breaking news. i met one tulsi gabbard won the primary and the seat the democratic national party took a deep interest in her and you can see why. a smart, appealing 31-year-old who knew what she believed i could it fluently. she was also an iraq war veteran. tulsi gabbard was near-perfect and they got it. barack obama endorsed her right away. nancy pelosi called her personally and invited tulsi gabbard to speak on the opening night of the democratic national convention in and she was sworn in, they named her vice chair of the national party. she had just gotten there. she was vice chair of the dnc. the media played its prescribed role. if nancy pelosi likes it, so do they. farming profile after fawning profile emerged. if you lived in washington, he remembered it very well. the future of the democratic party, tulsi gabbard. casey don t remember, here s a selection. watch out for the next superstar. here we go. tulsi gabbard. tulsi gabbard is a rising star in this p
exactly breaking news. it s standard operating procedure. and yes.t tulsi gabbard won tha primary and then the seatse the democratic national part y took a deep interest in her. and you can see why he was a smart, appealing thirty one year old who knew what she believed and could shplain fluently. and by the way, she was also an iraq war veteran. tulsn political terms, tulsi gabbard was near perfect and they got it immediately. barack obama endorsed her right away. nancy pelosi called herled he personally and invited tulsi gabbard. did you remember this to speak on the opening night ofc the democratic national convention and then when she was sworn into congress in january , the dnc named tulsitha abbott, vice chair otif the national party. she just got in there thd she was vice chair of the dnc. and then, of course, the mediaay played its prescribed role. if nancy pelosi likes you also, do they so fawning profile, fawning profile emerged if you the timprofeelgton at ,you
why is it such an acceptable thing to say? there is a pattern here. certain people do benefit from wars and they want more so three years after that debate another u.s. funded regime change war is underway and that is exactly what s happening. this time our stated goal is removing not some third world dictator who might have wmd but removing a guy who was the world s largest nuclear stockpile. 6300 nuclear warheads. vladimir putin. once again because tulsi gabbard has questioned the wisdom of this complete lunacy, democrats are accusing her of working for vladimir putin. so if you want to know what the democratic party actually believes, don t listen to what they say. oh, we want empowered women of color who are also veterans. no they don t. they want people who support regime change wars. that s their redline. that s one thing they will brook no dissent on whatsoever. they don t care what you think about it. they don t want to debate you
it s pretty hard to believe now that was the absolute consensus among democratic party sycophants until 2016. in 2016s of by command from above, the fawning stopped abruptly, replaced by silence and then howls of scorn rage. what happened in 2016? donald trump was elected president. a few days later, displaying the independence of spirit the democrats claim to love in young women but actually despise more than anything, tulsi gabbard decided to talk to the new president about an issue that she cared about which was u.s. policy toward syria a country that again gabbard was alone in pointing out has an awful lot of christians so maybe we should pay attention. she put it i felt it was important to take the opportunity to meet with president-elect. now before the drumbeats of war that neocons up and beating drag us into an escalation of the war to overthrow the syrian government. you can t say that in washington. maybe she didn t know. they told her stopped.
her any time since the cuban the united states. very close. minutes away. from destroying the planet and all life on it through nuclear annihilation and the question i have, tucker and it s a question we ve been asking since this all began in before, if you re going to go to a war, get involved in a war, as the united states undoubtedly is in ukraine, what is the reason to risk tens of billions of dollars and in this case a possible nuclear exchange? are there really people in the united states. eastern ukraine which 99.9% of americans couldn t name because they shouldn t because it doesn t matter to them. the question, is it so vital in pressing to your lives that it s worth the risk of nuclear war in order to fight russia over it? it s worth it to russia.