|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Third Party /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1571579519 Message started by WebsterMark on 10/20/19 at 06:51:59 |
|
Title: Third Party Post by WebsterMark on 10/20/19 at 06:51:59 I just read a tweet from a local broadcaster which got me to thinking. He was pointing out that of all the Democratic candidates, Tulsi Gabbard is the only one against third trimester abortions. I assume that’s true, I don’t know I didn’t check. But if it is true she could pull weak Republican voters to her side. So here’s a thought, what if once it becomes clear the Democrats are going to nominate Warren or even perhaps Harris and this impeachment fiasco has been put to bed, and it becomes clear whom ever the Democrats put up has no chance of winning, does Tulsi Gabbard enter as a third-party knowing full well she has no chance to win this time but to set herself up for next time? One of her calculations may be she really does no harm to the Democratic Party as a whole because they were never going to beat Trump anyway but it does position her for 2024. |
|
Title: Re: Third Party Post by MnSpring on 10/20/19 at 07:57:35 I believe that dovetails with the fact that the DFL already knows they have lost. They can see that their lies and, ’sky is falling’ , predictions, are now falling on, deaf ears, simply because they have cried, ‘wolf’ to many times. Which brings us to 2024. Will the DFL present actual candidates that are worth something? Will the DFL tone down it’s, ‘give you, give you, give you’, rhetoric ? Will the DFL actually actually have a viable, ‘plan’ to move forward ? The problem now with Gabbard is, she is very Anti-Gun. (Who told her that will stop crime), and raise Min Wage. She is also succumbing to the ‘give you, give you, give you’, rhetoric. Now, if she runs as a Independent, She will she learn that Banning Guns, and Giving everything away for FREE, will not work. Is she smart enough to learn, to change her platform for a 2024 run ? |
|
Title: Re: Third Party Post by thumperclone on 10/20/19 at 08:21:49 I don't care for any of them either party |
|
Title: Re: Third Party Post by raydawg on 10/20/19 at 09:14:06 I just don't see it Web...... I was shocked when Hillary gave her attention, which equals name recognition, but then again, that lady is off her rocker.... I think those votes she would peel off, like mine ;D Are not deeply committed voters to any one candidate, and tend to blow around like a leaf in the wind, voting for (if they even bother) whoever blew them last ;) However, and I think you prolly see this to, and I can't ever recall the heavily invested entities being so overt in their concerns over certain candidates getting elected, with Facebook, Amazon, etc....being good examples re: Warren. At my level, I do not see her as the same threat they do..... Which gets me to think, with all this socialism/progressive leanings being pushed by academia/media, etc, the very game plan of Saul Alinsky.... It has finally ran reached the point that business has to become more overt, without worrying over the stronghold the media, etc, has on them with the control over the narrative, calling for boycotts, bad press, etc.... The INTERNET has provided a new tool to reach the masses and counter punch these charges.... sorta like Trump himself ;D Anyway...sorta went off on a tangent, that is why I don't see her as a viable candidate.... Now put her with Howard Schultz on the ticket, and I do, and I see Howard winning favorable from businesses, a woman VP, will pull some women, etc... I think this could make it really interesting, a Ross Perot type of ticket, as Clinton wasn't able to get his numbers up until Ross entered and help bring Bush down.....????? What, he won with 42% of the vote, Clinton did? |
|
Title: Re: Third Party Post by WebsterMark on 10/20/19 at 10:42:08 She’s not viable. She has no chance to win either. I just think it’s a possibility she or her advisers are considering an option like this. Actually, I’m guessing most of the candidates have considered an option like this. |
|
Title: Re: Third Party Post by Serowbot on 10/20/19 at 10:54:51 10031B06031505620 wrote:
The funny thing is,.. Hillary never mentioned Tulsi by name. “I’m not making any predictions but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary, and they’re grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” “She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.” Why does Gabbard think she's a favourite of the Russians?... |
|
Title: Re: Third Party Post by WebsterMark on 10/20/19 at 11:03:39 Who Hilary was referring to is not a debatable issue. Gabbard blasted Hilary afterwards and was met with silence, not a "sorry I was talking about you." She also back out of an event where Gabbard was going to be. |
|
Title: Re: Third Party Post by raydawg on 10/20/19 at 11:41:22 4B5D4A574F5A574C380 wrote:
The funny thing is,.. Hillary never mentioned Tulsi by name. “I’m not making any predictions but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary, and they’re grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” “She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.” Why does Gabbard think she's a favourite of the Russians?... [/quote] OMG.....thick. |
|
Title: Re: Third Party Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/20/19 at 13:25:22 Thick? I've Seen cells under a microscope. Two cells doesn't equal Thick.. |
|
Title: Re: Third Party Post by WebsterMark on 10/21/19 at 10:24:43 Tulsi is unwrapping the gift Hilary gave her! I saw a video she did this morning and while I was watching it, it occurred to me she could end AOC as we know her. Why would anyone pay attention to AOC as long as Tulsi is around? To be clear, I'm not supporting her. Her counterpart on the Republican side is Dan Crenshaw. |
|
Title: Re: Third Party Post by Mavigogun on 10/21/19 at 13:19:00 695B5C4D4A5B4C735F4C553E0 wrote:
Here in the US, we’ve got these things called “States”. The people in States nominate and elect representatives. Tulsi Gabbard represents people in a State called “Hawaii”. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez represents people in a State called “New York”. Hawaii and New York are culturally and geographically separated by a large continent, and what the President of the United States calls, “big water, ocean water”. Tulsi Gabbard and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez represent different people, differing and overlapping interests; they naturally have developed unique policy positions, advocacy. The United States hosts a large number of educated children that can explain this to you. Far fewer- perhaps none -will be able to identify or understand the malignancy in your brain that has connected these two very different people for conflict. Yes, they both have lady parts. There is no reason one would be inclined to “end” the other- this is just more wishful hate vomited up by a sociopathic personality. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |