Yeah, the difference here is that this was a factual attack and she cited direct references.
If claims Gabbard was making were false, it should have taken little effort for Kamala to repudiate them. Instead we got some waffle about her being proud of her record (does that include withholding evidence that exonerated a death row prisoner?) and her defenders deflecting to Russia.
"Direct reference" was the wrong term for me to use I think. What I mean is that she made direct claims that can be proven or disproven. It's much harder to handle indirect attacks than it is direct claims.
Look, I'm not saying she shouldn't have had a better response, and I've never said that. But you're kidding yourself if you think Harris (or anybody) was going to correct the record on such a blatant mischaracterization in 25 seconds. that's the whole point.
It's not easy to refute false claims. Even though I do actually believe kopmala actually did all that stuff. But the false claims is like Hillary Clinton's life. Remember when she was "sick and dying"
Can someone explain to me how and why, after these four debates, Biden is polling the highest?
but then we get to the problem that attacking/harris Harris in itself seems to happen to benefit Putin in some way
Aside that drone striking civilians outside the US borders still is up many Dem candidates' alley, mine was more an indictment of liberals conditioning themselves into making choices based more on what they think Putin doesn't want than choosing what is good
Its honestly fascinating how everything changed a few hours after the second debate. I see that people went from "wow Bernie fans and their conspiracies" to "ok Tulsi could be in the pocket of Big Russia NOT SAYING THAT SHE IS BUT SHE MIGHT BE"
Except that Tulsi is a known Assad apologist, frequent Fox News guest, denier of Russian meddling, etc.
![[Sigma]](/data/avatar/31551380172/27345-m.jpg){kind=avatar}
"I haven't read through all these pages, but I certainly hope ..."
Ok, Kamala still had a terrible performance at the debate regardless of how much of a bigoted scumbag Tulsi is.
It wasn't meant to be a rebuttal. It was meant to contextualize the person people are applauding.
Who is doing this?
Nobody cares that it was Tulsi in particular who went in on Kamala - could have been a no-name like Bennett and people would have still cheered because it was a very effective attack.
I mean, she's consistently voted pro-LGBT since she has held public office for the past 6 years, and publicly changed her views on gay marriage before Obama did. I get that she campaigned against it in the past when she was young when she worked for her dad (and I think that there was conversion therapy in there as well). I get that that means she has a higher hill to climb when it comes to redeeming herself on that, but her voting record on it is pretty spotless. Plenty of people are capable of change. You wouldn't have seen the change in public opinion on gay marriage if that wasn't the case. This just seems like a weird thing to get on her case about to me.
Of course I knew who she was, and I would have no problem acknowledging that Tulsi made a good point. For what it's worth, I think it's hilarious to equate Tulsi to Trump, Bannon or David Duke. She's a bigot but isn't anywhere near as bad as those.
Actually the problem is that certain dishonest actors are purposely making Tulsi out to be much worse than she is for whatever reason. She has a super high score from LGBT organizations on her voting record, which matters to me a lot more than what some Twitter randos are saying.
Actually the problem is handwaving virulent homophobia. Miss me with this bad actor bs.
www.vox.com
Uh youre being an incredible bad actor in here. Like you basically came in and took the reins on it.
No I didn't miss it. I just continue telling you and others that it literally doesn't matter.Did you even read that I wrote? My problem was about Russia's exploiting it, and the casualness many here are in completely ignoring it as a thing to worried about.
They openly support Tulsi, as well as Modi and she has a controversial history with Assad.
Here is a deeper look into her candidacy.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, 2020 Democratic candidate, explained
How Gabbard went from rising star to controversial figure.
And numerous other issues in that article.
Tulsi Gabbard is a bigger threat in elected office than Kamala ever was, she's not a pacifist like Bernie is. Quite the opposite. And she has more issues than simply being anti LGBT, that's the tip of the iceberg about why she's a bad candidate.
