Thanks. Strange indeed why there isn’t a bigger outrage on here about that injustice.
That sounds remarkably like the rationale for on/off/on again faux Burisma inquiry.
Jezcoe
63
And the continuing Benghazi hearings.
The results don’t matter, just the attack.
There’s zero justification; well aside from the fact that she qualifies for the debate according to the rules the DNC created. I don’t know how many she’s earned honestly. Was the number of delegates earned a qualifier in the DNC-created rules?
Yeah I forgot about the many, many, many Bengazi inquiries.
Absolutely. They don’t want a young, pretty, well spoken woman to contrast the two, white, grumpy, crazy old farts that they have selected. If she became a major debate player, she would wipe the floor with them. The DNC has no intention of letting that happen. They only embrace diversity when it can be used as a political weapon.
4 Likes
Why do you care? You can write her name on the presidential ballot paper and vote for her.
If only they had allowed her into a single debate her campaign would have take off.
1 Like
conan
70
Ironically out of all those democrat candidate early…she was the one that I feared the most. She wasn’t crazy enough for em.
She should demand being at debate now…or threaten to run third party.
No chance. Too many socialists, marxists and big government types among dems. But I would not mind seeing her have a chance in a smaller forum. Where they have to give her more opportunity.
Gabbard has run in numerous primaries and her vote totals (other than in American Samoa) have been terrible. I think the voters have told the DNC what they think of her. The fact that she has strong support from Hannity fans… that just tells you she is running in the wrong party. Not that the RNC would even hold a primary that would include Tulsi Gabbard.
So stupid. No rules changed. There were not any rules announced yet on next debate threashold.
The DNC stated from the start that they would do debates with any viable candidate and before each debate name the rules. The 1st ones were who had doners (She qualified). Then It was those that were polling a certain % nationals or in upcoming states. THEN before super Tuesday it was anyone that had at least 1 delegate or was polling above a threshold in a upcoming debate.
Now that over 1300 delegates have been awarded, a “Viable” candidate Would have a higher threshold then when only 110 delegates have been awarded. If she was polling well she would be included, or if she had won enough delegates to be viable. she is neither.
1 Like
They won’t even let Tulsi be on a ballot, let alone a debate.
Trump said what I’m seeing and what I’m reading is not what’s happening. Nice try. If she were allowed at a debate why isn’t she winning? She’s so pretty.
You do know that people voted for Trump because we think his policies are amazing? You’re getting that, right? We all knew that he was a N.Y. playboy. And we voted for him anyway. He has exceeded expectations. We certainly are not going to vote for Biden because of things we already knew about Trump. That effort ain’t going nowhere.
I think a more accurate headline would be “DNC not including Republican favorite and currently polling less than 1% Tulsi Gabbard”
4 Likes
Guvnah
89
And that’s all that needs to be said.
JayJay
90
You ready to petition William Weld to be heard too…who has managed 5% despite having nowhere near the coverage Tulsi has gotten?
What’s the President afraid of?
1 Like
