you good? I love how you always say "you ain't gotta lie to kick it" - and then proceed to do nothing but lie.

>1. When he finally showed back up, instead of addressing
>Gabbard's vote head-on

I've addressed this many times. I wouldn't have voted as Tulsi did. I disagreed with her vote, but don't find it to be the cardinal sin that you purport it to be. In fact, I find the Trump 2020 NDAA Defense Bill to be far more consequential, and that's cleary the case now.

btw: I also disagreed with Tulsi's votes on Syrian refugees and her vote on BDS. She ain't perfect, but I love the irony in her being the object of y'alls never-ending, unhinged ire. I do give you props for being a committed Clinton surrogate.


>which is why Politifact calls this False
>
>https://www.politifact.com/vermont/statements/2019/dec/20/bernie-sanders/bernie-sanders-wrong-twice-claim-about-defense-bud/
>
>Also considering Biden, Mayor Pete, Castro, Andrew Yang aren't
>in Congress so...Marianne Williamson also didn't vote on the
>NDAA at least on this plane of existence. El Bloombito no
>votar por this porque el no esta in Congress tambieither. 
>
>It was worth a shot, I guess.

All of that is irrelevant to the point. Perhaps you missed the Stop Presidential Wars bill that Tulsi introduced, or the amendment in the 2018 NDAA that specifically addressed Congress holding Trump accountable for an unauthorized war with Iran (a similar bill introduced by Ro Khanna in 2019 - and now being re-introduced by Sanders and Khanna).

Did you even look at the link you provided that records Gabbard's "Nay" vote? You must be referring to Sanders not being present for the vote in the Senate (along with all other Presidential candidates). Look at the lineage of the Sanders vote on all of those NDAA/Defense budget bills. Nay. Nay. Nay. Nay. He has never voted to authorize Trump's militarism. Can't say the same for the other Dem Senators that you listed.

You're not here to be fair. You just want to smear and whine. That's fine, there's a niche for that. Enjoy.

>2. He also brought up Gabbard's push to censure Trump. A
>stunning rebuke he said! Sounds dope and courageous and all
>that shit, right? Well, he left out that she introduced this
>on the eve of the impeachment vote as a bullshit
>half-of-a-half-measure to avoid having to vote on impeachment.
>Censure is a rebuke. A sternly worded bunch of words. 

The substance of her Censure (violation of the War Powers Resolution) was remarkably apt and targeted to address exactly what is happening now. And the Senate is finally going to wise up and take Tulsi's lead on the War Powers Resolution violation (already being drafted as we speak).

Nobody warned against Trump's road to striking Iran more than Tulsi. If you dispute that then tell me who did, both substantively in the form of legislation and in it being central to their policy platform.

>3. He also tried the full Republican route. He used the exact
>same words as the Republicans (specifically Collins) did
>during the hearings to try and minimize the fact that Trump
>was impeached and why. He claimed Trump was impeached 'over a
>phone call' but what he was actually impeached for was Abuse
>of Power and Obstruction of Justice.

Another lie. I said that this was an impeachable offense (which is why I would've voted to impeach) - but that it was not even in the top-tier of the most egregious and impeachable offenses of this President. But whatever makes you feel better.

>He literally justified Br*itbart as a legitimate news agency

LOL we're just throwing anything at the wall hoping it sticks now? I never called Breitbart a legitimate news agency - like ever in life. What I said is that Tulsi has appeared on every media outlet across the political spectrum. Fox News is trash - does that mean candidates should refuse to give an interview to its audience and speak truth to power - even in an audience that disagrees? I suppose if you're a coward and not confident in your views, that would make sense.

He'll attack me or maybe
>he'll ignore me. He did it to Reeq, Strav, Brew and you
>too. 

LOL at "attack" - this is called debate. If you're too emo to engage and take everything personally - that's on you. Reeq and I disagree on a lot - and agree on a lot - but we engage in a myriad of subjects and then move on after the debate. Can't say the same for you because this is literally the only thing you ever want to talk about.

You're all in your feelings.

>I will not allow people to come here and lie to black people,
>especially with some bullshit progressivism. 

LOL when all else fails - play the tribe & divide card.

Since you're so animated and invested in all of this - I welcome you to an actual, real-life debate. This can easily be facilitated as I always welcome spirited debate. You can even make the case for why we all should just shut up and ride the Biden train, if you'd like.

-->