If I get 1 email I'm good, anyone want to help Bernie win the nomination?

[Destroyer]

you said you like tulsi Gabbard and I’m the one trolling?

[Zaddy]

Tulsi is the only democrat running who isn’t completely insane

[boof]

Originally Posted by Zunto

Tulsi is the only democrat running who isn’t completely insane

you mean the tulsi that dropped her vice chair position at the dnc to endorse bernie?

the tulsi that's gunning for a bernie vp spot?

but bernie's insane right lol

[boof]

@Destroyer lay out any evidence of Tulsi being a Russian asset, but you're not allowed to use msnbc or cnn articles

go

[Destroyer]

Anyway, Boof, she’s an Islamophobe. Each stance she takes is usually one that involves making people more fearful of Muslims.

She also has ties to the RSS in India, a group founded based off of Nazi ideals. She is a wolf in sheeps clothing and she needs to exit the stage before she does more harm.

This is an excellent list of WHY people need to be afraid of Tulsi and her agenda:

Gabbard's failure to launch shows Democrats and information consumers are growing more sophisticated about subversive efforts.

Tulsi Gabbard comes from a family of conservative activists, most famous for their opposition to gay marriage in Hawaii: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/t...mocratic-party

Tulsi Gabbard has said her personal views on LGBT equality haven't changed as recently as 2015: https://www.ozy.com/rising-stars/tul...-cabinet/62604

Tulsi Gabbard is rated "F" by [Progressive Punch](https://progressivepunch.org/scores....er=down&party=) for voting with Republicans, despite the strong progressive lean of her district: https://imgur.com/wDhVNKq

Tulsi Gabbard was nearly a part of Trump's cabinet at Steve bannon's suggestion:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/demo...ry?id=43696303

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...abbard-meeting


Tulsi Gabbard has also been praised multiple times by Steve Bannon, Trump's former strategist and prolific white nationalist propagandist: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/3...nal-interview/


Tulsi Gabbard declined to join 169 Democrats in condemning Trump for appointing Steve Bannon to his cabinet: https://mauitime.com/news/politics/w...tephen-bannon/


Tulsi Gabbard isn't anti-war. She's a self-described hawk against terrorists. Her narrow objections center around efforts to spread democracy:
"In short, when it comes to the war against terrorists, I'm a hawk," Gabbard said. "When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I'm a dove.": https://www.votetulsi.com/node/27796


Tulsi Gabbard copies the rhetoric of Republicans:
Gabbard voted against condemning Bashar al-Assad, president of Syria, and was praised by conservative media for publicly challenging President Barack Obama over his refusal to use the term "Islamic extremism" when discussing terrorism: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-say-islamic-/

Tulsi Gabbard also copies the policy of Republicans, voting with them to block Syrian refugees: https://medium.com/@pplswar/tulsi-ga...s-11463d0a7a5a



Tulsi Gabbard has multiple connections to Hindu nationalists:
https://www.alternet.org/civil-liber...-tulsi-gabbard


Tulsi Gabbard frequently repeats Russian talking points and works to legitimize Assad:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...yria-democrats

Tulsi Gabbard was one of only 3 representatives to not condemn Assad for gassing Syrian civilians and the only Democrat: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...ution/121/text


Tulsi Gabbard has introduced legislation pushed by GOP-megadonor, Sheldon Adelson: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...A2P0BJ20140326

Tulsi was later awarded a "Champions of Freedom" medal at Adelson's annual gala in 2016: https://www.thedailybeast.com/tulsi-...-fans-can-love

[~RustyGunZ~]

Gabbard conspiracy theorist are as big of retarded faggots as Trump supporters and lOcK hEr uP incels

[Pharaohs Army]

Gabbard is simply wrong on Syria.

She criticizes our "policy of regime change" there.

Guess what? Assad's still there. So we obviously don't have a policy of regime change. If we did, he'd be gone.

We were intervening to prevent a genocide.

She doesn't have her facts straight.

[boof]

Originally Posted by Pharaohs Army

Gabbard is simply wrong on Syria.

She criticizes our "policy of regime change" there.

Guess what? Assad's still there. So we obviously don't have a policy of regime change. If we did, he'd be gone.

We were intervening to prevent a genocide.

She doesn't have her facts straight.

let's be clear.

our goal has been to overthrow assad for over a decade. that plan has been in action since 2011.

just because we failed, doesn't mean it wasn't the plan. we've failed in venezuela as well. doesn't mean it wasn't the OBVIOUS plan. maybe you don't understand how regime change works?

[Pharaohs Army]

Originally Posted by boof

let's be clear.

our goal has been to overthrow assad for over a decade. that plan has been in action since 2011.

just because we failed, doesn't mean it wasn't the plan. we've failed in venezuela as well. doesn't mean it wasn't the OBVIOUS plan. maybe you don't understand how regime change works?

If we really wanted Assad out, he'd have been out long ago. The U.S. has two problems though. 1)The alternative is backing Muslim terrorists. 2) We don't want to start a hot war with Russia by taking out their guy.

[boof]

Originally Posted by Pharaohs Army

If we really wanted Assad out, he'd have been out long ago. The U.S. has two problems though. 1)The alternative is backing Muslim terrorists. 2) We don't want to start a hot war with Russia by taking out their guy.

tbc that first sentence still doesn't mean anything. we tried, we failed. 2012's timber sycamore operation's entire objective was to arm rebel groups to overthrow assad. tbc there was no genocide perpetrated by assad. there were protests against a police state. we took that social momentum and instead filled the country with foreign rebel groups. for a few months syrians welcomed them thinking they were there to help, but soon after they murdered(with our weapons), raped, kidnapped, looted, sold food back to locals at elevated prices, and that's been the story for 7 years. locals are more afraid of the groups we back than the actual syrian army. we(u.s., saudi, u.k, qatar, turkey, etc) made life hell for syrians. we've been backing jihadist extremists this entire time. we faked two chemical attacks to try and overthrow assad. russia's known this the entire time, as has the rest of the world(which was our actual problem with overthrowing assad). the situation is 1,000x more complex than what you just surmised. cia trained rebel groups, we gave arms to groups we knew had connections to al qaeda, the free syrian army are actual extremists, we funded/branded/armed them, bunch of our weapons ended up sold on the black market directly to groups like isis & isil, who have been funded by our ally saudi arabia. it's a proxy war to destabilize syria to overthrow assad that failed. american troops have been illegally occupying syrian oil fields making it impossible for the rest of the country to obtain oil. we've imposed some of the strictest sanctions in the world on syria, and the effects have only hurt syrian people, not assad or his administration at all. it's a failed regime change, to a t.

[boof]

@Destroyer I'm going to respond to every link you gave asap, but can I point out that it seems pretty clear even from the headlines that none of it proves anything about her being a russian asset? And also, what harm do you think she has done?

[uh-oh]

its simple really

pharmaceutical companies are like all companies. they are in business to profit. they are jacking up prices because health insurance and the governnment pay those prices. if it costs 1 dollar to make a pill, but i can charge 10, and actually get it, why would i ever charge less?

if you remove the guarantee they are forced to compete. if no one is ensuring i get 10 dollars a pill, im dropping to 9. my competition drops to 8. i gotta drop to 7, etc. etc.

same with college, if the government isn't backing loans, colleges ain't getting money, tuition prices have to drop, everything drops.

you would rather have the government just say, you have to sell your 1 dollar pill for 5 dollars, and we're also gonna tax the fuck out of you because you are too successful.

so more money goes to this entity you view as corrupt, companies and people have less rights to do as they see fit, and the bloat of useless government grows as they have more of our money to misspend and throw down the drain in those same corporate interests you despise

[boof]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

its simple really

pharmaceutical companies are like all companies. they are in business to profit. they are jacking up prices because health insurance and the governnment pay those prices. if it costs 1 dollar to make a pill, but i can charge 10, and actually get it, why would i ever charge less?

if you remove the guarantee they are forced to compete. if no one is ensuring i get 10 dollars a pill, im dropping to 9. my competition drops to 8. i gotta drop to 7, etc. etc.

same with college, if the government isn't backing loans, colleges ain't getting money, tuition prices have to drop, everything drops.

you would rather have the government just say, you have to sell your 1 dollar pill for 5 dollars, and we're also gonna tax the fuck out of you because you are too successful.

so more money goes to this entity you view as corrupt, companies and people have less rights to do as they see fit, and the bloat of useless government grows as they have more of our money to misspend and throw down the drain in those same corporate interests you despise

the point is that we are saying there are industries' whose main function shouldn't be to profit like a business, such as ones that are the catalyst of our own people living or dying.

you are looking only at the business side and not at all at the actual intended function of healthcare. which is weird.

if you make this a nonprofit sector, the people who are in business solely to make money can go to a different sector where their product/service is not the determining factor of someone dying or not. the people who are in this sector to genuinely produce medicine & save lives will stay. you act like nobody is interested in actual healthcare, just the profit, when the industries have actually just been corrupted by people more interested in money than healthcare. again, like i said, it didn't used to be this way. and when it didnt, medicine was affordable. 300k people a year weren't going into medical bankruptcy. why are you so purposely dismissive of the dysfunctional and cruel results? you're supporting a system that bankrupts sick people for profit. why do you see healthcare as a money making business instead of a public utility? well, because that's all you know. but that's the result of political choices. but the alternative is beneficial for our entire countries' health, our livelihood, our stability, our quality of life. these things are more important than money.

please answer - where are you getting the idea that the government is the reason pharmaceuticals are guaranteed to receive the outrageous prices they arbitrarily decide upon? you realize 80million people are without insurance or underinsured, but still buy medication directly?

as far as 'you would rather have the government say' this entire section is inaccurate and misrepresented. medicare for all erases all out of pocket costs and pays for the entire system through a tax instead, which saves hundreds of billions of dollars a year for customers. the insurance companies become obsolete, and the money hungry go elsewhere to make their money. prescription costs are capped at $200 a month. whatever profit that results in for pharma companies is what they will make. if that's not enough for them, it's a free market, go to a different sector that doesn't play with peoples lives. that's pretty simple imo.

also you realize these pharma companies are guilty of overprescribing addictive opioids for profit, starting the opioid epidemic, killing millions of people? this is what an essentially free market health care sector turned into. i really dont get why this is something you think should be allowed to continue other than you value the ability to make money over people's lives.

[boof]

you are essentially saying i would rather have 30k people die every year to allow the pharmaceutical industry the freedom to make 146 billion dollars a year instead of guaranteeing everyone the freedom of not dying and having the pharmaceutical industry make 30 billion a year.

[uh-oh]

you view healthcare as a right. i don't. i view your views as infringing on peoples unalienable rights.

[boof]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

you view healthcare as a right. i don't. i view your views as infringing on peoples unalienable rights.

how is hoarding unlimited amounts of money from gaming the system an unalienable right and having access to medicine not?

do you have family that take medication?

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by boof

how is hoarding unlimited amounts of money from gaming the system an unalienable right and having access to medicine not?

do you have family that take medication?

and how is buying a patent for a drug you didn't create and jacking up it's price so people can't afford it not infringing on the rights of people to literally just live?

i have family that take medication, its even medicare/medicaid? not sure which but my pops is on it. blood pressure/cholesterol etc

my sisters a goofball and on all the make believe anxiety/depression meds. she has top tier health insurance through her medical field job (that she's ridiculously overpaid for) though.

but yea you aren't viewing what i'm saying correctly. im not worried about the rights of pharmaceutical companies, i'm worried about the rights of the individual. i am against taxing YOU to pay for my dads pills. it infringes on your rights, it is basically theft under the threat of violence.

[boof]

and how is buying a patent for a drug you didn't create and jacking up it's price so people can't afford it not infringing on the rights of people to literally just live?

[Witty]

Bernie wouldn't win...democrats really don't have a candidate who stands a chance of winning, unfortunately... trump wins 2020 imo.

[boof]

He has the most donors of any candidate this year, including Trump. He raised the most money in this most recent quarter out of any Dem candidate. He has the most money on hand out of any Dem candidate. He has the most volunteers of any candidate, including Trump. This is while polling at 18% in the primary. Clearly if he won the nomination, these numbers would all go up. Half of the country wants to defeat Trump, all blue support would have to go to him. He's beating Trump in almost every head to head poll, he outperforms every other dem candidate vs Trump. He's gone on fox news and ripped into Trump personally, talked about fighting the military industrial complex and big pharma, and received a standing ovation. He even beats Trump in right-wing polls, including fox news. He's still a registered independent, so clearly he can pull independent voters. Trump literally has no dirt on him as opposed to everyone else because Bernie doesn't lie about shit. He's corruption free. I think he has by far the best shot to win, and I think it's a pretty good one. People in the rust belt who expected manufacturing jobs to come back and got jack squat are going to be open to an alternative. Farmers who have experienced Trumps terrible trade policy(& immigration policy) will be open to an alternative.

But I definitely think Trump has a good chance of winning because he's created such a clusterfuck of scandals and the Dem establishment is so terrible at handling it that nobody really understands what's going on.