• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Tulsi Gabbard looking good

DragoonKain

Member
Nov 13, 2013
2,112
1,633
805
If Tulsi was your average woman next door you probably wouldn’t pay a ton of attention, but she isn’t, she has a chance to be President one day. I’m sorry, that changes things. Makes her way hotter. Making the most powerful woman in the world cum is enough of an ego boost for a lifetime.
 

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
Feb 5, 2008
8,567
416
1,100
If Tulsi was your average woman next door you probably wouldn’t pay a ton of attention, but she isn’t, she has a chance to be President one day. I’m sorry, that changes things. Makes her way hotter. Making the most powerful woman in the world cum is enough of an ego boost for a lifetime.
Let's not show you any pictures of Merkel.
 

King of Foxes

Member
Jan 9, 2018
1,310
2,086
600
Latvia
I think AOC would be amazing in bed, slapping, hair pulling etc

This lady looks like she would be against the idea of sticking her finger in my butt while we made love.
 

Hissing Sid

Member
Feb 19, 2015
707
945
430
She scrubs up well but then most do don’t they?

I wouldn’t kick her out of bed but she’s got a bit of a wide mandible thing going on. I like my ladies a little more Elfin.

Wide mandibled women make first dates a bit awkward in my experience. You're still checking out the menu and they be all like....


 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Dirk Benedict

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,068
3,292
720
Her 29 year old husband
Is neither first, and likely not last of her husband's.
But anyhow, shrug, no hate, no love.

Curious why Russia Today was so keen promoting her. Perhaps just to piss dems off.

If Tulsi was your average woman next door you probably wouldn’t pay a ton of attention, but she isn’t, she has a chance to be President one day. I’m sorry, that changes things. Makes her way hotter. Making the most powerful woman in the world cum is enough of an ego boost for a lifetime.
For lesbians perhaps?
 
Last edited:

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
1,044
591
560
I've listened to her Rogan appearances, and I think she has that aura of a person who is authentic, dedicated, accomplished, and yet chill. Along with Yang (who shares some of the same qualities) she's one of the Democrats I'd support with some enthusiasm.

And, yes, she's quite good-looking.
 

CausticVenom

Member
Apr 27, 2018
993
536
350
She doesn't want to transfer the means of production to the working class, so no, not a socialist.

And this country definitely needs somone who will actually take a stand against the military industrial complex.
Libertarians are more up your alley.

I have a hard time believing that about her. Socialism and communism are one in the same so forgive me, but I believe she wants the state to gain complete control. Every DP presidential candidate are either socialist or borderline socialist.
 

Mahadev

Member
Mar 5, 2007
1,641
1,084
1,190
Libertarians are more up your alley.

I have a hard time believing that about her. Socialism and communism are one in the same so forgive me, but I believe she wants the state to gain complete control. Every DP presidential candidate are either socialist or borderline socialist.

I don't think you understand what socialism means, socialism isn't about the state taking complete control, that's called Stalinism. There are a lot of socialists like me that support a decentralized government.

This is like me saying that capitalism means dictatorship because there have been a lot of capitalist dictators.
 
Last edited:

CausticVenom

Member
Apr 27, 2018
993
536
350
I don't think you understand what socialism means, socialism isn't about the state taking complete control, that's called Stalinism. There are a lot of socialists like me that support a decentralized government.

This is like me saying that capitalism means dictatorship because there have been a lot of capitalist dictators.
I've seen this argument countless times. I know what socialism means, and it's the most flawed economic ideologue known to me. Next you'll say that socialism has never been implemented, or that fascism is exclusively capitalist. You can't have a socialist or communist government without a, well, centralized government. "Workers seizing the means of production" is such a red herring.

Oh the irony. Many if not most dictatorships were done under socialist regimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vardamir

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,068
3,292
720
You guys need to search for "Croatian President Boobs", seriously.
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
1,956
1,782
1,545
Montreal, Quebec
I've listened to her Rogan appearances, and I think she has that aura of a person who is authentic, dedicated, accomplished, and yet chill. Along with Yang (who shares some of the same qualities) she's one of the Democrats I'd support with some enthusiasm.

And, yes, she's quite good-looking.
I think Tulsi's pulling off a great smokescreen regarding her authenticity. When she's speaking about herself - her past, what she likes to do in her off time, etc - she does indeed come across as being very authentic and relatable, unlike other candidates such as Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. When she starts speaking about policy, though, that girl next door veneer melts away for me and I see a sly, double-speaking politician playing her audience like a fiddle. Her physical appearance definitely helps her achieve this and she seems to have a very good media team that takes advantage of it with well edited videos.
 

Mahadev

Member
Mar 5, 2007
1,641
1,084
1,190
I've seen this argument countless times. I know what socialism means, and it's the most flawed economic ideologue known to me. Next you'll say that socialism has never been implemented, or that fascism is exclusively capitalist. You can't have a socialist or communist government without a, well, centralized government. "Workers seizing the means of production" is such a red herring.

Oh the irony. Many if not most dictatorships were done under socialist regimes.

It has been implemented but it was quickly crushed by capitalists. You see, the reason why the only long running socialist governments that have existed were authoritarian is because every time someone threatens the interests of the rich they try to destroy all opposition by any means necessary, any means, and that includes sabotage, propaganda, bribery, violence and war crimes. That severely limits the number of people who can defeat capitalists to a bunch of violent douchebags that will have to be just as violent, authoritarian and dangerous as capitalists that only show their true colors when their interests are in danger.

So the question becomes now how will socialism be implemented without the help of the aforementioned douchebags? Well, it cant until capitalism starts collapsing and becomes weak enough so that the rich don't have the influence and resources to crush any opposition. Thankfully, their greed and capitalism's unsustainable growth model are doing a great job at accelerating that collapse. Unfortunately though that growth has also destroyed the planet so whatever comes after the collapse will have to be a manager of extinction level events. So yeah, good luck with that.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Jonirenicus

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
1,989
2,556
410
I've seen this argument countless times. I know what socialism means, and it's the most flawed economic ideologue known to me. Next you'll say that socialism has never been implemented, or that fascism is exclusively capitalist. You can't have a socialist or communist government without a, well, centralized government. "Workers seizing the means of production" is such a red herring.

Oh the irony. Many if not most dictatorships were done under socialist regimes.
I distill it down to a more base 2 part question:

First, is the government competently handling everything/anything it runs currently?
Second, can the case be made for the government running even more than it does?

For me, both of those questions are resounding NO's. The government fucks most everything it touches. If it were an employee up for review, it would be fired immediately. We can debate the ism's until the cows come home but the fundamental question for the next election is whether or not you want more government in your life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vardamir

ender1986

Member
Nov 27, 2013
78
2
370
Dallas, TX
First, is the government competently handling everything/anything it runs currently?
Ugh. Transportation networks, public health, communications, national defense... the examples exist, it's just cool to say "the government does everything wrong." Government does a lot of things wrong, but EVERYTHING?

Related - have you actually used USPS lately? It's ultimately a better experience than FedEx or UPS IMO.
 

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
1,989
2,556
410
Ugh. Transportation networks, public health, communications, national defense... the examples exist, it's just cool to say "the government does everything wrong." Government does a lot of things wrong, but EVERYTHING?

Related - have you actually used USPS lately? It's ultimately a better experience than FedEx or UPS IMO.
You'll have to clarify what you're talking about instead of using generalizations For example, our infrastructure is antiquated, everyone knows that. Bridges and roadways are in terrible shape. Go to some of these other countries; they're building high speed rail and bullet trains and all kinds of shit. Our communications suck too; I've heard our internet is far worse than other countries (which it is, I checked -- we rank 31st in the world with regard to internet speeds). We're fighting off diseases like Typhus and Bubonic Plague that had long been thought eradicated again. I will give them the military, but even that has its issues.

As for USPS, you know UPS and USPS have a partnership now called SurePost? Also, the USPS posted a 3.9 billion dollar loss for 2018. Part of why I said competently meant whether or not the government was running its entities in a fashion that would hold water in the private sector. UPS, likewise, posted a 4.8 billion dollar profit.
 
Last edited:

ender1986

Member
Nov 27, 2013
78
2
370
Dallas, TX
You'll have to clarify what you're talking about instead of using generalizations For example, our infrastructure is antiquated, everyone knows that. Bridges and roadways are in terrible shape. Go to some of these other countries; they're building high speed rail and bullet trains and all kinds of shit. Our communications suck too; I've heard our internet is far worse than other countries (which it is, I checked -- we rank 31st in the world with regard to internet speeds). We're fighting off diseases like Typhus and Bubonic Plague that had long been thought eradicated again. I will give them the military, but even that has its issues.

As for USPS, you know UPS and USPS have a partnership now called SurePost? Also, the USPS posted a 3.9 billion dollar loss for 2018. Part of why I said competently meant whether or not the government was running its entities in a fashion that would hold water in the private sector. UPS, likewise, posted a 4.8 billion dollar profit.
I'm not an expert, but as I understood it, the fears of America's "crumbling infrastructure" are largely sensationalized. Problems? Sure, but given the herculean task of building and maintaining state and federal highways, bridges, side roads, etc - anecdotally speaking here I've seen worse in other countries. Anyone who tries to tell you different is selling something (or trying to score a humongous contract with someone who they're buddy-buddy with or historically is terrible at negotiating that contract... not that they HAVE to be).

If our network infrastructure sucks now, it's not because of government - it's because of ISPs, who have now long had the power to decide who gets what in terms of network infrastructure.

Fighting off diseases is a gross understatement of what all entails public health. CDC research, funding pharmaceutical work, water treatment, sanitation, etc. This is not all a result of private enterprise, nor should it be - not exactly raking in the dough there.

The USPS is in a tough position honestly. As one of the few entities mandated by the Constitution, they're required to provide a base-level way for communication. You ever try mailing a letter to your buddy across the country via FedEx or UPS? Of course not, because it's expensive AF. However smaller and smaller that need gets, it's still there, the USPS needs to exist to fulfill that need.
 
Aug 22, 2018
392
432
360
You ever try mailing a letter to your buddy across the country via FedEx or UPS? Of course not, because it's expensive AF.
Had to ship a package back internationally a month ago. Fucker would have cost, at minimum, 25% the value of the product to send it back via UPS. USPS was there for me, able to ship it at a snails pace for just 10%(though it was a flat rate so I couldn't find cheaper).
 

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,622
1,237
1,205
Taylorsville, Ky!
I disagree with her about 99% of shit, but I do respect anyone who stands up to the internationalist war monger crowd.

And yeah, she's cute.
 
Last edited: