I continue to be baffled as to why right wingers seem to love Tulsi. While her views are a bit outside the mainstream of the democratic party in certain ways, she isn't particularly conservative - I think there are at least a handful of candidates in the race that are more conservative. Yet she's the candidate that the right praises. It's fine, of course - like who you want - but it doesn't seem to make any sense. I don't think you'd be happy with her as president. barfo
As he should be, it's completely unrealistic. There's no way Trump would bother asking - or even speak to someone from a shithole country. barfo
It’s more of her coming across as an honest person. I don’t agree with much of anything any democrat says but she comes across as authentic at least. Someone who would reach across party lines to help the country. Still, Trump has my vote no matter who the dems run out of this clown car.
I'm not sure about the authenticity bit, but I did enjoy her taking apart Tim Ryan in the debate. barfo
Who cares. Local government is the only place where anything of real importance ever gets done anyhow.
imo, its probably she comes across as her own women and not just jump on any bandwagon , to get votes. Also, her military background and her views on the mideast involvement help. And she's was raised in a conservative family so those that you speak of may think she still has some of the values and beliefs. Just a thought? As a guy thats been both over my life time I go with whomever seems be reasonable in their politics and willing to give and take.
Im glad to see someone with common since talking about "decriminalizing illegal border crossings". An Obama-era Department of Homeland Security chief is warning Democratic presidential candidates to cool their push to decriminalize illegal border crossings, saying such a move would be tantamount to “open borders” policy and lead to hundreds of thousands more people flooding into the U.S. every month. “That is tantamount to declaring publicly that we have open borders,” Jeh Johnson told The Washington Post. “That is unworkable, unwise and does not have the support of a majority of American people or the Congress, and if we had such a policy, instead of 100,000 apprehensions a month, it will be multiples of that,” he said.
Not that it matters, because Yang's mic being off is not mutually exclusive to anyone elses mic being turned off. Buttttt........
It would be very interesting if true, but I'm skeptical. I think it is more likely that those two simply got drowned out when they tried to talk by other people shouting. I'll bet there is tape showing the whole stage, it should be possible to actually determine the truth (or not) of this claim. barfo
I'm going to accept the 'Whatever'. NBC would be taking an unacceptable risk by lying. They're one of the longest lasting companies in the U.S. providing a lot of return on investment and providing an awful lot of jobs. I can't see them blatantly lying. Too much at risk. The company would fall flat on their face. I'm going to assume that Mr. Yang made an error.
So, you think NBC, or any big media outlet has never manipulated things the way they see fit? There have been numerous accounts/rumors of candidates having been fed debate questions ahead of time by multiple networks.
