>>Make no mistake, I find it a shady association completely
>>independent of her anti-interventionist rhetoric. lol
>
>What association are you referring to?
>
>This notion that somebody is “associated” with or has a
>“relationship” with any person who says a good thing about
>them is absurd. David Duke praised Omar for calling out
>Israel - but nobody in their right mind would say that she is
>“buddied up” with David Duke (like Kamala was desperately
>doing).
>
>We gotta be grounded in reality and logical in our critiques -
>lest we be relegated to utter Hackery.
>
>
>-->

Is borderline asinine. It would mean a lot more if you
could have an honest back and forth about Tulsi without
ignoring points, glossing over issues, etc.

I’ll say this- you’re good at finding one thing in a
person’s critique and focusing on that- rather than
actually address the whole picture.

It’s not just duke. It’s bannon. Oh and the gop
twitter account. Oh and Assad. Oh and Fox News
to trash Obama. Oh and releasing a video to
help the GOP spike the ball on the mueller report. Oh
and “radical Islam”. Oh and not having anything
other than generic anti-interventionist aspirations
and attacking democrats. Oh and her iffy record
on refugees. Oh and praising Russia. Oh and staying in a race
she can’t win, ironically pulling small support from your guy.
Oh andstaging graveside photos.

There is a lot there. You cherry pick some, gloss
over some, ignore some, or blah blah blah
establishment Hillary.



No need to do this dance with you but when I read
“Grounded in reality” I literally laughed out loud.

How old are you my man? You really gotta grow out
of putting strangers on pedestals. It’s getting concerning.

What would she have to do to lose your support?

Would a Fox News show do it?

Peeling support from Bernie late in the race?

Say...shoot someone on 5th ave?