Yes, she handled herself pretty well, but she doesn't belong anywhere near the White House. Ann Coulter loves her, and that tells me all I need to know.

She is not who she pretends to be.

He's been sounding the alarm bells about Gabbard for at least a couple of years.

She's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Others might work as well, but I think she gives the most balance.

Any candidate who is against war has my support. She is right that wars of choice are draining our treasury while our people go without. We could have so many wonderful things without the wars!

But please look closer. She's the darling of those who want to destroy the Democratic Party.

She is so anti-war. If not VP OR president then at least a cabinet position.

If I agree on a really important point, she must be right about everything else important and hold my values.

We are wired to fill in the blanks cognitively it would just really have got to be aware of that. Right after the debate she went on Breitbart and was then was tweeted in support by Bill O’Reilly among others, lots of far right wingers. Be careful.

We know her very well here. She’s not what you think.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287170596

and Ann Coulter?

a candidate absolutely has control over who endorses them. When you do things that lead to Duke, Spencer and Bannon endorsing you and saying how much they love you and that you would fit into a Trump administration...which is what Bannon said explicitly...then maybe you should stop doing those things.

Those folks didn't endorse Sanders. Why? Because he isn't doing or saying or supporting things that they like or want to encourage or think would fit into a Trump administration.

She's anti-war. Apparently that's all some folks need to like her.

any more than any of the other dem candidates.


She coddles brutal dictators and has a record as a homophobe and anti-Muslim bigot. When lefties say they like her I SMDH. Some of the same drooling idiots who voted for Stein seem to like her.

Yeah, no.

Terrorists are open season and they are everywhere. The u.s. protects those dictators from whoever gets labeled a terrorist. There another recent thread today that shows what she's really about. She sucks bigtime, fuck her "charisma".

That should tell you all you have to know.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/450597-drudge-instant-poll-shows-tulsi-gabbard-winning-first-democratic-debate-in

So while winning the Drudge audience is not something I'd like in our President, I don't necessarily see it as disqualifying for our VP.

Put another way: Would Gabbard on the ticket as VP increase our chances of winning purple states?

And winning more states tends to mean winning more house and senate seats on their coattails.

That's really the question. It's not about liking or disliking Gabbard, it's about how she impacts our odds of winning, and winning big. That's what makes it worth considering, for me.

Her fans include Tucker Carlson, David Duke and Richard Spencer, which will not endear her to anybody to the left of Darth Vader.

But I think some non-Dems who are on the fence could be persuaded to vote for our candidate if Gabbard is on the ticket.

For VP, we don't need someone Dems love, because virtually all Dems will be coming out and voting for our candidate regardless. We need someone to win over as many other folks as we can... a big role of the VP is broadening the ticket's appeal, not doubling down on a smaller portion of it. The fact that she has a lot of appeal outside the base is part of what she could bring to the ticket, as a positive not a negative.

The only non-Dems who might vote for the ticket if she's on it would be the likes of Richard Spencer, David Duke and Ann Coulter, as well as Assad and Putin if they were citizens. I'm sure the other candidates know that and won't touch her with a ten-foot balalaika.

I don't know too much about her, so no, at this moment. If we get a Progressive candidate (Warren?), maybe Gabbard could be in the Cabinet, Secretary of Defense. Still, I though that she was unnecessarily rude to Congressman Ryan. I am not sure about her, but maybe I will learn more about her as time goes on.

of the WH or any cabinet office.

...at least as long as the Pres is alive!

Then I saw a few links that scared the hell out of me.

Like this one:

She won the Drudge poll after that debate?

[link:https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/06/26/watch-tulsi-gabbard-speaks-to-breitbart-news-in-debate-spin-room/

And this. ...

She was under consideration for a Trump cabinet post?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democratic-rep-tulsi-gabbard-consideration-trump-cabinet/story?id=43696303&fbclid=IwAR0riT-8L9qXUReV8_LsVjQZ-ARicbduFCVlpH-iQ0oPROW7h_O9jl_RFb4

No. No. No.

Only one or two of our candidates would make me ponder not even voting if they were the nominee in the general. She’s one.

She’s obviously Jill Stein 2.0, Putin approved to cause division and peel off the looniest elements of the wacko left college town crew. She’s no democrat. She’s a bigot through and through.

and rec'd kudos from Coulter?

Rather than springing from her thoughts and beliefs. She is a very skilled tactician and has been working since she ran for City Council to run for President.

She left every elected office before her term was out save for her House term.

She’s not a bad person, and I agree with her about some things. Be careful of assuming because you agree with her on some things that you see the world the same way or that she shares your values because I’d bet a lot that she does not.

You can't say "regardless of what you think about her positions" would she be a good choice for VP. It's exactly her positions that would make her a horrible choice for VP.


What are you basing your opinion on? What do you think would make her an asset? Why were you impressed?

I think she was a strong communicator with a good presence, good anti-war platform, and at least generally reasonable on the rest. But as to why I think she could be an asset, more importantly than any of that, please see post #26 and Post #36.

Gabbard as Secretary of State? Nina Turner as Bernie's VP and David Sirota as his press secretary?

You're kidding, right?

Please tell me you're kidding.

Sirota could always go back to investigative reporting. He would be great as press secretary.
I'd bet buckets of money if I could that he will pick Warren, if she doesn't end up winning.

Her comments about "homosexual extremists" and siding with Assad over Obama for starters. She defends Russia and Putin against our own intelligence community.

Not much chance of Bernie being on the ticket, so I'm not worried about her getting any cabinet position.

agencies at face value." If by face value you mean overwhelming evidence.

And she apparently hasn't changed her personal views on abortion or homosexuality.

I don't think we need to fire up the base. The base is as fired up as they need to be to come out to vote Trump out. What we need is someone to expand beyond the base. I don't think Nina Turner helps us get the "purple" vote.

F no?!

Unfortunately, they share a character flaw:

They're both shameless fucking liars.

Though I'm still glad to say I think Warren won the night.

And I love twisted humor.

Trump threw the political landscape topsy turvy. There is no regular way to win anymore. We have to have a candidate, or VP, that appeals across lines. At least a toe in the water. And she speaks very well. Its a shame she is so falsely maligned in here. OMG she is okay with talking with bad rulers! Even if it prevents invasion and that cost. Spending money at home instead...shocking! Somehow that's the same as Trump selling the country out behind closed doors.
She is one of, if not the, most sincere candidates up there.

and I'm really surprised at the venom against her. I suspect that a bunch of it may be a result of how she aligned herself with Sanders rather than Clinton in 2016, and many here really hate Sanders, so she may be persona non grata by extension. I bet Sanders-2016 supporters generally think better of her than Hillary-2016 supporters. (Plus her positions are also closer to Bernie's than Hillary's.)

I think its a combination of that and a genuine bias in the MSM as well. She's treated as some kind of outsider, even though her only defining position is her aversion to wars of aggression. As an ex service person, and her experience in Iraq etc. Otherwise she is close to Warren and Sanders in her other positions.

I find it so baffling the fragility in here when a candidate speaks out against some aspect of party leadership or past alliances etc. Isn't this a party primary where if this is not the time and place for new ideas, and critiques of the status quo , then when is that time?