I haven't devoted any time to watching, or following the election coverage yet, but I did read that link and couldn't help but notice this line:
However, pivoting questions to her military record when it did not call for it, such as when being asked about the gender pay gap will have left a sour taste.
What sort of sentence is that supposed to be? Uhmm...a "sour taste" for who? And why would it have left "a sour taste"? Is he referring to polls or any other form of verifiable data that indicate said "sour taste"?
EXACTLY !
Here's a post debate segment with Tulsi. Skip to 3:10 and watch how the panel works to minimize Tulsi on foreign affairs and paint her as a radical on LGBT shit and Assad. Then point their audience at other candidates who are strong on defense issues.
Trump would agree with her on every single point related to foreign affairs and the MIC if it came right down to the nut-cut in a face-to-face. It would be beautiful.
That's what I'm thinking. Trump is way stronger with economic and domestic policy stuff, and his record is pretty good, he'd have to stick to that.
It's going to fun watching how the media deals with Tulsi.
I haven't devoted any time to watching, or following the election coverage yet, but I did read that link and couldn't help but notice this line:
However, pivoting questions to her military record when it did not call for it, such as when being asked about the gender pay gap will have left a sour taste.
What sort of sentence is that supposed to be? Uhmm...a "sour taste" for who? And why would it have left "a sour taste"? Is he referring to polls or any other form of verifiable data that indicate said "sour taste"?
because she straight up ignored the question (everyone did that night but i think she was the first) and immediately went in to her anti-regime change rhetoric, probably leaving a sour taste in the mouth of anyone that was interested in hearing her thoughts on the supposed pay gap (myself included), or interested generally in having direct questions and answers during the debate (myself excluded, i think)
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
