Quote:

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: This is going to sound immodest, but I’m obviously a top-tier candidate, and so I did expect that I would be on the stage and take hits tonight because there are a lot of people that are trying to make the stage for the next debate.

ANDERSON COOPER: For a lot of them it’s do or die.

HARRIS: Especially when some people are at zero or 1%, whatever she might be at.


It was a particularly cheap shot from someone who’d had such a disastrously poor debate performance. She actually stooped even lower during the same interview with Cooper, calling Gabbard an “apologist” for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.
Well, here we are three months later, and the tables have dramatically turned. Not only has Kamala Harris’ campaign cratered, but in some national and state polls Gabbard is now ahead of her

---

Kryptos said:

Go read Gabbard's WSJ Op-Ed. She is 100% going to run as a third party trying to steal blue votes.

Whether she does that of her own choice or due to her handlers telling her to do so is more or less irrelevant, as the outcome would be the same. She's gonna Jill Stein the democratic nominee.

---

qman said:

Kryptos said:

Go read Gabbard's WSJ Op-Ed. She is 100% going to run as a third party trying to steal blue votes.

Whether she does that of her own choice or due to her handlers telling her to do so is more or less irrelevant, as the outcome would be the same. She's gonna Jill Stein the democratic nominee.

---

The Russian's are forcing her to do it, they want their Trump puppet in power.

---

relic said:

That would be a shitty move.  If it's actually being considered, I wonder if there are really people in her camp telling her, 'sure, this is great and our path to the presidency; run third party!'

---

Brian Jones said:

The only thing we know for sure is that the job requires no real qualifications.

---

  Truth

Kryptos said:

Go read Gabbard's WSJ Op-Ed. She is 100% going to run as a third party trying to steal blue votes.

Whether she does that of her own choice or due to her handlers telling her to do so is more or less irrelevant, as the outcome would be the same. She's gonna Jill Stein the democratic nominee.

---

Quote:

The most interesting thing about the new CNN poll in New Hampshire is not so much the level of Gabbard's support, but rather who is supporting her.

No, it's not the Russians—it's actually mostly Republicans.

When you dig into the crosstabs of the poll, it shows that 59 percent of New Hampshire Republicans have a favorable view of Gabbard, while only 23 percent of the state's Democrats do.

---

Democrats are now the party of war and regime change, as evidenced by the discussions on this forum. 

ballsalsa said:

I won't pay the WSJ, so i can't see her opinion article, but if she said that, it was on direct opposition to her explicit assurance that she absolutely will not be running as a third party candidate

---

I think it was Clinton who said she was being groomed to run 3rd party, wasn't it? 

ballsalsa said:

I won't pay the WSJ, so i can't see her opinion article,

---

if this is the one, it does not appear to be paywalled for me
or my adblocker fucks with their paywall

Quote:

Hillary Clinton emerged recently to claim, with no basis in fact, that I am being “groomed” by the Russian government to undermine America. As a major in the National Guard who served in Iraq—one of the many disastrous regime-change wars Mrs. Clinton championed over her career—I swore an oath to only one authority: the U.S. Constitution.

I’m running for president to undo Mrs. Clinton’s failed legacy. From Iraq to Libya to Syria, her record is replete with foreign-policy catastrophes. It’s a primary reason why I resigned as vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2016 to endorse Bernie Sanders. Mrs. Clinton and the powerful media and political network she built up over decades have never forgiven this slight. The smears have been nonstop ever since.

Hardly a week goes by when I’m not asked a question about how I’m being secretly backed by Russia or other foreign powers—on top of countless other falsehoods intended to destroy my reputation. Those who are indebted to the war machine and the overreaching intelligence agencies, as well as their cheerleaders in the media, are determined to take me down because they know they can’t control me. I’m directly challenging their power.

This isn’t a petty “spat” between Mrs. Clinton and me. It’s a serious contrast in views about the choice voters face as they decide which Democratic candidate is best equipped to defeat President Trump. Mrs. Clinton already lost to Mr. Trump once. Why would Democrats think a Hillary 2.0 candidate would result in anything different?

Whether Mrs. Clinton’s name is on the ballot or not, her foreign policy will be, as many of the Democratic candidates adhere to her doctrine of acting as the world’s police, using the tools of war to overthrow governments we don’t like, wasting taxpayer dollars, costing American lives, causing suffering and destruction abroad, and undermining America’s security.

A Gabbard presidency would mean the end of trying to police the world, no more overthrowing governments, an end to the new Cold War and nuclear arms race, and redirecting our resources to urgent needs at home. That doesn’t mean I’m an isolationist. I will lead with a robust, positive foreign policy based on diplomacy and cooperation rather than confrontation and conflict. Those who follow the Bush-Clinton doctrine believe the only way to interact with other nations is by bombing them or starving them with draconian sanctions.

The most important responsibility of the president is to serve as commander-in-chief. As a Member of Congress for nearly seven years serving on the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, and as a veteran who deployed twice to the Middle East, I’m prepared to do that job from day one. I will immediately begin reversing the damage the Bush-Clinton doctrine has done to America and the world. To focus single-mindedly on this critical task, I’ve decided not to seek another term in the House of Representatives, where I’ve been honored to serve.

Only when we recognize the failings of the past—embodied by Mrs. Clinton and her minions in the media—can we move forward to a future of peace, dignity, transparency and aloha.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

I think it was Clinton who said she was being groomed to run 3rd party, wasn't it? 

---

Kryptos said:

She's equivocating between Clinton and every other democratic candidate, calling them all Clinton 2.0. This is why I think she's suggesting a third party run.
...

---

Can recognize and respect that point of view,
and think you are correct in that framing being why she's getting Republican support
but do not think it implies she is planning to necessarily run third party

think that it was put out there for people who viewed her as crazy with regards to her tweet
about how the truth of Hillary's machinations against her had come out
this gave her a platform to enunciate the idea more completely than a tweet thread

think she is doing it to try and drum up support for her campaign,
and possibly Sanders' campaign as she name-drops him in the piece before pointing out how Hillary hates her (and by proxy him)

maybe we will see a Bernie/Tulsi ticket to drum him up some extra support further into the primary run


tho innit Bernie's position on some foreign wars that he previously support Clinton/Obama actions which Gabbard disagrees with or something?
maybe getting confused and thinking of him supporting Clinton (Bill)'s crime legislation in his time in office...

ballsalsa said:

He didn't support the crime bill but i think he may have supported intervention in Bosnia in the mid 90's

---

Quote:

Whether Mrs. Clinton’s name is on the ballot or not, her foreign policy will be

---