Tulsi Gabbard went on Breitbart after the debate.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

Speechless.

Link to tweet

[JI7]

1. i hope people can realize what is happening here

[MBS]

3. Me, too.n/t

[underpants]

37. Drudge poll shows her winning in a landslide

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287170381

[Honeycombe8]

64. It just came to me.

If you're thinking what I'm thinking.

[Dennis Donovan]

2. OOH! They scored an interview with someone polling @ 1%...

They might even get Gravel, too!

[IluvPitties]

4. She's too friendly with them.

[NCDem47]

5. My least favorite at the debate last night

Barely knew anything about her, but open to giving her a chance. I didn’t feel passion or authenticity coming from her. Feel like she spent most of her time letting people know she was in the military (nothing wrong with that!), but not well rounded on other issues. Just flat and not ready for prime time at all. Is there an implication that she’s a Trojan horse/tool for darker forces who are not Democrats?

[Crowman2009]

62. +1

BINGO! I had that feeling as well. Not to mention she has a checkered past with regards to abortion and LGBTQ+ (forgive me if I don't have an up to date version. I'm not as media savy as I use to be.) rights.

[PunkinPi]

6. Not surprised. Check out those that are trying to boost her...

[EndGOPPropaganda]

7. Wow.

It’s not even clear to me why the right would like Gabbard.
She wants to pull out of wars abroad. But the GOP is the party behind Iraq and now Iran. What’s the rights line on her?

[PunkinPi]

10. Here's some background along with other right wingers who support her...

namely, Steve Bannon, David Duke, Tucker Carlson, Richard Spence and Matt Gaetz.

The Daily Beast --> https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-conservative-media-and-the-far-right-love-tulsi-gabbard-for-president

Newsweek --> https://www.newsweek.com/why-do-steve-bannon-and-david-duke-democrat-tulsi-gabbard-so-much-stephen-1359488

[ValidateThis]

16. Because the recognize a fellow Putin troll

[TSIAS]

66. Are you saying Gabbard is a Russian agent?

Thats a terrible thing to say about a Democratic candidate. I jokingly implied the same thing about another candidate and my posts were hidden. Some Democrats are obviously more equal than others.

[nolabear]

21. She'd pull votes from threats.

I think they work numerous impossible candidates to peel votes.

[obamanut2012]

22. Because they know Dems won't vote for her

[Cha]

26. What a cheering section.

Mahalo, PunkinPi

[still_one]

27. I am waiting to see Glenn Greenwalds and Putin's tweet regarding her performance

[femmedem]

8. Wtf?

She had a better than expected performance--not enough to boost her poll numbers, but good enough to perhaps land an appointment. This is a career-killing move, assuming we win in 2020.

[LittleGirl]

9. Wow, I don't care for her

But a conservative favorite? Just Wow.

[Midwestocrat]

11. That's....

Odd. Not really reaching the Democratic primary voter there...

It's a bold strategy, Cotton!

[mitch96]

12. Another Jill Stein?

Just trying to split the vote.. Follow the money...
m

[bigbrother05]

13. Only if she goes independent

Saw a one note candidate, I served - no senseless wars. Not a bad note, but solitary.

[Ilsa]

14. More like a Trojan Horse, but

That's just my opinion.

I don't like her. She comes across as someone with an inherent personality flaw.

[ValidateThis]

17. Winner!

Gabbard is very obviously Jill Stein 2.0, a product of Putin Labs.

She’s despicable.

[ValidateThis]

15. Putin's prank

Read her bio. She’s a wack job.

[LovingA2andMI]

18. She is SUCH A WASTE OF SPACE....

Let's make sure she loses big time so she can move on as last night, she stated (for now) she's not re-running for her Congressional seat and that is good.

[Grendam]

19. My view of Tulsi...

I first saw her on TV several years ago and came away quite impressed and still felt that way after several others. BUT... that was before a series of some bizarre anti-war appearances I saw as well as some other rather other kooky positions/statements from her I had been previously unaware.

In particular, I think it was a Wolf Blitzer interview, where she was adamantly pleading for what was effectively appeasement to our adversaries around the world. She framed any kind of confrontation with the likes of DPRK, Russia, Syria, Iran, China (or pretty much anyone) as an unavoidable harbinger to nuclear war. Seriously, equating any kind of pushback to anything as a risk to nuclear annihilation. This is exactly the kind of fringe thinking that is popular with the Breitbart (and RT) crowd and the far left.

In that time, she has basically repeated these views many times. Worse, she started to blame any numerous problems with foreign powers on what WE, the USA, did to make them act that way. She reminded me of Stephen Cohen (If you don't know who that is, a huge Russian sympathizer that blames anything bad Russia does on America). I'll also add that much of this was before her Assad visit and what has otherwise been her now widely seen role as a sympathizer/enabler of the likes of Assad/Putin. Strangely (or not), she has a FP view that is a lot in line with Trump — except for his bombast, of course, because that would assuredly lead to nuclear war! Do people remember that she met with Trump during his transition, and there was talk that she could be his Secretary of Defense? Bottomline, she would be a dream for any adversarial power if she were to become president. They know all they would have to do is hint at provocative action (much less commit), and she would immediately capitulate, patting herself on the back for avoiding a nuclear holocaust.

I was actually surprised Ryan let her get the better of the exchange over Afghanistan. I thought for sure he would hit back at her for support of Russia/Assad. What I heard was a defense of the Taliban... the TALIBAN! People seem to forget the Taliban harbored and effectively supported Al-Qaeda since they pretty much seized power in 1996. We invaded Afghanistan after the Mullahs refused to expel Al-Qaeda and basically told us to, "GO *BLEEP* YOURSELF! Al-Qaeda are our honored guests, and we see no evidence." Mullah Omar was married to one of Osama Bin Laden's daughters, and Al-Qaeda assassinated the leader of the Afghan rebels two days before 9/11.

For Gabbard to give the impression that the Taliban were some unfortunate bystanders in the events that led up to 9/11 and afterwards is actually really appalling. That some people seem to be applauding her anti-war stance seem to think they can easily separate out Al-Qaeda and other bad actors as a way to justify making peace with the Taliban (one of the most oppressive, medieval groups in the world).

Not to get into the weeds, but there is a VERY LEGITIMATE fear that the Afghan government will quickly collapse if we withdraw and the same conditions that let Al-Qaeda thrive (and ISIS even now) would be present again — on steroids. That's before we even get into what would happen to the broader population. That whole region, with the exception of a few places like Kabul, is like a tribal frontier (including western Pakistan) really unlike anywhere else in the world. There is no easy solution for the culture and rampant corruption in that country (in a state of perpetual war since 1979).

TL/DR NEVER TULSI

[Gothmog]

20. Who is surprised by this?

[Crowman2009]

63. Not me!

I knew something was up when the likes of Steve Bannon and David Duke were praising her.

[dalton99a]

23. Fox News is loving her

[Paladin]

31. The Drudge Report is weighing in the same way, declaring her last night's winner.

Democrats need to avoid Gabbard like she's a plague.

[Cha]

24. Because, of course, she did.

[Jose Garcia]

25. I guess even RT won't give her time

[at140]

28. Tulsi would get the most crossover GOP voters

as a VP on the ticket.

[W_HAMILTON]

29. No, she wouldn't.

She is only useful to them as a divisive and spoiler candidate among Democrats. If it comes down to voting for a Democratic ticket with her on it or the Republican ticket, they will choose the Republican ticket ten times out of ten.

[at140]

43. You are under-estimating how many Trump voters

are disgruntled over rising tensions with Iran. Middle-east wars have been an unmitigated disaster for Americans. Tulsi is best qualified to change that policy.

[W_HAMILTON]

44. And you're underestimating the fact that Republicans will never vote for a Democrat when it matters.

[Downtown Hound]

36. LOL.

You honestly thing they'd not vote for Trump and vote for a Dem because she's on the ticket as a Vp? Any other delusional fantasies you'd like to share?

[at140]

42. Yes, because

I am certain, not all Trump voters are thrilled with his raising tensions in the middle-east, specifically Iran. Who better than Tulsi for those voters to reconsider? And farmers are not happy with tariffs. There were a lot of Trump voters in that group. Trump is losing many of his 2016 voters while gaining few new voters.

[Downtown Hound]

45. You could not be more wrong

When Democrats try and be like republicans, they lose. When they try and be Democrats, they win. there's way more Democratic voters and people who don't vote because they feel the system doesn't represent them than there are disaffected Trump voters. Win them over, and you win the election.

[at140]

46. Hillary was not enough democrat for you?

How about her running mate?
Both were enough Democratic progressives for me.
I think we have a better chance of winning with left of center candidates. The midterms already proved my POV.

Your hypothesis does not bear out Bill Clinton's victory in 1996 in spite of Monicagate. Bill was not far from center and that is why he was so popular.

[Downtown Hound]

47. Hillary won.

She won the popular vote and only lost the EC by voter purging, and probably, vote hacking, although no one can prove the latter. But Hillary probably would have won by a wide enough margin to overcome the shenanigans if she had not voted for the Iraq War and cozied up to Wall Street to the extent that she had. Those kinds of things only added fuel to the fire that she was a warmonger and corporate crook.

I voted for Hillary in both the primary and the general, and would do so again. But the bottom line is she hurt herself, and by extension, all of us, by pandering to the center and the right way too often. We're still paying for it.

[at140]

50. You don't win a football game based on how many yards gained

It is strictly the score! Rules of the game are followed. A team could out-gain the opposition by 500 yards and still lose the game.

President needs electoral votes to win, and is declared the winner even if losing popular vote by millions of votes. I am 100% certain the same voter suppression/purging or hacking took place during 2008 & 2012. It did not matter, did it?

How did Hillary pander to the center and the right? Please cite examples.
She was for 100% pro-choice on abortion.
She was 100% for Obamacare.
She was 100% for women to be on equal status with men.
Those are all OPPOSITE of center-right positions.

[Downtown Hound]

54. Yeah, yeha, yeah, blah, blah, blah. I know how the electoral college works, so spare me the lecture

"How did Hillary pander to the center and the right? Please cite examples."

Already did. Read again.

[at140]

60. Nice conversation! Have a nice day!!

And by the way Obama received as much support if not more than Hillary from Wall Street. So that issue was inconsequential in 2016 as well.

[Downtown Hound]

61. Debateable, but Obama did not vote for the Iraq War, Hillary did

And even though I eventually forgave her and got over it, I can tell you that many considered that an act of extreme betrayal, including me. I was choking on tear gas on the streets of San Francisco protesting the coming invasion during the months leading up to the Iraq War and shortly after it began, and to have a so-called progressive like Hillary completely betray us at the time was like getting kicked in the balls. It took me years to get over it, and is one of the reasons why I backed Obama over her in 2008.

So I eventually got over it and did what was right for the country and supported her. But I understand the bitter taste a lot of people had in their mouths about her, and yeah, I do think actions that she took like that are in no small part why we have a President Trump now.

[Lithos]

52. The Joe Lieberman strategy does not work

n/t

[MrsCoffee]

30. Lol, of course she did.

[Zambero]

32. She cleaned up with the Drudge poll as well

Unscientific and no doubt heavily skewed to right-wing participants, Gabbard got 39%, with all others ranging from 12% (Warren) down to 4%. Note that Booker, O'Rourke, and Inslee were essentially tied for last at 4%.

[mcar]

33. She won, per the Daily Caller poll

[AlexSFCA]

34. she is the definition of rw plant

[underpants]

35. And Drudge poll shows her winning in a landslide

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287170381

[CanonRay]

38. Shame on me

I upped her a few notches. Back down you go Jill Stein 2020.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

41. +1

[AlexSFCA]

53. is stein running in 2020?

[Doreen]

39. I think it was her that said "all sick people should have health care."

There were a few that said that afterwards also. What about the healthy? The healthy should have health care also? Part of the problem with our health care is you do not get much help to keep healthy then when you get sick because of that you are not covered. WTF!?

[LibFarmer]

40. Astonishing

A Democrat giving those assholes the time of the day is indefensible in my book.

[ecstatic]

55. She was the special guest on Bill Maher tonight

At first she sounded reasonable, but then she started "both sides"ing everything. I'm 1000% done with her. In last place for me. 23rd place.

[Cha]

59. Oh, good to know about the ".. both sides"

... I don't know how she thinks that's a good plan for a Dem primary?!

Thanks!

[Bradical79]

56. Well, that sinks her to the bottom of my list. -nt

[EndGOPPropaganda]

67. That was my take too

[applegrove]

57. Hope she drops out soon.

[Curky]

58. She went from 0.7% predebate to 0.7% post debate

According to Morning Consult partnering with Nate Silver.

[NYMinute]

65. Tulsi is finished already nt

[EndGOPPropaganda]

68. +1