I wouldn't have the chance to see clips like this if I didn't watch Jimmy Dore's channel. Pro tip for the airhead CBS reporter- after you get your orders from your DNC and corporate media handlers, be a bit more artful and don't behave as if you have actual shit for brains.

Hurr durr, what's a regime change war?? FFS, even if you don't agree with Gabbard's point of view, the term "regime change war" is self-explanatory. Could you be any more obvious, ya hack? Ridiculous.

Anyway, this is fun to watch.

Para, that was hilarious. Quick question though, I'm having a problem with that whole Regime Change War thingy. What does it mean? I'll be researching it. [/sarc]

Here is Tulsi's interview, without the person on stage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNjzBJWUyWI

Tulsi sounds great, she is the kind of person who might straighten out the democratic party. However Tulsi should be careful to avoid an unexpected suicide.

OPINION
The Odd Conservative Love Affair With Tulsi Gabbard
Kurt Schlichter | October 24, 2019


The Odd Conservative Love Affair With Tulsi Gabbard
I think I know what the deal is with all the gushing adoration Tulsi Gabbard has somehow managed to wrangle from ordinarily sensible conservatives. Think of a regular guy walking down the hall in high school, and the head cheerleader passes by and says, “Hi.” The dude’s going to think she’s awesome. Of course, just because she is polite doesn’t mean Regular Joe is ever going to take her to the prom.


Tulsi gets Strange New Conservative Respect for several reasons, but the primary one is that she doesn’t seem to hate our guts. She is what an opponent should be – an opponent, not an enemy. Let’s face it – the mainstream Democrat Party hates our guts, and given its malignant druthers it would strip us of our First, Second, and probably Third Amendment rights in order to make sure that we never, ever have a say in our own governance again. Then, with us silenced and disarmed, it would take our money, corrupt our children and generally oppress us in ways that make today’s punitive straw bans look tame. If you don’t believe that a scary number of mainstream lefties want us Normals enslaved or dead, well, you’re either in denial or not on social media.

Make no mistake – Tulsi is not one of us conservatives, though the kind of leftism she embraces (which owes a lot to the socialism of Bernie Sanders) shares some superficial similarities to the populism that has swept the GOP base. In many ways, we share her critique of an inept, corrupt ruling caste eager to send non-elite citizens off to fight their endless, mismanaged wars. We also share a critique of Big Business as a crony capitalist simulacrum of free enterprise, basically a bunch of rich jerks sidling up to the leaders of both parties to repeatedly shaft us regular folks to pump up a few digits on their balance sheets.


That Tulsi will take on the corrupt leaders of her garbage party, like Felonia Milhouse von Pantsuit, is certainly a welcome change from the lockstep stonewalling we have seen from the others – “Why, I see nothing wrong with Toots McHoover Biden peeing hot then getting 50 grand a month from an oligarch, and if you do you’re racist!” When Mee Maw got into the cooking sherry again and started calling her a “Russian asset,” you knew Tulsi was drawing blood from Ole Granny Reset Button. That charge is particularly amusing since Major Gabbard is an Army officer and a veteran of the elite’s dumb wars – another thing the right appreciates about her. But then everyone is a Russian agent these days. We cons get the same insane idiocy, and not just the president. My Twitter conversations on this topic tend to go like this:

“You’re a Russian traitor of treason just like Trump!”

“I was literally an Army officer in the Cold War.”

“You are betraying America and our allies!”

“I served in NATO for years and have a NATO medal.”

“You love Putin!”

“I served with and helped train Ukrainians, who are fighting Putin’s Russia.”

“See! You admit it!”

Gabbard is far more open to Assad than many of us cons like, but her opposition to the Fredocon warmonger model (like the opposition of many woke conservatives) seems to come from a place of genuine concern for the troops she serves and served with. Unlike most of the rest of her rivals, dead American warriors are not an abstraction. Moreover, you get the idea that, alone among the faux Cherokees, naggy mistresses, and militant furries up there on the Democrat debate stage, Tulsi actually likes America, and Americans.


The Gabbard Left and the Trump Right share the conclusion that our elite sucks and that it has forfeited any moral authority to lead our country, but the similarity ends there. She is not conservative and is not traditional. Just because she has doubts about offing babies in the third trimester, as opposed to supporting abortion until high school graduation, does not make her pro-life. She would take your guns, she would take your money, and she would generally make Barack Obama look like William F. Buckley.

Sometimes we forget that Tulsi is a leftist, and that she would screw up health care, open the borders and impose all sorts of climate hoax nonsense. A key difference from us, when you get past the surface similarities, is that she and her ilk have faith in the idea that government can take on more and more responsibilities, despite the fact that it has demonstrated that it cannot handle those responsibilities it already has, which themselves are mostly far beyond what government should be doing in the first place.

There’s another issue, the fox in the room if you will, that we need to address, and it is not an indictment of Tulsi Gabbard. It’s her storied looks. She is pretty, and she does not give off the man-hating vibe of the rest of her competitors (this also goes for the nominal men on the stage). Tulsi certainly plays it up – those yoga-pants workout videos are not just to reassure us about her cardiovascular fitness. But the fact that she is a woman comfortable with being traditionally feminine gives her a leg up on that squad of bitter, spinster librarians she is running against.


Again, this is not a diss against her. She is a serious person with serious ideas who just happens not to be a typically hateful liberal harridan. This is a recognition that good looks can sometimes act on an unconscious level to make her more attractive (in a meta sense) to those who might otherwise reject her based on her politics. In other words, this is a hit on those conservative males (and it’s mostly males) who go gaga over her pretty face and refuse to see that underneath the mask, it’s really Bernice Sanders.

So, don’t fall for Tulsi Gabbard, because just because we agree on a few things does not mean that her quirky brand of New Age socialism is acceptable. But then again, what she represents in terms of presentation is entirely laudable. She is what an American political opponent should be – a person you can discuss issues with without someone ripping out the other’s throat. We should not aspire to a political culture where we hate the folks in the other party – that current reality is immensely destructive and dangerous. Tulsi represents someone who says “Hi” to us in the hallway, and who we can say “Hi” right back to with no expectation of ever taking her to the prom.

If Tulsi Gabbard became Chairperson of the Central Committee of the socialist dictatorship our garbage elite is dying to impose upon us, she at least might not pack all of us deplorables off to the Hillary Fun Camps. That’s something. If you want a closer look at the kind of nightmarish hellscape the other leftists would create, check out my action-packed yet hilarious novels of America torn apart by liberal malice, People's Republic, Indian Country and Wildfire (Number IV, Collapse, is done and drops in November). The Lido Deck losers at The Bulwark, whatever that is, call my books “appalling,” but you’ll want to give them a lusty “Ahoy!”

Link

quote:

Tulsi gets Strange New Conservative Respect for several reasons, but the primary one is that she doesn’t seem to hate our guts. She is what an opponent should be – an opponent, not an enemy.

Bingo. She doesn't seem to hate our guts.
Yes, she's a liberal, and I am opposed to her politically, but she seems to at least be someone with whom you can have an honest conversation. Honesty is required in order to have a meaningful dialogue. You can't have a meaningful dialogue with Hillary or Eliz. Warren.

NYT style critic attacks Tulsi Gabbard’s stunning white pantsuits as cult-like and ‘fringe’

https://www.washingtonexaminer...cult-like-and-fringe

The Democratic establishment despises the insurgent candidacy of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. From her decision to buck party orthodoxy and endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2016 over Democratic National Committee favorite Hillary Clinton, to her constant criticisms of Democratic foreign policy mistakes, Gabbard has made herself no friends with the party elite. She's perfectly fine with that if it's required to put the people first.

Still, this means establishment Democrats and their allies regularly smear and attack the Democratic congresswoman. But, as if we need more proof of how deranged the establishment’s hatred for Gabbard has become, the New York Times style section is now criticizing her… wardrobe?



In a piece titled “Tulsi Gabbard’s white pantsuit isn’t winning,” Times style writer Vanessa Friedman savages the congresswoman for her choice of wardrobe. Friedman correctly notes that Gabbard has made the white pantsuit her defining campaign look, wearing the iconic outfit in most of the debates and much of her prominent campaign promotional material.

Yet where Friedman goes seriously, sinisterly wrong is arguing that the look isn’t working, and sinking into deranged, hypocritical attacks on the congresswoman. Friedman argues that when Hillary Clinton wore white pantsuits, it was feminist and iconic, but when Gabbard does it, she is “using her white suits to tap into another tradition, latent in the public memory: the mythical white knight, riding in to save us all from yet another ‘regime change war.’”

It gets worse. Friedman continues that Gabbard’s white pantsuits are “the white of avenging angels and flaming swords, of somewhat combative righteousness,” and the white of “cult leaders.” Friedman writes that Gabbard’s wardrobe “has connotations of the fringe, rather than the center.”

In an (extremely) thinly-veiled dig at the congresswoman, Friedman writes, “clothes... are only as meaningful as the content that fills them.”

Wow.

If the New York Times is only “as meaningful as the content that fills” it, then based on this article, I'd imagine that the paper’s so-called "style" section is complete trash. First off, anyone with eyes can tell that, in addition to being the only combat veteran running for president, Gabbard is also the most physically beautiful and well-put-together candidate in the race. Her white pantsuits perfectly complement her complexion, and frankly, she looks stunning in them.

Any level-headed observer, whether or not he agrees with Gabbard’s politics, should be able to admit at least that much. But clearly, we are not dealing with level-headed observers at the New York Times.

Friedman seriously expects you to believe that when Clinton wore white pantsuits, it was feminist and wonderful, but now that Gabbard does it, it’s cult-like and awful. This facile argument is so unhinged as to approach self-parody. Yet frankly, it’s emblematic of the establishment’s deeply-held contempt for the congresswoman, who dares view the people’s interests as more important than the party’s.

It's one thing for people to disagree with Gabbard’s political views. But if you can’t admit that she’s rocking it in the white pantsuits, you need to open your eyes.

The New York Times: All the news that's fit to print. Yeah, right. (sarcasm)

Didn’t all the Dem women wear “virginal white” at Trump’s last State of the Union Address?

^^^^^

https://www.essence.com/news/t...ent-impeachment-day/

Interesting! Tulsi Gabbard is the only Democrap that has a pair of balls...

quote:

Originally posted by tleddy:
https://www.essence.com/news/t...ent-impeachment-day/

Interesting! Tulsi Gabbard is the only Democrap that has a pair of balls...

Oh please. Voting "Present" means you have a pair of balls? What about the couple of Dems that actually voted "No"?

quote:

“After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no,” Gabbard said after casting her vote

Tulsi is all about Tulsi. Look at me voting "Present"... Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. GMAFB.

Obama-lama-ding-dong got elected by voting present.

quote:

Originally posted by tleddy:
https://www.essence.com/news/t...ent-impeachment-day/

Interesting! Tulsi Gabbard is the only Democrap that has a pair of balls...

A couple of dems actually voted "No." One Democrat even switched parties. He not only switched parties, but he switched from the majority to the minority. His entire staff quit, and now he has the wrath of Pelosi on his ass. That takes some measure of fortitude, not that weak-kneed "present" crap by Tulsi.

Makes me wonder/question what kind of leader she was/is as an Army NG Officer. I applaud her for her service to this country, but it still makes me ponder. [insert puzzled look of confusion here]

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Oh please. Voting "Present" means you have a pair of balls? What about the couple of Dems that actually voted "No"?

quote:

“After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no,” Gabbard said after casting her vote

Tulsi is all about Tulsi. Look at me voting "Present"... Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. GMAFB.

Oh, Please!... You have one job, to make a decision....
Alienating everyone, on both sides, all at once!
"No balls!"

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Oh please. Voting "Present" means you have a pair of balls? What about the couple of Dems that actually voted "No"?

quote:

“After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no,” Gabbard said after casting her vote

Tulsi is all about Tulsi. Look at me voting "Present"... Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. GMAFB.

Oh, Please!... You have one job, to make a decision....
Alienating everyone, on both sides, all at once!
"No balls!"

The problem with trying to walk the middle of the road is that one tends to get run over by cars in both directions.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by tleddy:
https://www.essence.com/news/t...ent-impeachment-day/

Interesting! Tulsi Gabbard is the only Democrap that has a pair of balls...

A couple of dems actually voted "No." One Democrat even switched parties. He not only switched parties, but he switched from the majority to the minority. His entire staff quit, and now he has the wrath of Pelosi on his ass. That takes some measure of fortitude, not that weak-kneed "present" crap by Tulsi.

I don't think the wrath of Pelosi is what it was a year ago.

It seems to me that Tulsi Gabbard has been consistent in her view of this impeachment. Voting 'present' is essentially no vote, and I don't consider this at all to be grandstanding on her part. She didn't want to have anything to do with it.

quote:

and freedom of democracy, I’m sure.

Good Lord, if you haven’t watched the CBS News/Rep. Tulsi Gabbard interview posted by para and c1steve...

If only the FFs had the foresight to give us freedom of the press