I cite “others” for a variety of reasons, I know I’m speaking
for myself, dog. My main point in saying “others” is
because I haven’t seen you give a sensible response
to anyone on this topic. Wave off, evolved, nobody’s
perfect.

Not sure why you’re upset or bothered by that.

>>The concerns I (and others) have raised can't just be waved
>>away with false equivalencies and downplaying.
>
>Nobody's waiving them away. You just don't like the
>explanations - which is fine. A lot of people talk about
>Tulsi as if they've only been aware of her for about 3 weeks
>(which often is the case).

But as people have done research, they have learned
about actual facts. Just because they are just learning
about her now doesn’t mean concerns aren’t valid.

Your “I’ve been down with her a long time” is a prime example
of waiving away criticism. You invalidate anyone’s
opinion cuz they aren’t enamored like you- that’s not
how it works.

It would be like a Kamala fan saying “folks just learning
about Kamala’s past now need to hush”...which, of
course, you wouldn’t accept.

You also pick and choose what to address. And, when
given proof that you requested, your response is
“That’s it? She’s just spitting facts”

Like, no shit Putin was bombing ISIS- the debate
wasn’t the facts. It was why is she praising Putin
to knock Obama like she’s fucking Sean Hannity?

Etc.


>
>Have fun with politics this primary season.
>
>-->

You too man. To lighten the mood, I want to ask
if you would rather have dinner with Bron or Tulsi
but I won’t....j/p