No thanks.
Posted on 03/07/2020 3:50:14 PM PST by Hojczyk
There is one obvious difference between Warren and Gabbard: Warren’s candidacy was welcomed and favored by the Democratic establishment, while Gabbard’s was continually subverted.
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard — the last remaining woman in the Democrats’ presidential race — has been shut out of the party’s next debate with a rule change that makes it mathematically impossible for her to claim a podium.
Under the party’s most recent set of debate rules, any candidate who had won at least one delegate in the party’s first 25 nomination contests had the right to take the stage.
Gabbard, who gained two delegates in American Samoa’s caucuses on Super Tuesday, would have qualified.
But on Friday, party poobahs announced new criteria requiring candidates to hold at least 20% of all awarded delegates by the time of the next scheduled debate in Phoenix on March 15.
So the debate will be between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. How many times has the DNC changed the debate rules over the course of the campaign? Several, and always, it seems, to Tulsi Gabbard’s disadvantage. Why is the Democratic Party so anxious to prevent viewers from seeing Gabbard? Why, when cries of “sexism” are widely being raised, does the DNC go out of its way to bar the last remaining woman from the stage?
It’s an interesting question. I suspect the answer is that the DNC knows how weak both Sanders and Biden are, and fears that Tulsi could make them both look bad. She is not only effective in debate, she is 40 years younger than Biden and Sanders–a fact that might uncomfortably highlight one of their fundamental weaknesses. And, of course, she is a woman. But whether that matters is, it seems, entirely discretionary with the DNC.
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
Tulsi is their best shot
Biden is their worst shot
I want Biden, easier to beat
And she’s so HOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tulsi is interesting. She’s as left as The Bern, but she doesn’t speak like a raving, angry lunatic. She’s pleasant to listen to, pleasing to the eye, and calm and reasoned.
She is being destroyed because she has the nerve to call out Hitlery, who is, obviously, still in control of the dem party.
Tulsi is still a rabid lefty but with a pretty face and hawt. The old white Dem men and the Dem mean girl club would never back her.
Let’s change the rules after the fact.
No thanks.
“Tulsi is their best shot”
Agree with this assessment. It’s strange but there’s this fear I harbor that Tulsi is their stalking horse. It’s the only thing that makes sense to me. She’s the strongest candidate they have, always has been. She stands a greater chance of beating trump than any of them! I envision that biden and bernie are the offensive (very offensive) line for tulsi who’s been handed the ball by the DNC.
Tulsi would be better, except Biden is the only one who can turn out black voters.
And there it is. I personally don't care if she is a prettier face, I don't care if she is more reasoned than the other Leftists...she is still a Leftist.
She believes in things that will eventually destroy this country.
What does that have to do with it?
And she’s so NOT an Article II Natural Born Citizen!!!!!!!!!
One of my main objections to Gabbard’s candidacy, notwithstanding her mostly doctrinaire progressive liberalism; is that she is not an Article II, Section one, clause 5 natural born citizen who is constitutionally qualified to assume the office of POTUS. Even though SCOTUS has never directly issued a ruling on what type of citizen makes one an Article II eligible president, in every case wherein they have given a definition of what a natural born citizen is, (Venus Merchantman 1814, Minor vs Happersett, Wong Kim Ark vs US) those descriptions bear no relationship to Gabbard’s birth provenience.
Because of the SCOTUS’s acquiescence for Obama’s 8 “presidential” years, we cannot get the SCOTUS to adjudicate this Article III matter for the first time in US history.
Tulsi Gabbard was born on April 12, 1981, in Leloaloa, Maoputasi County, on American Samoa’s main island of Tutuila.
Tuaua v. United States
According to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the people born in American Samoa – including those born on Swains Island – are “nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth”. If a child is born on any of these islands to any U.S. citizen, then that child is considered a national and a citizen of the United States at birth. In an amicus curiae brief filed in federal court, Samoan Congressman Faleomavaega supported the legal interpretation that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not extend birthright citizenship to United States nationals born in unincorporated territories.
All U.S. nationals have statutory rights to reside in the United States (i.e., the 50 states and Puerto Rico), and may apply for citizenship by naturalization after three months of residency by passing a test in English and civics, and by taking an oath of allegiance to the United States. However, the INA makes clear that any “national but not a citizen of the United States” who at any time has been convicted of any aggravated felony, whether the aggravated felony was committed inside or outside the United States, is “debarred from becoming a citizen of the United States”
Gabbard is a US citizen at birth (not a US Natural Born Citizen) due to her US citizen mother. A statute, the Immigration and Naturalization Act, passed in the 20th century, holds that anyone born to a US citizen parent anywhere in the world is a US citizen. This statute did not modify the intent of Article II, section one, clause 5 of the constitution, ratified in 1787. A statute cannot amend the meaning or intent of a constitutional provision. That requires an Article V amendment process.
Being a “Citizen at Birth” is not analagous to being a “Natural Born Citizen.” They are not the same thing. Puerto Ricans born in Puerto Rico are citizens at birth also. None of them are Article II Natural born citizens either.
And she’s so NOT an Article II Natural Born Citizen!!!!!!!!!
One of my main objections to Gabbard’s candidacy, notwithstanding her mostly doctrinaire progressive liberalism; is that she is not an Article II, Section one, clause 5 natural born citizen who is constitutionally qualified to assume the office of POTUS. Even though SCOTUS has never directly issued a ruling on what type of citizen makes one an Article II eligible president, in every case wherein they have given a definition of what a natural born citizen is, (Venus Merchantman 1814, Minor vs Happersett, Wong Kim Ark vs US) those descriptions bear no relationship to Gabbard’s birth provenience.
Because of the SCOTUS’s acquiescence for Obama’s 8 “presidential” years, we cannot get the SCOTUS to adjudicate this Article III matter for the first time in US history.
Tulsi Gabbard was born on April 12, 1981, in Leloaloa, Maoputasi County, on American Samoa’s main island of Tutuila.
Tuaua v. United States
According to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the people born in American Samoa – including those born on Swains Island – are “nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth”. If a child is born on any of these islands to any U.S. citizen, then that child is considered a national and a citizen of the United States at birth. In an amicus curiae brief filed in federal court, Samoan Congressman Faleomavaega supported the legal interpretation that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not extend birthright citizenship to United States nationals born in unincorporated territories.
All U.S. nationals have statutory rights to reside in the United States (i.e., the 50 states and Puerto Rico), and may apply for citizenship by naturalization after three months of residency by passing a test in English and civics, and by taking an oath of allegiance to the United States. However, the INA makes clear that any “national but not a citizen of the United States” who at any time has been convicted of any aggravated felony, whether the aggravated felony was committed inside or outside the United States, is “debarred from becoming a citizen of the United States”
Gabbard is a US citizen at birth (not a US Natural Born Citizen) due to her US citizen mother. A statute, the Immigration and Naturalization Act, passed in the 20th century, holds that anyone born to a US citizen parent anywhere in the world is a US citizen. This statute did not modify the intent of Article II, section one, clause 5 of the constitution, ratified in 1787. A statute cannot amend the meaning or intent of a constitutional provision. That requires an Article V amendment process.
Being a “Citizen at Birth” is not analagous to being a “Natural Born Citizen.” They are not the same thing. Puerto Ricans born in Puerto Rico are citizens at birth also. None of them are Article II Natural born citizens either.
She is not being allowed into the debate because she will attack Biden- very successfully- and will largely leave Bernie alone.
I hope the reason why she has stuck around so long to try to win delegates is because she has some trick up her sleeve to force the DNC into letting her into the debate. I can’t imagine what this trick is. Blackmail? Wasn’t she once a vice chair at the DNC? Maybe she picked up some valuable information when she was in this role.
She is not being allowed into the debate because she will attack Biden- very successfully- and will largely leave Bernie alone.
I hope the reason why she has stuck around so long to try to win delegates is because she has some trick up her sleeve to force the DNC into letting her into the debate. I can’t imagine what this trick is. Blackmail? Wasn’t she once a vice chair at the DNC? Maybe she picked up some valuable information when she was in this role.
The plan appears to be Shillary or the Wookie into the oval office through the back door, and that can’t happen with Tulsi.
This.
Watch for this last-minute DNC debate rule change to backfire on the DNC. They now have made it a one-on-one debate between Bidden and Bernie. The result will be Joe won't have any rest during the 1 hour debate. My bet is he goes into full bumble mode half way thru.
Depends on who ‘they’ are or is.
This primary is Dems v deep state. Not even similar. Deep state needs the White House and they have the means.
Bernie with bigger boobs
Whoopie do
She is cut from the same bolt of cloth as all the other socialists
Just far too many here look at her like a pinup girl and their brain wanders
She could not organize a bake sale in my view, and is no where near presidential timber for what we need in our country...
And her stances are pretty much spot on with the rest of the dems, including citizenship for DACA and many others
Tulsi is no closer to the political center than Sanders. No one should allow themselves to be fooled by her “reasonable” demeanor. Under that smiling faceplate is a hardcore leftist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.