Tulsi Gabbard attacks democrats for funding Trump Oppo Research

[JI7]

Last edited Wed Oct 25, 2017, 04:31 PM - Edit history (1)

On CNN now when asked about democrats funding the dossier she said it's an example of what's wrong in the country and why people are turned off of politics.

[Me.]

1. Color Me Surprised

NOT!

[BootinUp]

2. This is her shtick. She's always gonna

Play against the party.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

167. I disagree with Tulsi on this one... but, that's a bit of an exaggeration, dontchathink?

[shenmue]

226. No

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

229. Okay... respect.

[octoberlib]

3. She's a Trump supporter and an Assad lover. I can't stand her.

[Gore1FL]

21. No she's not.

She's an anti-Trump Clinton voter. She was rightfully skeptical that Syria was behind a chemical weapons attack. Neither of those equate to "Trump supporter" or "Assad lover."

Suggesting otherwise is merely divisive rhetoric of the type that is destroying our chances at ever effectively stopping the GOP in future elections.

[BainsBane]

94. Fill in Feinstein or Pelosi

And then pretend that attacks on Dems aren’t allowed.

But Tulsi is defending a fascist traitor, so she mist be defended. Feinstein said she didn’t think impeachment was possible, and Feinstein savaged. This is what happens when people care only about tribe and not issues.

[Blue_Tires]

118. You're trying too hard

[octoberlib]

41. Yes because spouting talking points from a dictator who's terrorized and murdered over a

million of his own people is commendable.


Critics say the thrust of her message — that those fighting Assad are all terrorists — sounds like it was pulled from a page of Assad's own propaganda machine.

“The talking points she's using about how there is no moderate Syrian opposition, and that everyone the Assad regime has been carrying out this campaign of violence on, that they're all terrorists, I mean, that sounds like something you hear on RT,” said the Democratic national security aide, referring to the state-funded Russian news organization.

No one is questioning Gabbard's patriotism, the aide emphasized, “but on this issue, she finds herself well out of the mainstream.”

Gabbard's office responded by pointing to a past statement: “There is no actual debate about the fact that ISIS and al-Qaeda are the most powerful opposition groups,” she said in 2014.

Gabbard's decision to sit down with Assad has infuriated some human rights advocates.

“No one is against a political solution,” Mouaz Moustafa, executive director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force, said Thursday by phone. “What the harm is in meeting with him is, it empowers him. This is a guy who believes that he can militarily win. He doesn't believe in a political solution.”

Moustafa, who said he'd previously accompanied Gabbard to the Turkey-Syria border, said her meeting was “beyond shameful.”

“What she's saying is, 'This is a legitimate president, everyone he's fighting is a terrorist, and we should empower him to continue to kill his own people,’” he charged.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/316430-gabbard-meeting-with-assad-draws-disgust-from-fellow-lawmakers

[Old Crow]

47. I notice you quoted the statements of Republicans attacking Gabbard extensively.

The paragraphs you left out follow:

Not everyone is blasting Gabbard, who backed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the Democratic presidential primary and harshly criticized former President Barack Obama’s policies on Syria.

Rep. Brad Sherman (Calif.), the second-ranking Democrat on the Foreign Affairs panel, defended Gabbard's trip, arguing that legislators have every right to examine the foreign policy they influence, even if it puts them face-to-face with loathsome people.

“Congress has an equal role in the conduct of American foreign policy even if Congress doesn't negotiate directly on behalf of the United States,” Sherman said.

“Sometimes we have to hear from and meet with leaders that are detestable,” he added. “I have my disagreements with Tulsi on Syria policy, but knowing Tulsi, I am confident she comported herself admirably on this trip.”

Gabbard said she had “no intention” of meeting with Assad as part of her clandestine trip to examine the state of Syria's brutal civil war.

But she grabbed the opportunity when it arose, she said, in an effort to expedite a peaceful resolution to the years-old conflict.

“I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there’s a chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much suffering,” she said Wednesday in a statement.

[octoberlib]

67. No, I didn't quote the statements of "Republicans attacking Gabbard extensively"

The statements were from a Democratic aide. Nice try.

[Old Crow]

71. Sorry; you're correct. My error.

The article starts off with the criticisms of two Republicans against Gabbard. I made the mistake of thinking the criticisms you were quoting were also from a Republican. My apologies.

[octoberlib]

79. Thank you, Old Crow! You're a person of integrity.

[Old Crow]

81. Thanks; I appreciate the nod.

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong--and I was wrong.

[BainsBane]

98. she did meet with Assad

Last edited Thu Oct 26, 2017, 01:18 AM - Edit history (1)

That article must be an early one before that meeting was uncovered. She mad two secret trips she hid from Dem leadership. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/316430-gabbard-meeting-with-assad-draws-disgust-from-fellow-lawmakers

So if she rolls over for a fascist traitor, attacked Obama for not bombing the Syrian rebels, and defends a dictator who burns children alive with chemical weapons, and sponsored anti-LGBT legislation on the Hawaii legislature, its all acceptable because she endorsed Sanders two years ago. And that matters more than democracy, human lives, equality, or any principle.

[JonLP24]

175. I definitely agree with you

Though I'm not familiar with who the person is so I couldn't care less who this person endorses. I'm a Sanders supporter but she is wrong here.

[BainsBane]

176. Thank you.

[Gore1FL]

87. You are moving the goalposts.

There are legitimate criticisms that can be applied to Gabbard. That's a different statement than "Trump supporter" and "Assad lover."

We don't need divisive rhetoric, finger pointing, and party disunity. Please refrain from the OTT assessments that swerve outside of legitimate complaints.

[BainsBane]

120. Disunity

Yes, we should all unify around attacking the Democrats for funding the Steele dossier.
Now, let’s get back to attacking Pelosi, Feinstein, Obama and Clinton. Somehow that isn’t seen as disunity, while claims the Dems are worse than the GOP and even Trump, we are told, is necessary criticism.

Yes, the posts you quoted are hyperbolic, which you keep focusing on to avoid discussion of the substance. You quoted them back to me, despite the fact I used no such phrases. You assiduously refuse to engage with any of the substance about Gabbard’s demonstrated support for Assad and defense of Trump.

Statements that the Dem brand is worse than Trump was hyperbolic too , yet you didn’t object to that.

I don’t know how you can even keep a straight face writing that stuff. The scariest scenario is that you might actually believe it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

157. Agree... need to stick to the facts.

[Ken Burch]

180. OK...perhaps not all are terrorists. But they pretty much all are religious extremists

and anti-democratic reactionaries. None of the armed groups have shown any interest in doing anything to make Syria a better place.

As Iraq and Libya proved, ousting the existing tyrant, by itself, isn't anything in this part of the world.

[Demsrule86]

61. Yes she supports and defends Trump...has met with him in fact.

[Gore1FL]

84. A lot of people have met with Trump including Pelosi and Schumer.

Dear God, they are all supporters and defenders of Trump by that logic! We are doomed--unless we do the unthinkable and return to reality.

[Demsrule86]

96. They are the Senate and House leaders...much different...she is bad news. I don't care who she

she supported once upon a time...she gives Trump cover. Since when is it bad to fund oppo research?

[Gore1FL]

106. Here are some more

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/338714-exclusive-blue-dog-democrats-meet-with-top-trump-aides-on-tax-reform

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-democrats-bipartisan-schumer-pelosi-2017-9


I could probably find more. It's not unique for people from the House and Senate to go to the White House.

Regardless, she is not a "Trump supporter" and an "Assad lover" as originally claimed. We don't need TOS-violating OTT attacks on Democrats or other supportive liberals and allies here. We certainly do need them in November 2018.

[BainsBane]

103. How many have given Trump cover for the Steele dossier?

By insisting there was something wrong with Clinton paying for opp research that revealed Trump to be in collusion with Russians?

The reason she met with Trump during the transition is because Bannon adores her. She is the GOP’s favorite Democrat.

[Gore1FL]

107. There is plenty of criticism that can be applied to Gabbard.

She is not, however, a "Trump supporter" and an "Assad lover."

I am not really sure why this is so hard for people to Grok, but the inability of so many members to do so demonstrates how far DU has fallen in the 16+ years since I joined.

[Gore1FL]

126. Including Gabbard?

I’d estimate that total to be 0. Nonetheless, she is not a Trump supporter or Assad lover.

Saying otherwise is divisive and a violation of DU rules.

[obamanut2012]

73. Wrong, she is an anti-Dem, Putin-loving, Trojan horse

Suggesting otherwise is merely divisive rhetoric of the type that is destroying our chances at ever effectively stopping the GOP in future elections.

[Gore1FL]

80. Do you have a link?

Because I'm pretty sure you are just being hyperbolic and bombastic.

[BainsBane]

119. Links

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/tulsi-gabbard-syria/508367/

https://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/curious-islamophobic-politics-dem-congressmember-tulsi-gabbard

https://www.thedailybeast.com/democratic-rep-tulsi-gabbard-goes-to-trump-tower-to-defend-assad

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/328127-gabbard-takes-heat-dem-heat-for-skepticism-of-syria-chemical-attack

https://www.thedailybeast.com/tulsi-gabbard-the-bernie-endorsing-congresswoman-who-trump-fans-can-love

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283990-sanders-surrogate-im-not-prepared-to-back-clinton
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/307071-after-trump-meeting-gabbard-says-we-cant-let-divisiveness-destroy-our

[Gore1FL]

124. None of those show her to be a trump supporter or Assad lover

Nor for that matter antiDem or whatever else she may have been called on this odd little sub-thread.

Do you have anything that does, or are you posting simply to try to get the last word?

[lapucelle]

138. I'm sorry; that's not what I meant at all.

I was referring to your method of countering the claim that you had no evidence, not the topic of your earlier post.

[BainsBane]

139. I'm sorry

I got riled up. I'll delete.

[lapucelle]

140. ...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

165. That shows a lotta class... hat's off to you for doin' that.

[BainsBane]

90. She demanded Obama bomb the Syrian rebels

And she was dead wrong on chemical weapons.
She is the GOP’s favorite Democrat. Bannon loves her and invited her to Trump tower during the transition. She also has a history of anti-LGBT positions in the Hawaii legislature.


If Feinstein made this comment, the would be outright war on her, but the fact Tulsi endorsed Sanders two fucking years ago means she is treated as sacrosanct, even talked about for the 2020 election. It certainly proves how issues are utterly irrelevant compared to tribe.

Her comment is a ratfucking move to defend Trump. She had more criticism of Obama than Trump. The defenses of her turn my stomach. She rolls over for a fascist traitor, is a bigot, and it’s all defended.

[Gore1FL]

102. Again, Gabbard is not clear from criticism.

She, however, is neither a "Trump Supporter" or "Assad Lover" as the person I initially responded framed her.

I am sick of every thread on DU being a giant litmus test concerning who supported who in the 2016 nomination phase. I am more sick of the over-the-top rhetoric used to attack fellow Democrats and fellow liberals. Despite that being against the rules, rather than clicking the alert button, I call people on it in the hopes that they will do better.

[BainsBane]

110. 2016 is precisely why you are defending her

Last edited Wed Oct 25, 2017, 10:18 PM - Edit history (2)

She most certainly is an Assad defender, and she also supports the Russian bombing to prop up that regime. She made two secret trips to Syria and met with Assad. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/316430-gabbard-meeting-with-assad-draws-disgust-from-fellow-lawmakers

I’ll wager that you didn’t defend Feinstein for her comment that impeachment wasn’t likely, but Tulsi assails Clinton for conducting oppo research that revealed Trump to be a traitor, and you ride to her defense. Unless you agree with her on issues, including her anti-LGBT, Pro-Assad and anti-Obama positions, you are doing so based on political tribalism.

My congressman is Keith Ellison. I’m sure you know he endorsed Bernie. I dont criticize him because I support him and dont give a flying fuck who he endorsed two years ago. He has NOTHING is common with Gabbard, whereas for tribe Bernie the singular point that matters is that they both endorsed Sanders. It is why we are assailed for attacking Sarandon, Stein, Hartman, Unger, and every other millionaire who supported or said nice things about Bernie, even those who refused to vote Dem and thereby contributed to Trump’s election.

Your claim that your defense of Gabbard is due to opposition to 2016 primary affiliations doesn’t pass the smell test.

[Gore1FL]

125. No its not

I am defending here because she isn’t a Trump supporter or Assad lover as was claimed above.

[BainsBane]

147. More distraction: I never called her an Assad lover

Nor did I call her a Trump supporter, not that I don't think it but because I don't have evidence to support claim. What I showed was that she is a strong defender of Assad. You are focusing on the hyperbole to distract from the substance of her demonstrated support for Assad and statements in opposition to Obama and Clinton and in defense of Trump. You've done so repeatedly and quite transparently, despite the fact you know full well I never used such language.

I don't for a second believe your claims about why you are defending her. Your refusal to discuss the positions for which you now have overwhelming evidence through links to her own statements shows that facts and issues are not among your concerns.

Somehow your sudden concern for not criticizing Democrats, to the point of lecturing me about violating TOS for daring to point out her positions on Syria, doesn't extend to other Democrats. DWS for example: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10027859291#post8
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141465228#post35

Howard Dean: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029420968#post21

And of course our nominee is fair game, even to the point of denying the most obvious sexism, which is essential to maintaining the established social order.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/12512645463#post33
Women have been and continue to be shut out of the highest levels of political and economic power in this nation. That she was married to a man who was president and dared to acquire through hard work an impressive array of accomplishments does not make her part of a "dynasty." The Gores, invoked in your own screen name, are a dynasty. The Kennedy's are a dynasty, as are the Roosevelt's. All of those men are revered by "progressives," while a woman who was not born into wealth like those families is attacked as part of a "dynasty."

You insist citizens not criticize Democrats in team Bernie, whereas you vociferously defend those in power who attack Democrats. https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141867998#post19

And you are among those who insist "unity" demands defending Jill Stein, Sarandon, and others who NEVER vote Democrat https://www.democraticunderground.com/12512344365#post23 Because you claim they are "left"--despite their use of fame and fortune to tell voters than Clinton was worse than Trump. They have never voted Democrat and never will, but we must defer to them. Why? If not their support or positive comments, in Stein's case, about Bernie, then why? Stein's anti-vaxer, pro-Putin position are so "leftist" that we must never criticize her or mention the fact she walked way from her recount scam with $10 million in her pocket? The unity demanded is clearly not around the Democratic Party or electing Democrats.

If you actually care about something other than political tribalism, why not answer a question you yourself posed about DWS: What's to like about Tulsi Gabbard? Is it her history of opposition to reproductive rights and LGBT rights, including her use of the term "homosexual extremists" to attack proponents of civil unions? http://www.civilbeat.org/2012/01/14558-tulsi-gabbards-leftward-journey/ Or perhaps her policy in support of Assad and Russian's operation against the rebels and her denial of Assad's use of chemical weapons? I fail to see what could possibly require her defense above Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, and the target of the quintessential tribal assault, DWS. Despite the popularity of hating her, DWS is a Democrat, yet you had no problem repeatedly attacking her.

What is the one factor that explains the ever shifting standards?: Political tribe. Not party, not support for Democrats, not issues, but allegiances forged in a long-ago settled primary that continues to be the source of identity for some and their very definition of what constitutes "progressive."

[Gore1FL]

150. I never said you called her either of those things.

What I said is that she isn't (post 21) in response to someone who did (Post 3). Somehow it exploded into this heaping pile of bullshit sub-thread in which you are a happy participant.

If you agree that she isn't then why are you continuing to contributing in favor of those who, apparently do? A call for civility for fellow democrats should be this controversial, especially given DU's TOS.

I can only conclude you have not read this entire sub-thread but decided to do link dumps on some tangential aspect of some argument you seem to think I am making.

I don't know how many times I need to say it. You can legitimately target a lot of criticism at Tulsi Gabbard. This can be done without disparaging her by falsely labeling her "Trump supporter" or an "Assad lover." It's inaccurate. It's unnecessarily inflammatory. It's divisive. It violates TOS. It has no place on DU. Please note, I am still referring to post 3, not you.

I have no particular reason to argue about Tulsi Gabbard or whatever it is you want to argue about, Stein, Gore, and whoever else you threw into your rambling and inexplicable contribution to this discussion. None. None at all.

Have a nice day and a better one tomorrow.

[BainsBane]

172. I was clear: She is a supporter of Assad

the word lover is irrelevant and your focus on it distracts from the evidence. Again, you are deliberately refusing to engage on her positions yet post dozens of times about the word "lover," as though it makes any difference. It does not. The relevant point is she supports Assad to the point of denying that he used chemical weapons. She lied to the Democratic leadership about her secret trips to Syria and falsely claimed she never met with Assad. Those are all facts. They make perfectly clear that she is a tireless defender of one of the most brutal dictators and genocidal murders on the planet.

My post was not rambling. It showed very clearly that your demands not to attack Democrats are not consistent, and that you regularly attack them yourself. It just so happens, I'm sure completely coincidentally, that none of them endorsed Sanders. And of course when the rich and powerful attack Democrats, citizens must remain silent rather than challenging their betters.

[Gore1FL]

177. I'll have to believe you. It's never been related to my fundamental argument.

My argument all along is for civility towards elected Democrats. In this subthread, Gabbard has been called, a "Trump supporter," an "Assad lover" (Post 3), and an "anti-Dem, Putin-loving, Trojan horse" (Post 73). I suspect there are more, but i am not going to comb through the thread. It's unnecessary and it needs to stop.

If you want to have a discussion topic to critique Gabbard on Syria, or whatever, that's fine with me. Please have one. I simply require two things: 1> Do so with civil tone, and 2> Look for another opponent. I'm not interested in that argument; I'm busy arguing for civility and would prefer that discussion not be hijacked any further.

If you desire further clarification regarding my participation on this thread, refer to post 3 and follow.

[Blue_Tires]

117. I'll let her TL on Twitter speak for itself

and you go find her Dem-to-Trump hate ratio, chief...

And FWIW, the only "rightful skepticism" on Assad chemical weapons lives on nutbar conspiracy forums these days... Your talking points are about 3-4 years out of date...

[Gore1FL]

146. 3-4 years out of date? That's weird as the attack happened less than a year ago.

3 years ago was when the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said the last of Syria's chemical weapons were destroyed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/agency-last-of-syrias-chemical-weapons-handed-over-for-destruction/2014/06/23/4eb9a138-fad9-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html?utm_term=.275679300a25

Your "non-conspiracy" theory involves 1> The OPCW being terribly wrong and 2> Donald Trump telling the truth.

I think skepticism is healthy. I'm not going to condemn someone for being so. I am certainly not going to label a skeptic a "Trump supporter" and an "Assad lover" even if said skepticism turns out to be wrong.

Especially, given that being so is part of DU's TOS, why is suggesting civility towards elected Democrats so controversial? Why is anyone remotely thinking that calling a woman who voted for Clinton a "Trump supporter" and an "Assad Lover" is an action worth defending?

[coolsandy]

127. She is a Clinton hater.

[Gore1FL]

206. Yet she still voted for her.

That makes her a Clinton supporter, not a Trump supporter. Additionally, one can hate Clinton without there being a requirement to be called names of disparagement--especially when said names are inaccurate.

[Tavarious Jackson]

186. That ship has sailed

I don't have to ever accept them in the name of unity. I'm going to vote for a democrat in 2020.. one that has never been an independent. No matter what we're facing.

[Gore1FL]

191. I prefer it when Democrats win, myself.

But if it makes you feel good to tell people not to vote for us, I guess you are welcome to given the individual freedoms we all have.

The discussion we are having now, in this thread, though, is about an actual Democrat, who up until 2016 was a member of the DNC. I personally don't find it appropriate to label her disparagingly as a "Trump Supporter" or an "Assad Lover." Democratic Underground's TOS agrees with me.

[Tavarious Jackson]

202. In my opinion

She has shady motives. She defends Assad, who BTW Putin also defends. I won't take that risk

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/26/1625555/-Rep-Tulsi-Gabbard-has-turned-into-a-stooge-for-Syria-s-dictator-Who-will-primary-her

[Gore1FL]

205. Take what risk?

I am simply asking we not call her schoolyard names. I don't see the risk associated with that request.

[Tavarious Jackson]

207. The risk of voting for someone who may or may not

be a Russian asset. Like I said, she defends Assad, so does Putin and I'm not sure she has ever disclosed who paid for her trip. We do know Russian assets are infiltrated in our government. Dana Rohrabacher is one of them. She has a lot of RW views also. A lot of so called progressives do, especially when it comes to social issues, women issues...

[Gore1FL]

221. What does any of this have to do with being civil to Democrats on DU?

I don't get the connection as to why name calling (such as what started this sub-thread --See Post 3) is required to critically discuss the actions of elected officials.

I give exactly zero fucks if someone wants to discuss Gabbard, Clinton, Nader, Stein, Beethoven, or Bach. I simply don't think that abusive labeling contributes usefully to the conversation.

I am having a hard time understanding why my assessment (especially when mirrored by DU's TOS) is controversial enough to require dozens of (typically unrelated) posts spanning hours and hours and hours.

[Tavarious Jackson]

223. Facts are not name calling nt

[Gore1FL]

225. "Trump supporter" and "Assad Lover" aren't facts.

They are incredibly stupid statements used to disparage an elected Democrat. She voted Hillary and, to the best of my knowledge, she isn't fucking Assad's brains out.

Her dislike of Clinton and her trip to Syria can be discussed without juvenile-level playground antics. In fact, that's the desire of the DU administrators: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

It seriously confounds me that a call for civility requires this much debate.

[kentuck]

40. What the hell ! She was a big Bernie supporter.

Is that why she is so hated??

[Blue_Adept]

46. she's hated because she's shooting "her own party" in the face regularly

And a whole lot of us are pretty damn tired of it.

[Old Crow]

48. In a word: Yes. (N/T)

[obamanut2012]

75. Not at all -- she is a wingnut

And a spoiler, who is Pro Trump and Pro Putin and anti Dem. A Trojan horse.

[Ccarmona]

132. Ridiculous Comment.

She’s my Congressperson, I’ve met and talked to her. None of what you claim is true.

[BannonsLiver]

45. I think she is a Putnite as well.

Doesn't she appear on RT regularly?

[JI7]

63. That's what she mainly is

She was trolling with her support for Sanders.

[obamanut2012]

76. Yup -- and has visited him

[Iggo]

53. What're you doin'?

[Gore1FL]

130. Futilely trying to point out that Gabbard...

...is neither s Trump supporter or Assad lover.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

168. Come on, get serious... I disagree with Tulsi in this particular instance,

but to call her a tRump supporter is ridiculous.

[Eliot Rosewater]

252. And a paid KGB informant. At least I hope she is getting paid because she is

doing GREAT work for our enemy.

[Eliot Rosewater]

4. I think you can close the lid on the experiment known as the USA

The house is now investigating Hillary and protecting a traitor.

It's over.

Personally I am going to still contribute here and there, vote, etc., but it is over. I am focusing on enjoying life, family, etc.

Unless we get the House back, nothing will change, absolutely nothing. And we have lots of hurdles there, including the so called far left, which is anything but left, but that is another conversation.

[still_one]

7. I feel similar to youo Eliot. What I do is avoid the national news media outlets. They masquerade

commentary as news, setup false equivalencies, and are more interested in creating sensationalism them actually reporting the news.

International news outlets, newspapers, are far better sources.

The progress of the last 50 plus years is being reversed

[Nitram]

18. Reports of the early demise of the experiment known as the USA are greatly exaggerated.

If I can borrow a phrase from mark Twain.

[delisen]

43. We have an opportunity to save democracy and you say it's over?

Here's the situation-it's never over for the anti-democracy Republicans because they are dedicated to their cause. They will always be with us in a certain number.

For us, victory over them is that they be contained so that their damage is minimal.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We were not vigilant and we now suffer.

We flattered ourselves that we are smarter, that we are a post-racial society, that maintaining our democracy does not have a price.

We forgot about the old folk tale about the hare and the turtle. We were the confident hare, they were the plodding but steadily moving turtle.

We need to be dedicated to our cause. Hillary Clinton apparently is -she's out on the frontline. she hasn't caved. Let's back her up and more.

Her campaign hired Steele after the Republican primary contender who first hired him lost the primary. I say great! It is information about the Trump character which we needed and we still need to disseminate. She tried to tell us in the campaign.

One of our biggest problems facing us since election 2000 has been that we cast away our "losing" candidates instead of doubling down. We We have had the best candidates but we let the opposition, the anti-democracy creeps, bully them; we let media bully them and then we see them as damaged goods and want them to go away.

We let it happen to Gore, to Kerry, and to Clinton. The difference now is that Clinton is refusing to exit and determined to fight for democracy.

We either convince ourselves that our democracy is worth fighting for or we let ourselves be convinced that it is not.

I say it is worth fighting for. If you are not up to it today, you will be tomorrow.In the meantime it is absolutely necessary to focus on enjoying life and family. that is what it's all about.

You are aware, you use your intelligence, you influence others by writing good stuff. You are made of the right stuff, which curiously is comprised of left stuff.

We need you. No ladies, whether plump or slender are going to be singing anytime soon.

[Eliot Rosewater]

49. I like this

The difference now is that Clinton is refusing to exit and determined to fight for democracy.

[lunamagica]

92. I like it to. Hillary's strenght is amazing

[sprinkleeninow]

178. Thanks. I needed this.

I picked up reading posts again tonite.

Trying to maintain a semblance of even keel in my psyche.

It just gets so overbearing and I do fall into weariness.

Stiil got that fight in me tho.

So, when I get to 'I almost don't care anymore-let the chips fall where they may', something kicks in and 'speaks' to my spirit: "Fear not. Continue in the fight for the 'right' and the 'good'."

[StevieM]

136. The scariest thing is that people think the only threat to our democracy is Donald Trump.

It isn't. The entire GOP is launching an assault on democracy.

The destruction of ACORN. Gerrymandering on steroids. A Supreme Court launching an assault on voting rights and campaign finance regulations. An out of control FBI deliberately, and dishonestly, targeting Democratic candidates during an election. A population that doesn't identify these things as happening when they are happening.

It looks like we are going to fall.

[still_one]

5. I do remember her homophobic ant-Muslum bullshit, and she dares ask why people are turned off on

politics

[NurseJackie]

6. Am I correct in my recollection that she has some enthusiastic fans here at DU? Or...

... am I thinking of someone else (or someplace else)?

[comradebillyboy]

8. You are correct as usual. But I dare not say more.

[BootinUp]

9. We can just hang around and see...

[DURHAM D]

12. You have the right person.

Many had a burning desire for her to be the VP pick.

[brush]

15. She's the one, used to bash Obama regularly on FOX.

Had many Dems fooled, including some here.

[BannonsLiver]

44. Some still appear to be quite confused.

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. Not so much confused as they hate Democrats, especially Clinton's and wont admit it

usually but they do.

[BannonsLiver]

56. Agreed. Well said.

[Old Crow]

54. Confused about what the DU Terms of Service are?

Confused about what the following means?

Don't bash Democratic public figures
Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).

If that's the confusion you're talking about, I agree completely.

[BannonsLiver]

58. I'd never support any Dem who bashes Obama

Which "Tulsi" has done on occasion. Maybe there are allowances being made for her slurs on PBO, who is still quite popular here. Either way, I gleefully rec'd the OP.

[Old Crow]

65. The TOS don't ask that you support all democratic figures; only that you refrain from bashing them.

The idea is to prevent Democratic Underground from creating circular firing squads. No disrespect intended, but as long as you are "gleefully" attacking Democrats, you're part of the problem.

[BannonsLiver]

69. I spoke to the policy with my comment

As stated: Perhaps allowances are being made because of her past slurs against President Obama.

If you don't have a problem with a Dem slurring President Obama, I'd suggest you are part of the problem as well. The two evils fallacy is what got us here.

[brush]

70. But so is Gabbard, right? Guess you've never, ever, ever ever seen her bash Obama?

[Old Crow]

78. I'm talking about the DU Terms of Service here.

Trust me, if you can point to a post that Tulsi Gabbard made on Democratic Underground where she bashes President Obama--let alone calls him an "Asshole"--I'll alert on it.

Thankfully, the original poster has changed the title of the post. He showed some sense and a healthy respect for the Terms of Service, which I applaud. Now, if only some of the people in this thread would show the same regard for the Terms of Service, that would be great.

[Me.]

93. Are You A Mod For This Forum?

[Demsrule86]

99. Discussing the rules and telling people what to do is against TOS also you know.

It is called 'Don't interfere with forum moderation'.

[brush]

105. Do you really consider her a loyal Democrat?

[emulatorloo]

154. As far as I know Tulsi Gabbard is not a member of Democratic Underground

So I don't understand this obtuse argument of yours.

Besides that, the TOS says nothing about creating sacred cows we must worship.

Tulsi appears on television and says things that are anti-Democratic and pro-Assad. She sucked up to Trump and wanted a job in his administration.

Therefore her statements will be questioned and criticized by members of DU.

To engage in obfuscation about the Steele Dossier as she did is unacceptable.

It does not matter who "paid for it".

What matters is if it is true, and apparently the FBI has confirmed that many of the allegations are indeed true.

[Not Ruth]

188. It does not matter who "paid for it". What matters is if it is true,

Aka don’t shoot the messenger....

......tyrant Oedipus 'killed' messengers for conveying bad news. The phrase in its current form was coined by Shakespeare; and can be found in Henry IV, Part II and in Antony and Cleopatra. Origin of the phrase admirably explained by Wikipedia: Shooting the messenger.

[Not Ruth]

189. Or is it the ends justify the means?

“"The ends justify the means." – Niccolò Machiavelli. Probably the closest Machiavelli gets to expressing this view is in Chapter XVIII of "The Prince": [M]en judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you. Jun 3, 2011”

[emulatorloo]

194. Not really that. All candidates do oppo research. Bush initiated this project. Beware the spin

What republicans are going to try to do is claim HILLARY COLLUDED WITH THE RUSSIANS because some of steele's sources were Russian agents.

But those Russian agents who leaked to Steele were whistle blowers, they were against what Putin and Trump were doing. Trump campaign contacts were true blue Putinistas carrying out a Russian State effort to undermine our election.

[Blue_Adept]

60. if it violates it, it'll be dealt with

Not everything is 100% black and white every time, there'll always be variations.

[Demsrule86]

64. So we have to listen to Tulsi suck up to Trump?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/21/donald-trump-transition-meeting-tulsi-gabbard-rick-perry

[Gore1FL]

227. Nothing says you cannot criticize a Democrat.

The rules are about bashing and civility. Those are different than a rule suggesting no criticism. As our last decent president often said, "we can disagree without being disagreeable."

The name calling that started (and continued) during this sub-thread is against TOS. The call for civility shouldn't be up for debate. It's not controversial. It's the right thing to do. It's in the board rules.

[Demsrule86]

95. She Supported Sen. Sanders and some who follow him closely like her.

I do not agree.

[emulatorloo]

170. Some apparently confuse an endorsement with a "Get Out Of Jail Free".

Have this notion that if you endorsed Bernie, you get a free pass to say go on CNN and say dumb stuff about the Steele Dossier. That's not how this stuff works though.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

129. She has a "D" next to her name. Wouldn't that be you?

[NurseJackie]

149. Nope. I always vote for the Democrat who runs against the non-Democrat, however...

... that does not make me a "fan". How about you?

[Baitball Blogger]

10. I want the facts on a candidate before an election.

If there is something hanging out there, a candidate can be susceptible to blackmail. This is all part of a vetting process. Who better to finance an investigation, but the other party. Nothing to criticize unless they make things up.

[Orrex]

11. Nice of CNN to throw her that slow pitch softball to her

[rogue emissary]

13. Right from Donny's playbook.

She's got a point. We shouldn't have too much info about a candidate. No need to find out their tax returns. Why bother knowing what business they've worked for or invested in. I mean why even keep track of how candidates voted.

[karynnj]

14. Opposition research is done by every candidate - it would almost be campaign malfeasance not to

That said, the Clinton people should have admitted they funded it up front when it was first spoken of. They also could have pointed out that they opted not to use it - probably because they could not verify it. Had they done that, they would be saying they took the high road.

Given that they did take the high road and did not (to my knowledge) use any of this pre election, it stinks that this comes out now making it seem like it was nefarious (rather than common practice) because it was earlier denied. Not to mention, whether it is true or not is still not established.

Now - the emphasis should be on the truth ... not who paid for it.

[brush]

109. This was known at least a year ago during the campaign the Democratic Party took over...

funding from the repugs.

[karynnj]

142. That was SUSPECTED - after all who could benefit? - but this week was the first actual confirmation

of this. In fact, Mark Elias was said by the NYT reporter to have denied any knowledge - and he was the one who channeled the funds there.

Not to mention, the stories from the dossier came out AFTER the election -- and Clinton blamed the media for not reporting the stories until after the election. Obviously the important thing is whether the accusations are both accurate and provable. It may well be that the reason the Clinton campaign did not use them was that they could backfire if they could not be verified.

At this point, we do not know whether:

- They are accurate and, at this point, all or some accusations can be verified with credible sources
- The more sensational charges could have been fiction made up by Russia and intentionally leaked to harm HRC if she used them. (Think what a horror that would have been if Clinton put the stuff out there and it was discredited. For many, it would put Clinton at Trump's level -- which she, of course, is not by any stretch of the imagination.) Note that the sensational stories being discredited would likely have (during the election) have had the effect of drowning out the far more realistic charges.
- These were lies created for some other purpose.
- Steele could have just been in it for the money and put out anything he heard anywhere.

[emulatorloo]

156. Get real. The point isn't "who paid for it." The point is if it is true.

From what I read the FBI has confirmed much of it as true.

This "who paid for it" nonsense is more rightwing diversionary tactics to protect Donald Trump by screaming "What About Hillary"?

[karynnj]

204. I never said that who paid for it was the issue

The ONLY way it became part of the issue was that Elias apparently lied about paying for it months ago, when in fact they had. This both makes it seems they are covering up something that they did wrong -- when opposition research is part of any campaign -- and THEY DID NOT USE IT.

[emulatorloo]

234. Uh huh. You're still participating in the RW deflection/destruction

My theory remains that someone hijacked your acct.

[karynnj]

235. I have stated repeatedly that opposition research is completely

Normal. I do not get what your problem is in my saying the campaign and the DNC through Elias paid. That is what was admitted by Elias. I have not disputed that it is entirely possible that HRC did not know the campaign did this.

Once Trump was the nominee, it was beyond obvious that it was our side that would pay for opposition research.

My account has not been hijacked.

[emulatorloo]

236. I don't have a problem w you saying Elias paid

I just believe you are distracted or distracting from the content, because of your need to defend Gabbard. Look I am sorry if I am coming off as a jerk but I feel like Gabbard has fed into RW narratives for a long time.

You and I had lots of interactions in the Kerry group in '04.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you completely but I feel like what I am seeing is is a need to defend/protect Gabbard from criticism simply because she was a Sanders endorsee doesn't not fit w the Karynnj I knew.

To focus on Elias and "who paid" is to focus on the trees, not the forest. That's what Gabbard has done. It is indefensible. It is intellectually dishonest. It aids Trump. Now that charges are coming out of the Mueller investigation, I understand the Republican hysteria to deflect. I don't understand Tulsi's need, and I def do not understand the need of DU'ers to defend Tulsi's participating in that deflection.

[karynnj]

237. I did not defend Gabbard - not even once - at any time

She has been questionable from the very begining when she was running for Congres. You can search all you want and you will find nothing. On this, i did not see her comments and read to see what she said.

You are assuming because I was not enthusiastic about Clinton in the primaries that I was a Sanders supporter. I thought and wrote that I thought both Sanders and Clinton were flawed in different ways. Obviously both were far better than any Republican, let alone Trump.

I defended Sanders and Vermont when I thought he was unfairly attacked by Clinton supporters. I actually know many people who have known him for decades. Not to mention, the attacks on the state of Vermont itself were uncalled for. I also defended Clinton when I thought she was attacked unfairly.

[emulatorloo]

238. Thanks karynnj. So sorry for misreading and misinterpreting you, I apologize

I am really really sorry.

I made a big mistake, got too emotional about this thread and completely misinterpreted yOur posts. That's not an excuse, it is an attempt to explain my mistake. Again I am so sorry I projected things on you that you weren't saying. Very wrong.

Thanks for having the patience to set me straight.

BTW, Sanders primary supporter as well, similary pushed back on unfair DU attacks on both candidates during Primary 2016.

[karynnj]

239. Thanks for responding as you did

I responded because I did remember when we had posted years ago.

I think the horrific state of the union with Trump as President, is making it harder to get over the primaries. In 2004, though people were hopeful we would win, 2016 seemed a sure thing. This and the fact that Trump is completely unacceptable makes it much harder - even for people like me who did not have the strong emotional attachment to Clinton. Not to mention, the fact of Russian intervention and that the popular vote was so strongly for Clinton, leads to refusing to accept the loss as legitimate.

This is NOT surprising as neither 2000 or 2004 were considered legitimate losses on DU - though not elsewhere, even though 2000 was pretty clearly a win for Gore. At this time in 2005, the focus was already on 2008. In fact, before November 2004 was out, many were already looking to a Hillary Clinton win in 2008. The party was not really fundamentally split. All three 2008 candidates essentially ran on a variation of Kerry/Feingold on Iraq and the 2004 platform on everything else - with minor differences. Here, beyond anger over 2016 and Trump, there seems to be far less unity. I had thought, when I first sensed this in mid 2015, that it reflected that under Obama we made such strides on goals that we had accomplished most of the 2008 goals and there was no similar uniformity on what new goals were. (We had made big strides on healthcare, gay rights, climate change, and the economy.)

Just as the chaos of Trump is affecting the Republicans, it has kept us from moving on. However, when we do, a first step is to define what we see as things that must be done -- beyond the obvious of fixing things that Trump will have broken. I suspect that as we approach the end of 2018, we will gravitate to leaders who surface for 2020. One caveat - all possibilities will not compare in gravitas to past leaders .. at first.

[emulatorloo]

240. Great analysis of DU differing reactions to 2000/2004 vs 2016

I feel like DU'ers are still very unified on policy and share the same goals. As usual we have disagreements on strategy to reach those goals. But before that has never been insurmountable.

I feel like right now we're fighting about personalities rather than policies.

My perception is that we actually began primary 2016 pretty unified. I always go with the primary candidate furtherest to the left, and then get fully behind the nominee. Seemed at first majority of DU'ers had a preference for either Bernie or HRC, but had positive feelings about both despite the preference.

Initial debates were mostly Bernie saying "I agree w Senator Clinton" and HRC saying "I agree with Senator Sanders". There were minor differences but that's about it. They were very collegial, I remember them smiling at each other in sort of an eye-rolling way when MM tried a lame attack on both.

Weaver fucked up and went negative, which from what I've read Bernie was against when Weaver and/or Devine were initially pushing it. Then I beleive some people acting in bad faith pushed division here. Egregious rightwing cartoons, praise for Fox News 'experts' like Joe DiGenova, Moonie Times articles, even Breitbart articles were posted here on DU. Anything that villianized HRC.

Then all sorts of CT got introduced into the discourse after the primaries (as we now know much orchestrated by Putin). Trump starts using CT loaded rhetoric to appeal to Sanders supporters. All of this designed to stir the pot and divide us.

People hardened their perceptions and all the sudden it became conventional wisdom that our two candidates were diametrically opposed even though they weren't. To me this false perception is the root of why we can't get over the primary.

"Just as the chaos of Trump is affecting the Republicans, it has kept us from moving on. However, when we do, a first step is to define what we see as things that must be done -- beyond the obvious of fixing things that Trump will have broken. I suspect that as we approach the end of 2018, we will gravitate to leaders who surface for 2020. One caveat - all possibilities will not compare in gravitas to past leaders .. at first."

Agree totally. I also believe real world Dems are not as divided as Republicans. So many solid efforts at resistance. DU is a bit of a bubble, we too will get unified as 2018 gets closer.

[karynnj]

242. Great positive analysis

I agree both that the goals of HRC and Sanders were similar, but their prescriptions on how to get there differed, though not as much as it seemed in the primaries. I suspect this is always the case. Remember that the BIG argument on healthcare in 2008 was whether to use a mandate or not? Obama argued that it would doom any effort - quoting Ted Kennedy. Then, when many businesses, activists, and insurance companies jointly supported it, things changed on a dime and President Obama supported it. The truth in 2008 was that EVERY possible Democrat would have supported whatever could pass Congress, with the Senate being the highest bar to get a bill done.

I think Trump being President unites us. His actions make our values clear.

We want affordable health insurance - Many Republicans do not think that a government responsibility.

They see tax cuts on businesses and the wealthy as the way to stimulate the economy. We agree with most economists who say that giving the wealthy a tax cut is among the WORST ways to stimulate the economy, where giving additional money to those on the bottom - who will immediately spend it - is not just fairer, but the best way to stimulate the economy.

We see that climate change is real and that we win if we work hard on the new market for clean energy and more efficient products. As Kerry pointed out in 2004, that even if we are wrong, we get cleaner air, cleaner water - thus better health, and a stronger economy. (we already have the ability to get all our fossil fuels from the US and Canada - so the 2004 point of less dependance on the middle east is no longer there.) They are willing not just to fight the world's trend and dispute the action science calls for, they are just trying to pander to their base and people with the last name Koch.

The one - very strange poll - that might be the most relevant was the one that showed more than 50% of the people polled would prefer Obama was still President rather than Trump. This sounds like arguing to return to 2016 AND to push for a strong package of infrastructure and job creation programs targeted to areas of the rust belt and other places that are failing.

[JHan]

181. Steele would not have just put out anything he heard anywhere.

I think we can strike that off the list: He helped the FBI bust the FIFA scandal.

[karynnj]

199. I put it in because I wanted the list to be complete

I know that he is respected and his work on the FIFA stuff was part of why that was the case. However, I would suggest that opposition research could have a lower bar than what he would give the FBI. I doubt that in either case, he would have limited his report to things for which he had the level of proof that a prosecutor would require.

One question is what would he do with something that he could not prove, but was about 90% certain about ... what about 50% certain? I would guess that he might include some of these things, along with information that he doesn't have crystal clear proof.

Consider how the DNC and the Clinton campaign used (or didn't use) what he created. It does seem possible the information on collusion was given to the FBI. However, the statement from the intelligence agencies ONLY spoke of Russian involvement -- not anything connecting Trump. It seemed a separate issue that Manafort was identified as having worked for the Putin aligned Ukrainian leader. Obviously, people could put the two together - that a Trump campaign director had Russian ties ... and that the US intelligence agencies unequivocally stated that Russia hacked the Podesta and the DNC.

I do not recall the salacious "golden showers" being mentioned before the election - by anyone. Googling on DU, it seems that that story broke in January of this year. Either it was NOT in the opposition research given to HRC and the DNC or they, because it could not be 100% verified, opted to leave it alone. In fact, DT supporters already were ignoring the Access Hollywood comments, the stories of walking into the teen beauty pagents dressing rooms, his disgusting comments on the Howard Stern show - lusting after his own daughter and comparing the genuine sacrifice made by US troops in Vietnam to the risks he took with unprotected sex in NYC. Disgusting as those stories were, if you accepted all the absolutely proven things I listed and STILL voted for him, would it change their minds? On the other hand, as there was not the same level of proof (we had video for the AH stuff and audio for the HS stuff), I would bet DT would claim that this was swiftboating. It would have taken the country further into the gutter and likely not changed the votes.

Needless to say, if that were raised, the more important accusation of collusion would have faded into the background.

[JHan]

201. good points.

I think it would have muddied the waters even more, if possible. Trump was playing a different kind of politics. And of course, given what the Trump campaign was engaging in, it's a massive double standard.

[Jim Lane]

143. I agree. There also appears to be at least a colorable question about campaign finance law.

The allegation I've seen is that the Clinton campaign did not make direct payments to the oppo research firm that the Republicans had previously hired. Instead, the research firm was hired by a law firm working for the Clinton campaign, so the payments from the Clinton campaign to the research firm flowed through the law firm and were publicly disclosed only as "legal expenses" or the like. It is further alleged that this effectively concealed the nature of the campaign's expenditure and that such concealment violated the transparency required by the law.

I keep referring to allegations because I don't know if any of this is true. I do know that, whether or not this was a violation of the law, the campaign should have followed the course of transparency that you recommend.

[karynnj]

145. Thanks

I hadn't thought of the fact that the payments were essentially hidden and the purpose was not the one listed for the law firm. I can't think of anyway this is not a blatant example of violating campaign finance laws.

What is really galling is that there was SO MUCH available that could be used against Trump. I was positive that by the end of October, the Clinton campaign would have put together an ad where the small businessmen who worked as carpenters, painters etc on his casinos discussed how they were not paid what their contracts called for. There were so many stories - including one that nearly put a 3 generation business in bankruptcy. This would be a darker, eviler version of the Kennedy ad that had people from an Indiana town speaking of Romney destroying their lives when he bought and then closed down a company in their town.

Not to mention, because it involved a hostile foreign country, the ONLY organizations that should have evaluated this was the CIA and any organizations they involved. I do not even need to listen to RW talk radio to know that they are using this funding story to completely discredit not just the dossier, but the entire collusion with Russia story.

[JHan]

182. where did you read this allegation? ( genuinely curious)

[Jim Lane]

184. Here's a link

I can't remember where I first saw it, but because you asked politely (thank you!), I did a quick search and found this: "FEC Complaint Says Clinton Campaign, DNC Violated Law Over Trump Dossier".

I'm not familiar with the LawNewz website and can't say anything about its reliability. I don't think I've ever heard of the Campaign Legal Center, which allegedly filed the complaint; it may be genuinely nonpartisan, as the article says, or it may be a bunch of nutjobs. Any further research is left to the reader.

[Gothmog]

192. Cleta Mitchell and von Spakovsky Advance Nutty Theory That Paying for Steele Dossier Violates Foreig

This claim is being laughed at on the legal blogs http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95681

“This is a crazy stupid theory,” the person close to the Clinton campaign said.

“Under it Trump would have violated it by buying hats and t-shirts manufactured abroad,” they said.

Mitchell said she believes there’s a difference between merchandise, and that “the FEC regulations prohibit anyone from getting foreign nationals involved in a federal, state or local election, in a manner that causes them to make disbursements related to the election.”

Others doubt Mitchell’s legal interpretation, however, including Rick Hasen, a University of California at Irvine law professor and founder of the Election Law Blog.

“The law prohibits accepting contributions from foreigners or providing substantial assistance to foreigners in making independent expenditures,” Hasen said. “It does not prohibit paying foreigners at market value to perform services.”

Jan Baran, an attorney and election law expert at Wiley Rein LLP who has argued several cases before the Supreme Court, said he also knew of no law banning campaigns from hiring foreigners.

Did you look at who filed this complaint? Von Spakovsky is a not a reliable source and is a right wing nut job

A lawyer who is not familiar with Dan Abrams? Do you know who Dan's dad is?

[JHan]

196. thanks Gothmog, that provides some context.

[Gothmog]

197. Hans is not a credible source

[Jim Lane]

209. You're confusing two different allegations.

1. The Clinton campaign violated the law by paying a foreign company for oppo research.
2. The Clinton campaign violated the law by routing its payments to an oppo research company through a law firm and thus reporting the expenditure only as "legal fees" or the like.

I appreciate your excerpt, which confirms and elaborates on what would have been my uninformed guess -- that the first of these theories is without merit.

The link I gave, in response to a request, reported on a complaint based on the second theory. Without having read the complaint or the statute and regulations it cites, I find it at least plausible that there could be a disclosure requirement and that a campaign employing a law firm needs to exercise greater care in distinguishing the purposes of different payments to that firm. Then again, maybe that theory is also garbage. I thought my post made it pretty clear that I was merely reporting an allegation that had been made, not addressing its merits.

[Gothmog]

212. The Dark Prince of Voter Fraud Alarmism is Joining the Trump Administration

Read the materials. Why do you think that Hans Von Spakovsky is reliable and should be cited on DU? Citing and quoting a RWNJ like Von Spakovsky amuses me. Here are some facts on your source http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/06/30/hans_von_spakovsky_the_dark_prince_of_voter_fraud_alarmism_is_joining_the.html

Von Spakovsky has done more than anyone else to bring unfounded fears about voter fraud into the mainstream of Republican discourse. A former member of the Federal Election Commission, Von Spakovsky served under Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft as the de facto head of the voting section in the Justice Department’s civil rights division. In that capacity, he distinguished himself as an exceptionally zealous believer in the idea that widespread voter fraud exists and must be dealt with urgently through aggressive purging of voter rolls and strict voter ID laws.

Von Spakovsky’s priorities at DOJ reflected his commitment to that idea. Among other things, he moved to overrule career attorneys who had determined that a Texas redistricting plan discriminated against minority voters, pushed for Georgia to be granted pre-clearance for a new voter ID law that was later declared unconstitutional, and shut down an investigation into a policy in Minnesota that prohibited Native Americans living on reservations from using tribal ID cards as voter identification. He also tried to pressure the Republican vice chairman of the Election Assistance Commission—a bipartisan agency created in the wake of the 2000 election to set certain voter registration standards—into approving an Arizona law requiring people to present proof of citizenship when registering to vote. The vice chairman, Paul DeGregorio, later told investigators that “too many” of von Spakovsky’s decisions were “clouded by his partisan thinking.”

Speaking to the New Yorker in 2012, Congressman John Lewis summed up von Spakovsky this way:

I don’t know if it’s something in the water he’s been drinking … but over the years he’s been hellbent to make it more difficult—always, always—for people to vote. It’s like he goes to bed dreaming about this, and gets up in the morning wondering, What can I do today to make it more difficult for people to vote? When you pull back the covers, peel back the onion, he’s the one who’s gotten the Republican legislatures, and the Republican Party, to go along with this—even though there is no voter fraud to speak of. He’s trying to create a cure where there is no sickness.

In March, von Spakovsky—who has been a legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation since 2008—signed an open letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions laying out a vision for how the Department of Justice should change now that reasonable people are in charge. The letter suggested that the DOJ must keep its eyes open to the possibility that people of all races—not just minorities—are having their voting rights violated. “Our nation is changing,” the signatories of the letter declared. “The mosaic image of America is growing richer in color and detail as each decade passes. For these reasons, the American people deserve a Division that seeks to represent and protect all citizens.

Citing a source like this RWNJ does not help your argument

[Jim Lane]

214. I used to be disgusted; now I try to be amused.

What I actually wrote (in #184):

I don't think I've ever heard of the Campaign Legal Center, which allegedly filed the complaint; it may be genuinely nonpartisan, as the article says, or it may be a bunch of nutjobs. Any further research is left to the reader.

How I amplified that point (in #209):

Without having read the complaint or the statute and regulations it cites, I find it at least plausible that there could be a disclosure requirement and that a campaign employing a law firm needs to exercise greater care in distinguishing the purposes of different payments to that firm. Then again, maybe that theory is also garbage. I thought my post made it pretty clear that I was merely reporting an allegation that had been made, not addressing its merits.

Your response (in #212):

Why do you think that Hans Von Spakovsky is reliable and should be cited on DU?

It's simply not feasible for me to devote more time and effort than I did in this thread to disclaiming implications that no sensible person would read into my post in the first place. I was asked to give information about an allegation that had been made and I gave the information. Everything I wrote was true -- including the part where I said that the theory of the complaint might be garbage. If you read that sentence and still charge me with thinking that the complainant is reliable, then I just have nothing more to say to you.

[Gothmog]

216. Fox News host wrong that no law forbids Russia-Trump collusion

I actually know something about this area of the law. This issue was examined a while back when the Trump Jr. meeting with Russia was discovered and the experts are clear that Russia making a donation to Trump was a crime. Here the opposite is the case. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/may/31/gregg-jarrett/fox-news-hosts-wrong-no-law-forbids-russia-trump-c/

We ran Jarrett’s argument by three election law professors, and they all said that while the word "collusion" might not appear in key statutes (they couldn’t say for sure that it was totally absent), working with the Russians could violate criminal laws.

Nathaniel Persily at Stanford University Law School said one relevant statute is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

"A foreign national spending money to influence a federal election can be a crime," Persily said. "And if a U.S. citizen coordinates, conspires or assists in that spending, then it could be a crime."

Persily pointed to a 2011 U.S. District Court ruling based on the 2002 law. The judges said that the law bans foreign nationals "from making expenditures to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a political candidate."

Another election law specialist, John Coates at Harvard University Law School, said if Russians aimed to shape the outcome of the presidential election, that would meet the definition of an expenditure.

"The related funds could also be viewed as an illegal contribution to any candidate who coordinates (colludes) with the foreign speaker," Coates said.

To be sure, no one is saying that coordination took place. What’s in doubt is whether the word "collusion" is as pivotal as Jarrett makes it out to be.

Coates said discussions between a campaign and a foreigner could violate the law against fraud.

"Under that statute, it is a federal crime to conspire with anyone, including a foreign government, to ‘deprive another of the intangible right of honest services,’ " Coates said. "That would include fixing a fraudulent election, in my view, within the plain meaning of the statute."

Josh Douglas at the University of Kentucky Law School offered two other possible relevant statutes.

"Collusion in a federal election with a foreign entity could potentially fall under other crimes, such as against public corruption," Douglas said. "There's also a general anti-coercion federal election law."

In sum, legal experts mentioned four criminal laws that might have been broken. The key is not whether those statutes use the word collusion, but whether the activities of the Russians and Trump associates went beyond permissible acts.

Here the Clinton campaign's attorney is alleged to have made a payment to a foreign national. If this is illegal then all of the MAGA hats and trump merchandise purchased from china are also illegal.

Again real lawyers have looked at this issue and reliance on the analysis of a fraud like the one you are relying on is misplaced.

[Gothmog]

213. BTW, your analysis is totally wrong

[Jim Lane]

215. Oh. Well, that settles that, then. (n/t)

[Gothmog]

217. Campaign Finance Law: When Collusion with a Foreign Government Becomes a Crime

Rather than relying on a bogus source such as the one you are relying on, lets look at expert such as President Obama's election law attorney https://www.justsecurity.org/41593/hiding-plain-sight-federal-campaign-finance-law-trump-campaign-collusion-russia-trump/

Commentary on Russian intervention in the 2016 elections has included one confidently expressed and perhaps growing view: that there may be a scandal there, but no conceivable crime. It is claimed that the Trump campaign could wink and nod at Russian hacking, and derive the full benefit, but that without considerably more evidence of direct involvement, there is no role for criminal law enforcement. The matter is then left to Congress to consider whether new laws are needed, and the public, of course, will render its judgment in opinion polls and in elections still to come.

This view is flawed. It fails to consider the potential campaign finance violations, as suggested by the facts so far known, under existing law. These violations are criminally enforceable.

It would not be the first time Congress wrestled with these questions of foreign interference with the US electoral process. Following the 1996 elections, the Republican Party concluded that the victorious Bill Clinton had benefited from foreign intervention in his election. Its Senate majority organized hearings, chaired by the late Senator Fred Thompson, who opened them with the declaration that high-level Chinese officials had committed substantial sums of money to influence the presidential election. The ensuing investigation, which included a parallel criminal inquiry, did not live up to Senator Thompson’s most dramatic claims, but Congress later amended the law to tighten the long-standing prohibition against foreign national spending in federal elections. On this point, there was bipartisan unity: that the law should stand clearly and without gaping loopholes against foreign interference in American elections.

Then the issue made a dramatic return in this last presidential election, but with a major difference. This time, there is no doubt that a foreign state, Russia, devoted resources to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. But unlike 1996, the manner of this intervention—the hacking of emails, the dissemination of fake news—has directed much of the legal discussion to computer security and espionage statutes. The controversy has not had the “feel” of a classic case about political spending. It has come across in press reporting and public discussion as a tale of 21st century cyber-crime and foreign intelligence service skullduggery—more sophisticated international intrigue than Watergate’s “third-rate burglary” and associated cover-up. “Unlike the Watergate investigation, which began with a break-in,” the New Yorker’s and CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin has written, “it is not immediately clear what crimes may have been committed.” And even if there might be criminal wrongdoing somewhere in this Trump campaign-Russia relationship, commentators have tended to doubt that there is yet sufficient hard evidence of it.

Again, the foreign party did not donate or make a contribution to the Clinton campaign.

[Gothmog]

218. Campaign Finance Law: When Collusion Becomes a Crime: Part II

Here is more of this analysis https://www.justsecurity.org/41795/campaign-finance-law-collusion-crime-part-ii/

It follows that the evidence in support of the “substantial assistance” would be different in quantity and nature from what is needed for a “coordination” claim. The evidence on the public record shows the Trump campaign encouraging the Russian activities and making active use of the hacked results. If there is a doubt that this is enough, the answer is not to return to the coordination rules, devised mostly for other cases: This only confuses the issue. Rather than only look “externally” for direct communications between campaign and foreign government, the investigation would focus its efforts more “internally,” on the campaign’s intent to build this de facto political alliance with Russia.

Some of the questions would be:

What do the records of the campaign–and the sworn testimony of campaign aides–establish about the strategic importance to the campaign of these Russian activities?

Did the campaign decide that it would not denounce the Russians, either on its own initiative or in response to press queries, because it did not wish to discourage them from continuing on their course?

Was the message intended for Russia discussed during preparations for the presidential debate, which would explain Mr. Trump’s special care in refusing to assign direct blame for the hacking to the government or to reject any assistance from the hackers?

What were the specific plans for active messaging around the hacked emails–in the press, in the preparation of surrogates for media appearances, and in the remarks prepared for or by the candidate for rallies and his own press interviews?

If there is evidence of this kind, it would match up with the known campaign and Trump handling of the Russia issue and answer any question of intent. The president’s open praise for the hacking, his stated “love” of Wikileaks, his refusal to condemn any state interference in the elections, could not be passed off as “Trump being Trump,” as the candidate just playing with the issue and relishing the coverage that came with it. Instead these actions, together with other evidence of intent that may still come to light, would represent the execution of a very specific campaign strategy to provide substantial assistance to the Putin regime’s program of intervention in an American presidential election.

[Gothmog]

219. When Collusion with Russia Becomes a Crime: Part IIIAiding and Abetting

Here is more legal analysis for you to not understand https://www.justsecurity.org/42387/collusion-russia-crime-part-iii-aiding-abetting/

It may be easier to appreciate the case to the contrary–that liability with the requisite intent could be imposed for these actions–by considering how the case could also be brought under ordinary “aiding and abetting” principles of the criminal law.

It is well understood that established “aiding and abetting” principles have wide, elastic application. The abettor is not required, of course, to have been “in on it” from the beginning. In Learned Hand’s classic formulation in United States v. Peoni, the law requires only “that he in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as in something that he wishes to bring about, that he seek by his action to make it succeed.” The courts have defined in various terms this association, but what is required is “some affirmative conduct designed to aid in the success of a venture with knowledge that [the]actions would assist the perpetrator, the principal of the crime.” United States v. Cowart, 595 F.2d 1023, 1031(1979).

Note that the assistance constituting aiding and abetting does not have to be substantial. The accomplice liability provision of the federal campaign finance law, focused on “substantial assistance,” is, in that sense, stricter. ,So federal prosecutors proceeding on an “aiding and abetting” theory may have the latitude to reach a broader range of Trump campaign conduct in support of the Russian program.

It would not be the first time that Prosecutors would have enforced campaign finance law with an “aiding and abetting” charge. And they have evidence in the Trump/Russia case with which to work.

I trust President Obama's lawyer and would never cite a RWNJ such as your source.

[Jim Lane]

230. Interesting how you selectively edited the quotation

You end the quotation here:

Jan Baran, an attorney and election law expert at Wiley Rein LLP who has argued several cases before the Supreme Court, said he also knew of no law banning campaigns from hiring foreigners.

That, as it happens, is the next-to-last paragraph of the passage. Here's the very next and concluding paragraph, which you conveniently omitted:

But Baran added that he believes the Clinton campaign could be in trouble for not accurately disclosing its payments to the law firm.

If you look at my #209, you'll see that I was drawing exactly the same distinction.

The piece you quote links to this article in the Washington Examiner. There, Baran explains in more detail why the campaign might be in trouble on the disclosure issue; an unnamed Clinton campaign source presents the case that everything was legal; and each of these sources cites precedent with which I'm not familiar. I'm certainly not in a position to say which view is correct. I'm just completing the record for the benefit of any DU members who want to understand both sides of the argument.

[Gothmog]

232. So trump can go to jail for buying his MAGA hates from China?

Quoting or relying on a RWNJ and voter suppressor like Hans tends to destroy any credibility this claim has. This is an attempt to distract. This congressman may be able to explain the concept to you

I trust Prof. Hasen who is an expert in this area where he noted the following

Others doubt Mitchell's legal interpretation, however, including Rick Hasen, a University of California at Irvine law professor and founder of the Election Law Blog.

"The law prohibits accepting contributions from foreigners or providing substantial assistance to foreigners in making independent expenditures," Hasen said. "It does not prohibit paying foreigners at market value to perform services.

"

[Jim Lane]

233. My answer is No.

More to the point is that my answer would be obvious from my post #209, to anyone who read it with a sincere desire to understand and with at least a sixth-grade level of reading comprehension.

[Gothmog]

243. Your legal analysis is really wrong

Relying on the legal analysis of republican idiots like the CLC is really sad.

The DNC did not violate any laws here.

[Jim Lane]

244. My legal "analysis" was worded to be pretty much wrong-proof

Here's what I wrote (emphasis added):

The piece you quote links to this article in the Washington Examiner. There, Baran explains in more detail why the campaign might be in trouble on the disclosure issue; an unnamed Clinton campaign source presents the case that everything was legal; and each of these sources cites precedent with which I'm not familiar. I'm certainly not in a position to say which view is correct. I'm just completing the record for the benefit of any DU members who want to understand both sides of the argument.

When I expressly refuse to take a position, you'll have a hard time proving that I took a wrong position.

You chastise me for allegedly "[r]elying on the legal analysis of republican idiots like the CLC...." As the excerpt above indicates, I didn't rely on anyone's legal analysis. I merely stated each side's contention. Furthermore, as to the criticism of the Clinton campaign, my citation wasn't to the CLC but to "Baran". As the linked article states, that reference is to an attorney named Jan Baran. I have no idea whether Mr. Baran has any connection with the CLC.

[Gothmog]

245. Your reliance on gop sources destroyed your attempt at analysis

I am amused that you think that any laws were violated.

[Gothmog]

246. How is the appeal of the DNC fraud lawsuit going?

That lawsuit was a complete scam and had zero merit in the real world. Has anything been filed with the 11th Circuit yet?

[Jim Lane]

247. I have no idea.

Although you constantly seek to portray me as a fierce advocate for the suit, I actually have no connection with it.

If you would like to take this opportunity to rehash the merits of the suit, and in the course of that disagree with something I wrote about it, please quote the post of mine that you're disputing. Your paraphrases of my views have been, shall we say, less than 100% accurate.

[Gothmog]

248. Since your claims on this thread was based solely on bogus GOP sources, I figured you could help

The claims that you are advancing on this thread are based solely on GOP bogus claims from a GOP source. Hans van Spansky is the dark prince of voter suppression and is your sole source for your claims. I figured that you would still be following the bogus and failed DNC fraud lawsuit. Your JPR thread was the only coverage on the DNC lawluit lately. Has JPR given up on the DNC fraud lawsuit?

I trust President Obama's election lawyer on these issues on this thread. Bob Bauer's analysis on the legal issues here are far more trustworthy compared to the claims of Hans von Spansky.

[Jim Lane]

249. Well, I got that prediction right.

You purport to dispute my "claims on this thread" without quoting them, and then dispute someone else's claims.

[George II]

198. If the Clinton campaign did anything wrong (which it didn't) then the republicans.....

....did the same thing wrong even before that.

[Eliot Rosewater]

222. Silly liberal, you forgot

I

O

K

I

Y

A

R


(so my post doesnt get hidden, NO I am not really saying George is a silly liberal, I am using sarcasm) George will understand that, but I can no longer be sure of anyone else.

[George II]

224. Hah! That was good.....thanks.

[Gothmog]

193. Under this theory, trump violated the law by buying his MAGA merchandise from overseas vendors

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

162. Well said.

[Kali]

16. nothing wrong with the broad point that people are sick of negativity

campaigning on what is wrong with the other candidates instead of what you have to offer is a turn-off to a lot of middle of the road non-political types.***



***not to say I feel that way, or that it is even the majority but certainly a lot of people are sick of it.

[Nitram]

17. The irony is, Trump and a number pf Republicans are on record saying political opposition

research is entirely legitimate - in the context of the Trump campaign meeting with Russians to get dirt on Clinton.

[Mosby]

24. gabbard violated US law by meeting with assad

https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/the-organization-that-sent-tulsi-gabbard-to-syria/514763/

She will probably be primaried.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/04/11/what-is-tulsi-gabbard-thinking-on-syria/

[Smitty63nnn]

27. Excuse me

From her .gov website. Please explain to me how she is not a current democrat? In case you did not know, I don't make the rules here. I just abide by them.

Now in her third term in Congress, Tulsi brings with her a broad range of real world experience, a storehouse of personal strength, and tested leadership as she represents the people of Hawai’i and our nation in Congress. As she works on the challenges that face our country, she remains focused on bringing her pragmatic approach to working in a collaborative, bipartisan fashion to find real solutions that best serve the people. Tulsi serves on the House Armed Services Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee where she is a strong advocate for veterans, our service members, and making smart strategic decisions that best secure our nation. Tulsi is working every day to make sure we have a sustainable economy that works for all families, with access to affordable health care, good jobs, and a quality education.

[Mosby]

35. did you alert on the OP?

[Smitty63nnn]

37. Is this what this site is all about?

Baiting others? The level of hatred here is getting to be unacceptable. Clearly it is in violation. There's been this many posts, and finally someone asks me if I reported it? Hell it should have been reported by the 5th post.

[Demsrule86]

104. Such an interesting comment...I mean I was about to say welcome to DU...but you seem almost like

an old timer or something...well welcome anyway.

[JCinNYC]

148. lol

Been here a month and already complaining about the level of hatred and how it us unacceptable?
Really?
Yu can fool some of the people some of the time.....

[emulatorloo]

161. So much OTT hyperbole! Welcome to DU, you fit right in!

Hyperbole is definitely what fuels this site's engine!

[Demsrule86]

101. Apparently not...you know the rule about interfering with forum moderation?

[Jim Lane]

144. Warning, this post may generate an infinite recursive loop.

Does a reference to the rule about interfering with forum moderation violate the rule about interfering with forum moderation?

[Old Crow]

33. According to your own link, the House Ethics Committee had no problem with her trip.

Gabbard traveled to Syria on a humanitarian mission to see the Syrian refugees. During that trip, Assad unexpectedly extended an invitation and Gabbard accepted. I'm not willing to demonize her for that. If there's a chance that a conflict can be shortened or a cease-fire created by talking, I'm for it.

[Mosby]

34. the law has never been enforced

But that doesn't change the law.

[Old Crow]

36. I agree with you there.

Yes, she broke a law that has never been enforced. Agreed.

Do I think the law ought to have been enforced? No. Do I think what Gabbard did was wrong? No. Do I think that all laws are good laws? No.

[Smitty63nnn]

38. Bingo

+1K

[Jim Lane]

55. Re "She will probably be primaried" -- it will be like 2016.

There will be a challenger in the Democratic primary. The challenger will draw great hosannas and adulation on DU. People will pledge support, and will post a link for sending money to the challenger.

And the challenger will get stomped.

Fortunately, actual Democratic voters are generally far more sensible than the handful of online diehards who are ready to say and believe anything negative about Bernie and anyone who supported him.

[Demsrule86]

66. She is awful and hopefully will be gone in a primary.

I think she will lose a primary.

[Jim Lane]

74. Do you think people should contribute to her primary opponent?

Bear in mind that any criticism from the left of the Democratic Party establishment or of any individual Democrat is met by shrieks about how bad Trump is and how we must be united and how all resources must be devoted to campaigns against Republicans.

Bear in mind also that, in 2016, the primary opponent who generated such enthusiasm from certain DU members did not do quite that well at the polls. Actual Democrats casting actual votes renominated Tulsi Gabbard by a margin of 77.6% to 14.2%.

In light of that history, I find it rather surprising that you're predicting, on the basis of no evidence that you choose to share, that Tulsi will go from a 60-point win to a loss in just two years. I invite you to consider the possibility that your prognostication reflects nothing more than wishful thinking.

[sheshe2]

134. Are you referring to more Harvard-Harris polls like the one that is posted here daily?

You know the one that says BS is the most popular, loved and respected out of 10 people chosen and half are GOP? An internet poll? I have voted in internet polls a few time for laughs...I found that you can vote multiple times.

Fortunately, actual Democratic voters are generally far more sensible than the handful of online diehards who are ready to say and believe anything negative about Bernie and anyone who supported him.

[Jim Lane]

141. If you take the trouble to click on the link I gave, you'll see what I'm referring to

I try, whenever possible, to give specific support for my allegations, preferably with a hyperlink so that anyone can check my source and see whether I'm quoting out of context or otherwise misrepresenting.

This is in contradistinction to the approach of pulling something out of your ass because it happens to support your preconceived opinion. I will admit that this latter approach has quite a few adherents on DU, especially when it comes to disparaging Bernie Sanders and anyone who endorsed him.

As for Harvard-Harris:

No, it is not, as you insinuate, an internet poll in which anyone can vote as often as they like so as to skew the results. Conducting a poll like that would hardly require the joint efforts of a well-known university and a market research firm that's been in business since 1963. The actual methodology is summarized here.

Furthermore, it is not the case, as others have insinuated, that the Observer fabricated the poll results because Jared Kushner owns the Observer and therefore everything in it is a lie. The Observer happened to be one of several news outlets that ran articles about the poll. I find it striking that, with multiple kill-the-messenger posts based on attacking the Observer, critics didn't seem to find it necessary to invest even a minute of online research to see whether there was any good-faith basis for dismissing the report, instead contenting themselves with screaming "Kushner! Kushner! Kushner!" It's pretty simple to check the data directly at the source, whether you want this version or this one (the latter giving more detail).

If you take that trouble, you find that, on the metric of combined "Favorable" and "Very Favorable" ratings, Bernie Sanders scores highest among the people named. See Table 27 on page 30 of this presentation of the results.

Of course, the practical limitations of polling meant that Bernie was compared with only Hillary Clinton and a few other people. If your point is that the results don't prove he's THE most popular politician in the country, you're right.

After all, they didn't compare him with Tulsi Gabbard.

[still_one]

122. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Plucketeer]

32. Stick around

It gets better as time goes on!

[Plucketeer]

29. That rule applies when it's convenient

And lest we forget, she was an ally of the despicable senator from Vermont. No, not THAT senator - the one that's currently THE most popular politician in this country. So she's bound to get trounced by the "faithful" here.

[Old Crow]

39. Spot on. You've summed up the situation here perfectly. (N/T)

[emulatorloo]

164. Senator Sanders has nothing to do with Senator Gabbard's statements tonight

So please do not bring Bernie into this. Gabbard's on her own with this.

[emulatorloo]

163. That excuse is getting tiresome. Bernie has nothing to do with Gabbard's obsfucation tonight.

I don't think we would ever hear Bernie say anything remotely like this.

It doesn't matter "who paid for it. it matters whether it is true or not, and much of it has been confirmed by the FBI.

The "who paid for it" is a red herring from the rightwing. All about distracting from Russia and Trump Campaign.

Gabbard's on her own w this one.

Senator Gabbard's statements tonight have nothing to do with Senator Sanders.

An endorsement of Bernie is not the equivalent of a "get out of jail free" card in a board game.

[melman]

30. Of course it is

It's a blatant TOS violation.

[emulatorloo]

166. Lol

[melman]

169. Tell me how it's not

[emulatorloo]

171. Bernie doesn't have a damn thing to do with Senator Gabbard's dumb statement on CNN

I sure can't imagine Bernie saying anything like it!

Doesn't matter "who paid for it". Only thing that matters is if the allegations are true, and apparently much of them have been verified by the FBI.

Don't know why Tulsi got caught up in this who paid for it nonsense. It's obviously a red herring from the right wing to distract from Russian involvement in the Trump campaign.

She's on her own with this.

[melman]

173. I don't know what you're talking about

I never said he did. I was referring to the original thread title. I'm sure you know how to find that so take a look and see.

[emulatorloo]

174. Oh I just saw a reference to orig thread title (edited)

Yeah that was really really bad.

I thought you had replied to pluckateers post who said that people were really criticizing Gabbard because she was a Sanders supporter.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029749723#post29

so that's what I was addressing when I replied to you, it looked like you agreed w that.

I see now you were not responding to pluckateer but responding to a hidden post so yeah I was confused. Mea culpa.

that original thread title was WAY out of line. We just don't call fellow Dems that, even if we may disagree w stuff they say..

[JI7]

42. She is like joe lieberman and an ally of assad

Who is an ally of putin

[Jim Lane]

50. I agree, and add that "asshole" also violates the rule about civility

I've alerted on the bashing ground. We'll see what happens -- or doesn't.

[George II]

83. Do you realize what you just did here?

[brush]

72. Turn about is fair play. You bash Dems, you get might bashed.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. The "funding" issue is a red herring. 1) The CONTENT matters. 2) Both sides funded. . . . nt

[jmowreader]

25. Tulsi was a Sanders supporter

IIRC Bernie has been saying the same things. He can do that because he's an Independent.

Old Soviet joke, which I will add for no apparent reason: "Americans say they are free because they can call Ronald Reagan a cocksucker. They say Soviets are not free. Well, I am just as free as an American. I too can call Ronald Reagan a cocksucker!"

The biggest problem in our electoral system - far worse than the money problem, which is substantial - is the lack of really good candidates. Someone like Abraham Lincoln or JFK could have run a whole campaign without needing to attack the opposition. That's not how it works today. If you want to reform the electoral system, start by requiring any candidate claiming their opponent is a bastard spend a third of the ad explaining why they're not. It would cut the flood of attack ads to a trickle.)

[waltben]

26. And why are you surprised when she acts like all the other politician-assholes?

There are very, very few that aren't, although the GOPer ones try harder to out asshole the other side most times.

[pnwmom]

241. And why are you conflating Democrats and Republicans? They are light years apart. n/t

[IronLionZion]

28. The GOP's favorite Democrat

Unless left-right is more of a circle than a line. Some leftists are little too cozy with the far right.

[The_Casual_Observer]

31. She is under an illusion that the GOP is a worthy opponent.

That there is some kind of polite playbook that works.

[Hekate]

51. You could phrase this more artfully, so as not to be misunderstood. ps I don't like her either.

[Demsrule86]

59. She is of the right..never could understand why the left liked this person.

I can't stand her.

[tenderfoot]

62. Of course she did

BTW, what a hilarious non-scandal

[Tarheel_Dem]

68. I despise her even more than the GOP.

[Smitty63nnn]

77. It is amazing how many have broken the TOS

in this thread. There was another one right before I posted this. Why even have rules?

[Blue_Adept]

82. so many people suddenly calling out TOS violations...

Of course, the rules say let the moderation and juries do their jobs and not take on the role of a moderator youreslf.

Alert on the topic. If the juries let it live, then it lives. Throw a question in Ask the Adminstrators if you think it should be made more clear in the rules of TOS.

But people running around going TOS! TOS! TOS! are comical, both those with thousands of posts and those with a couple of dozen.

[Smitty63nnn]

85. Hmmmmmm

Title change....... Why? You thought it was OK when you originally posted it? What? She's no longer an asshole?

[Blue_Adept]

86. When I originally posted what?

I think you have me confused with someone else.

[Smitty63nnn]

89. My fault

I should have posted that at the root level. Sorry

[leftofcool]

88. Isn't she always attacking Democrats for something?

Who gives a shit what she says?

[Gore1FL]

91. Not that I am aware.

But despite voting for Clinton in Nov 2016, her support of Sanders makes her persona non grata for so many at DU who believe the clear path to victory is applying a 2016 nomination phase purity litmus test to all would-be supporters.

[brush]

111. No. What makes her unliked are her frequent, past bashings of Obama on FOX.

And the Syria trip among other things.

Her backing Sanders is not the reason she's unpopular here, even though you seem to want that to be the reason.

[Gore1FL]

123. And therefore she deserves to be accused of falsehoods on DU?

I’m not sure that makes sense.

[brush]

158. Falsehoods? Isn't it true she just blasted Dems for paying for oppo research?

How is that a falsehood, and any campaign manager who doesn't pursue oppo research should be sued for malpractice.

And why is she always taking stances against the Democratic Party that she's supposed to be a member of?

[BannonsLiver]

112. She has slurred President Obama for not using "muslim extremism" in the past.

let's not act like she's some babe of the woods who has no blemishes.

[Gore1FL]

128. No one is. Ive said as much.

She isn’t, however, a Trump supporter or an Assad lover. I don’t know why me pointing that out is so controversial.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

159. Who doesn't?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

160. Never understood that... it's self-defeating.

[Madam45for2923]

100. Tired of DEMS attacking DEMS instead of attacking Donald & GOP.

[brush]

113. Isn't that what Gabbard just did? She's done that several times on FOX to Obama also.

[Madam45for2923]

133. Yep, that is what I meant.

[oasis]

108. P-R-I-M-A-R-Y!!!

[Blue_Tires]

114. Hey, Tulsi's on TV pissing on Dems again!

In other words, it's a day ending in 'y'

[JHan]

151. I lol'd

[maxrandb]

115. Who???

[Hekate]

116. This is an example of what's wrong with Tulsi Gabbard & why I don't much like her

Also: thanks for the slight change to your subject line.

[SaschaHM]

121. I can't wait until she cashes in all of her chips for a higher office.

She's such a persona-non-grata in most circles that she may have to become a Republican to get elected to something outside of her seat.

[Ccarmona]

131. Shes My MOC

And I like her. Do I agree with her 100% of the time, no. But, It’s nice to have an Independent female voice in Congress and not a DNC toady.
She actually speaks her mind, which is refreshing compared to 95% of the rest of the asshats in DC.

[BannonsLiver]

200. She sure "spoke her mind" when she slurred President Obama over the use of the term "radical islam".

[brush]

254. You're kidding right. She bashes dems regularly on and has more repug supporters than Democratic.

And in case you don't know that dossier was originally oppo research against trump in the repug primary campaign and was repug-funded. Dems only took over funding it later. She has to know that.

She's a repug in Dem clothing if you ask me.

[JHan]

152. lol.

that's all I've got.. "lol"

[RandySF]

153. She needs to be primaried.

[krawhitham]

179. It's called Opposition research for a reason

[JHan]

183. yup, and it's been in existence since Cicero.

Tulsi's take is interesting because she can't be this naive.

[Tavarious Jackson]

185. I firmly believe she is a Putin Plant nt

[uponit7771]

187. +1

[ehrnst]

190. Um... oppo research been part of elections since they were invented. (nt)

[emulatorloo]

195. GOP'ers will spin this as "HILLARY COLLUDED WITH THE RUSSIANS" as some of Steele's sources were

Russians. They would be lying again.

Yes some of steele's sources were Russian agents.

But those Russian agents who leaked to Steele were whistle blowers, they were against what Putin and Trump were doing. Trump campaign contacts were true blue Putinistas carrying out a Russian State effort to undermine our election.

[Lint Head]

203. Does Gabbard actually comprehend? Understand? Does she have discernment?

Anti-Trump GOPers started the funding of this. All parties do opposition research. The Democratic Party picked up funding after Trump was deemed the candidate and the Anti Trump GOPers realized nominating anyone but Orange Cheeto Jesus was over.

Also Trump said Hillary "denied" it. He framed it as the the dossier was fake cause the Democrats lied about the dossier which is a lie in itself.

[Mosby]

208. for the record

I alerted on the OP under "don't bash democratic public figures" and the jury voted leave. This was before the title was edited.

I'm not a fan of Gabbard, in fact I suspect she has been compromised somehow, why else would she adopt the russian/Syrian talking points about the FSA and white helmets?

But I think the original title crossed the line and could not be considered constructive criticism.

[kcr]

210. Bummer

Hope it didn't wreck your day.

[Mosby]

211. no, I did just fine yesterday at my minimum wage job

But thanks for caring.

[kentuck]

220. Is there a link to this?

I can't imagine why any Democrat would be against "oppo research" against Trump?

[JustAnotherGen]

228. She needs a true blue

Opponent. Whose fucking side is she on?

[doc03]

231. Why is it I thought we already knew the Democrats funded

the Dossier research after a Republican lost the primary to tRump? Am I hallucinating or something I don't understand why this
is breaking news? I thought we had known this for months.

[Cha]

250. Actually Gabbard's gaslighting attacks on Hillary

are a Big Turn OFF.

[Historic NY]

251. Its time to get her off the stage.....

she isn't running for re-election and she hasn't got a prayer unless Putin helps her. Sounds like she is going to be the scorch earth 3rd party asshole.

[stonecutter357]

253. KGB !

[Miguelito Loveless]

255. What did they do to fund oppo research?

Buy a newspaper?