|
>you good? I love how you always say "you ain't gotta lie to
>kick it" - and then proceed to do nothing but lie.
And there you are doing exactly what I said you'd do with a side of projection
>
>>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.
>
You didn't address Tulsi's impeachment vote. You tried to cover by bringing up her and Sanders NDAA vote and her attempt to censure.
You lied because you said Sanders voted against the NDAA. He did not. He didn't vote, the same as the other candidates. You said he and Tulsi were the only democratic candidates to do this. This is demonstrably false.
>
>>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).
Oh now it's irrelevant to the point again.
>
>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 said what you said, multiple times and were proven wrong. Now you're trying to revise it to 'never voted to authorize' but originally it was 'voted against'
>You're not here to be fair. You just want to smear and whine.
> That's fine, there's a niche for that. Enjoy.
>
I didn't smear, I provided facts that you misconstrued and misrepresented. Something you do constantly. You juke the stats and when anyone calls you on it you deflect, project, minimize.
>>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).
So we're where we are now because we didn't censure Trump over War Powers Resolution? His censuring stops the assassination of Suleiman how?
>
>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.
It's not what is top tier or what you want. It's what they had an airtight case on. And it's not a lie. That's precisely what you fucking said. I'm not going through old posts to quote you anymore because I've dedicated too much time on you and your bullshit.
>
>>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.
You don't know what legitimizing means and i didn't say you called it one I said you justified it as a legitimate news agency which you just did again.
Also a democratic challenger giving interviews to them works to legitimize them.
> 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.
Again, I'm not going back through old posts and posting direct quotes again because you'll deflect lie and minimize. You are who your are and you are what you are.
>>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.
It's called calling a spade a spade. You've spent most of your time on this board propagating one kind of bullshit or another. I'm dividing the real from the fake and the people who have the best interest of other people at heart not just trying to get their trash candidate elected.
>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.
>
>-->
Ah the old 'debate me coward' and then the false equivalency
Fuck off Vex Shapiro.
-------------------------------
A lot of you players ain't okay.
We would have been better off with an okaycivics board instead of an okayactivist board
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
