing her up and the Democrats were dumb to double down on it. Tulsi was constantly needling Hilary all debate and Hilary clearly just couldn't let it go without a response.
More “tangentiality” Tulsi Gabbard say that she doesn’t control the Russian bots that support her, but she did control the hiring of Chris Cooper, the smear campaigner who was paid by Natalia Veselnitskaya and her Russian backed sponsors to smear me and try to repeal the Magnitsky Act in DC https://t.co/pxS1eBmln8— Bill Browder (@Billbrowder) October 20, 2019
The problem with all this is that tulsi is on record where Kremlin talking points and actions E.g voting against magnitsky Its almost as if she is just another trumpian nationalist
1. You value them more than people who live in a city. And you think that’s OK. Why? Which brings me to.... 2. I’m going to come right out and say it. It’s because you’re a mild version of a white supremacist. You don’t want POCs in cities to matter if they can outvote white people. You’re like that infamous Wiscy politician who said the quiet parts out loud after 2018.
You sure I’m not a Russian bot? Is everyone that wants to maintain the EC a white supremacist? Is it easier to simply call someone names than to consider opinions other than your own? Take a look at how this specific issue, which has zero to do with any of your ********ed-up accusations, could put the interests of the urban population against that of the rural. https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia/california-water-issues-overview
Bingo! Meanwhile here is Tulsi with more agitprop A shadowy conspiracy of clintonian interests & "powerful people" who control the media conspiring against her - so the usual reheated 30s style jewish conspiracy theories so loved on the right She might as well have her own show on Fox with her good mate and white nationalist Tucker Carlson Congresswoman @TulsiGabbard is out with a video responding to HRC’s comments about her. pic.twitter.com/Ixv2tlTh3V— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) October 20, 2019
1. Yes 2. No. But if your reason for keeping it is based on the notion that certain kinds of people (urban voters) count less than others (rural voters), and it has been pointed out to you several times that that’s your reasoning, then you are a kind of white supremacist. In the most literal way...you believe white people’s happiness/influence matters more.
I know the easiest way to shut someone down is to scream racist, Russian bot, Russian asset. You play your partisan playlist well. But why didn’t you respond to the last part of my post? Because is easier to make biased accusations than to actually think? Keep being your biased self Dave.
First of all, those are state issues, and the Electoral College/POTUS has not helped California resolve those issues. If anything, California has endured nothing but bitter hatred and false accusations from the POTUS the Electoral College has helped to elect. Secondly, look, I don't think you're a white supremacist. But it's difficult to see a valid reasoning to devalue votes from one state as opposed to another state, which is why your motives are questioned. Remember, this isn't even necessarily a rural/urban divide. Rural Californians see their votes just as devalued as urban Californians. The EC is a garbage anachronism that values votes based on arbitrary measures.
I get it. But that's not really HRC's point to make. Look at Obama, he's keeping his mouth shut and not interfering in the race. Let the candidates and voters figure it out. Let one of the other candidates on that debate stage stick it to Tulsi. My take is that Hillary was either trying to distract from the new info that was released around her own investigations. Or she's trying to inject herself into the race somehow. Become relevant. Maybe test the waters for another run. Or maybe test the water as far as endorsing Warren or something. The goal could not have been to squash Tulsi. Tulsi was dying organically, practically on the brink of elimination. If anything this looks like it was done to save Tulsi's campaign. Possibly to keep the Russia issue front and center. Have a scary boogieman in the race to drive turnout. We all know that Bernie can't afford to be as forceful against against Tulsi, since he would lose some of his support. Having scary Tulsi in the race is one way to establish a contrast between Warren and Bernie.
Not a state issue when talking about the Colorado River. And what you want to do is devalue the rural population’s vote by making it unnecessary to care about anything other than a few urban areas. Don’t fall for Dave’s crap accusations. The needs/issues if the rural population is already ignored by the Democrats. Imagine if the need to even consider their issues was eliminated by only needing to cater to the coastal progressives?
i suspect you are over thinking it Hilary finally got "cleared" and did media off it - then took the chance to stick a knife in some enemies What is way more absurd is Tulsi's claim that Clinton and "powerful people" control the media I mean you just couldn't get a dumber conspiracy Clinton? Really?
So then, let me try a different tack. Explain to me, like I'm five years old, how the election of Donald Trump as opposed to Hilary Clinton, has benefited rural voters on this issue? What carefully-measured extra consideration/representation has been given to the interests of rural voters by Donald Trump on this issue? Show me the policy fruits of the Electoral College's labour to overrepresent rural voters, which is clearly so important to you.
Here is some decent analysis which appears to confirm Magabot boosting of Tulsi Depending on who controls those accounts, it might even suggest she is being boosted by Team Trump 13/ So in short, recently we have seen that those boosting pro-Tulsi hashtags often involve a large community of MAGA and Trump-related accounts. At times, these account for 16-20% of all unique accounts tweeting, often the most cohesive community. The patterns of behaviours— Marc Owen Jones (@marcowenjones) October 20, 2019
That’s an unanswerable question and you know it. Clinton lost because she ignored a few key Midwest states. You think that would change if the EC was eliminated?