• 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.

Why isn't the DNC letting Tulsi Gabbard into the upcoming debate?

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
14,102
26,395
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com

Seems like she meets the poll requirements and total donor requirements. DNC is disqualifying this poll, however.

But at least they allowed the white billionaire to join the debates.

 

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
6,148
2,910
670
Canada
She is the only candidate who isn't on script that can attack Warren and not be called sexist. Joe is on the outs over his terrible performance and health concerns. That leaves them with Warren and Bernie since their second choice Kamala has no appeal and was already taken down by Tulsi last time. Tulsi is within margin of error of big polling Harris on non-rigged polls. If she does anything and takes down Warren that leaves them Bernie which is nightmare scenario for the DNC.

The lack of transparency by the DNC should leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth. The polls should mirror the reality of the situation. They should be the polls relevant to where all the candidates are actually campaigning. The original purpose of these early debates was to allow a forum for lesser known candidates and when played straight can actually discover strong candidates that people will actually vote for. Might be something of importance to pay attention to if you want to win an election.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,575
10,981
805
Iirc it was Styx who nailed this. Gabbard proved herself a threat by taking out Harris, and he believes she would target Warren next if given the stage. The DNC can not allow this at any cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepEnigma

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,071
517
1,605
USA
Seems like she meets the poll requirements and total donor requirements.
Wrong.

She doesn't meet the poll requirements, it's in the tweet you posted...

'So this is our 3rd out of 4 required "qualifying polls" needed'

and here:

DNC is disqualifying this poll, however.
Wrong again.

DNC is not disqualifying the poll. They are using the topline number (where Gabbard only polled one percent) as they have done for the other polls. Gabbard is the one changing the rules, DNC is following precedent

fivethirtyeight.com said:
The DNC’s policy is to use a poll’s top-line number, which in this case was the support among all adults, as it appeared first in the survey. This has come up before: In a previous ABC News/Washington Post survey, the DNC likewise used the percentage among adults. The DNC confirmed to FiveThirtyEight on Sunday that the number for all adults (where Gabbard got 1 percent) would be the one that counts this time, too.
There's no mystery here, people...

just more @DunDunDunningKrugerEffect


But at least they allowed the white billionaire to join the debates.

I'm not going to say I want him there, or that he didn't somehow buy his way in, but he does have more qualifying polls than Gabbard.

I'm not sure how one goes about buying poll votes, unless their money is getting directly to the pollsters. If that's the conspiracy theory you're going with, lean into it and have a blast. I have no problem accepting that he simply has marginally more pull than Gabbard, considering Gabbard has no pull. Either way, neither of them will make the final debates

BTW it's super dumb that the DNC is using the same polling threshold for the October debates as they used for September. It's giving us this weirdness where losers who couldn't make September (like Stayer, and possibly Gabbard) can crawl their way into October.
It's funny watching everybody in this thread cry foul on the DNC, when, if anything, the DNC is being too lax.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
14,102
26,395
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Wrong.

She doesn't meet the poll requirements, it's in the tweet you posted...



and here:



Wrong again.

DNC is not disqualifying the poll. They are using the topline number (where Gabbard only polled one percent) as they have done for the other polls. Gabbard is the one changing the rules, DNC is following precedent



There's no mystery here, people...

just more @DunDunDunningKrugerEffect




I'm not going to say I want him there, or that he didn't somehow buy his way in, but he does somehow have more qualifying polls than Gabbard.

I'm not sure how one goes about buying poll votes, unless their money is getting directly to the pollsters. If that's the conspiracy theory you're going with, lean into it and have a blast. I have no problem accepting that he simply has marginally more pull than Gabbard, considering Gabbard has no pull

BTW it's super dumb that the DNC is using the same polling threshold for the October debates as they used for September. It's giving us this weirdness where losers who couldn't make September (like Stayer, and possibly Gabbard) can crawl their way into October.
It's funny watching everybody in this thread cry foul on the DNC, when, if anything, the DNC is being too lax.
Coming out of retirement to spread FUD? I am repeating what Tulsi Gabbard herself has claimed and what several other outlets have claimed. Considering the DNC's own behavior in 2016 and onward, it seems responsible to shine a light on any potential rigging.

But sure, write it off as a rando on a videogame forum. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,071
517
1,605
USA
Coming out of retirement
I've read this forum every day for the past 19 years. When did I retire? Am I obligated to post here every day? I've posted more this year than I have in the past decade, sorry if you can't get enough of me

Who is spreading FUD?
The one who posts links and analysis properly illustrating the topic of this thread?
Or the one who makes shit up in the OP, then ignores any criticism of their dishonesty by accusing others of "spreading FUD"?

DunDunDunningKruger in full Effect


I am repeating what Tulsi Gabbard herself has claimed and what several other outlets have claimed.
yes, you are repeating what others say



congrats?

and of course you look the other way when Tulsi Gabbard and "several other outlets" decide to "spread FUD".
because the FUD suits their needs, and yours...

Yet when I explain that you are wrong,
that having three of four polls does not qualify Tulsi for the debate
that the DNC is treating this poll exactly how it has before, and how it has stated it will treat polls
I'm somehow the one spreading FUD...

Considering the DNC's own behavior in 2016 and onward, it seems responsible to shine a light on any potential rigging.
so because we suspect wrongdoing, we should state wild accusations as facts?
Guilty until proven innocent, but at least you have a jury to affirm the conclusion of the State.

Sounds like you'd love ResetEra, ya'll can dogpile on Justice Kavanaugh together, too :messenger_winking:

regardless of what the DNC did or didn't do in the past, my only point on the matter stands unrefuted:
the DNC is permitting those who missed the September polling threshold to make the October debates via the same threshold. If anything, what the DNC is doing this year is exceedingly permissive

But sure, write it off as a rando on a videogame forum. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
Write it off? You should tell me I'm 'handwaving'. I'm disappointed :messenger_persevering:

Now you're boarding the strawman train, right on schedule. Show me where I wrote you "as a rando on a videogame forum?"
dude, I wrote you off for being wrong, not because of where you are posting

in case it's still unclear, I have accused you of spreading FUD. I have highlighted the exact FUD you spread:

Seems like she meets the poll requirements and total donor requirements.
DNC is disqualifying this poll, however.
and have illustrated why it's FUD.

I gave you the opportunity to defend or correct your positions, and instead you've ignored your own errors while nebulously accusing me of spreading FUD without pointing out where or how I've done so, without affording me the same opportunity I've granted you

But, I guess, I'm guilty until proven innocent, right? Since that's the way you like to operate
 
Last edited:

danielberg

Member
Jun 20, 2018
2,682
3,236
410
She is tied with harris to the margin of error.. so its probably because tulsi is the last candidate with any brain so she doesn't fit into the club.
Course you have the usual defenders of this, probably the same who defended the dnc when they fucked over bernie too oh well at least we get to laugh.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
14,102
26,395
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
What makes a poll “qualifying” in the eyes of the DNC? The answer is conspicuously inscrutable. Months ago, party chieftains issued a list of “approved sponsoring organizations/institutions” for polls that satisfy their criteria for debate admittance. Not appearing on that list is the Boston Globe, which sponsored a Suffolk University poll published Aug. 6 that placed Gabbard at 3%. The DNC had proclaimed that for admittance to the September and October debates, candidates must secure polling results of 2% or more in four separate “approved” polls -- but a poll sponsored by the newspaper with the largest circulation in New Hampshire (the Globe recently surpassed the New Hampshire Union Leader there) does not count, per this cockamamie criteria. There has not been an officially qualifying poll in New Hampshire, Gabbard’s best state, in over a month.
The absurdity mounts. A South Carolina poll published Aug. 14 by the Post and Courier placed Gabbard at 2%. One might have again vainly assumed that the newspaper with the largest circulation in a critical early primary state would be an “approved” sponsor per the dictates of the DNC, but it is not. Curious.

To recap: Gabbard has polled at 2% or more in two polls sponsored by the two largest newspapers in two early primary states, but the DNC -- through its mysteriously incoherent selection process -- has determined that these surveys do not count toward her debate eligibility. Without these exclusions, Gabbard would have already qualified. She has polled at 2% or more in two polls officially deemed “qualifying,” and surpassed the 130,000 donor threshold on Aug. 2. While the latter metric would seem more indicative of “grassroots support” -- a formerly obscure Hawaii congresswoman has managed to secure more than 160,000 individual contributions from all 50 states, according to the latest figures from her campaign -- the DNC has declared that it will prioritize polling over donors. In polls with a sample size of just a few hundred people, this means excluding candidates based on what can literally amount to rounding errors: A poll that places a candidate at 1.4% could be considered non-qualifying, but a poll that places a candidate at 1.5% is considered qualifying. Pinning such massive decisions for the trajectory of a campaign on insignificant fractional differences seems wildly arbitrary.
Take also Gabbard’s performance in polls conducted by YouGov. One such poll published July 21, sponsored by CBS, placed Gabbard at 2% in New Hampshire and therefore counts toward her qualifying total. But Gabbard has polled at 2% or more in five additional YouGov polls -- except those polls are sponsored by The Economist, not CBS. Needless to say, The Economist is not a “sponsoring organization,” per the whims of the DNC. It may be one of the most vaunted news organizations in the world, and YouGov may be a “qualified” polling firm in other contexts, but the DNC has chosen to exclude The Economist’s results for reasons that appear less and less defensible.

And yet...

There's no mystery here, people...
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,071
517
1,605
USA
He only posts to downplay something facially unethical the Democratic establishment is doing.

He literally never has anything else to say.
Obviously not true, with even a cursory glance at my post history. Particularly considering I shill for an outsider candidate who has also been associated with accusations against the DNC

but since DunningKruger can't, feel free to point out how treating the latest Washington Post / ABC News poll the same way the prior Washingtot Post / ABC News poll was treated is unethical? I'm waiting

or are you one of those guilty until proven innocent folks as well?

At his press conference today, President Trump said "guilty until proven innocent" is dangerous for our country.

I'm sorry but, by default, this automatically makes him of sounder mind than just under half the elected officials in D.C.
there it is...
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,071
517
1,605
USA
What makes a poll “qualifying” in the eyes of the DNC? The answer is conspicuously inscrutable. Months ago, party chieftains issued a list of “approved sponsoring organizations/institutions” for polls that satisfy their criteria for debate admittance. Not appearing on that list is the Boston Globe, which sponsored a Suffolk University poll published Aug. 6 that placed Gabbard at 3%. The DNC had proclaimed that for admittance to the September and October debates, candidates must secure polling results of 2% or more in four separate “approved” polls -- but a poll sponsored by the newspaper with the largest circulation in New Hampshire (the Globe recently surpassed the New Hampshire Union Leader there) does not count, per this cockamamie criteria. There has not been an officially qualifying poll in New Hampshire, Gabbard’s best state, in over a month.
The absurdity mounts. A South Carolina poll published Aug. 14 by the Post and Courier placed Gabbard at 2%. One might have again vainly assumed that the newspaper with the largest circulation in a critical early primary state would be an “approved” sponsor per the dictates of the DNC, but it is not. Curious.

To recap: Gabbard has polled at 2% or more in two polls sponsored by the two largest newspapers in two early primary states, but the DNC -- through its mysteriously incoherent selection process -- has determined that these surveys do not count toward her debate eligibility. Without these exclusions, Gabbard would have already qualified. She has polled at 2% or more in two polls officially deemed “qualifying,” and surpassed the 130,000 donor threshold on Aug. 2. While the latter metric would seem more indicative of “grassroots support” -- a formerly obscure Hawaii congresswoman has managed to secure more than 160,000 individual contributions from all 50 states, according to the latest figures from her campaign -- the DNC has declared that it will prioritize polling over donors. In polls with a sample size of just a few hundred people, this means excluding candidates based on what can literally amount to rounding errors: A poll that places a candidate at 1.4% could be considered non-qualifying, but a poll that places a candidate at 1.5% is considered qualifying. Pinning such massive decisions for the trajectory of a campaign on insignificant fractional differences seems wildly arbitrary.
Take also Gabbard’s performance in polls conducted by YouGov. One such poll published July 21, sponsored by CBS, placed Gabbard at 2% in New Hampshire and therefore counts toward her qualifying total. But Gabbard has polled at 2% or more in five additional YouGov polls -- except those polls are sponsored by The Economist, not CBS. Needless to say, The Economist is not a “sponsoring organization,” per the whims of the DNC. It may be one of the most vaunted news organizations in the world, and YouGov may be a “qualified” polling firm in other contexts, but the DNC has chosen to exclude The Economist’s results for reasons that appear less and less defensible.

And yet...


great, so you are actually going to defend your position this time. That's what I was looking for, sorry I had to twist it out of you

But how about actually presenting the information instead of dropping a block of italicized text?

My post was concerning the recent Washington Post / ABC News poll. I have pointed out that it is being treated the same as the prior Washington Post / ABC poll. My point still stands.

If there are other polls that are being disqualified unreasonably, as a Yang supporter, I am interested in the details.
Believe it or not, one of us can be convinced.
But, I'm not interested in propping up FUD to help my preferred candidate. I see that as a losing strategy. So convince me. Which polls should have counted for Tulsi but didn't. I'm not convinced by the one in the OP
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,071
517
1,605
USA
I see the DNC staffer is back to set the record straight.
lol, I wish I could get paid for this (and wonder who does). If this were my job, I'd at least be posting as much as DunDunDunpachi DunDunDunpachi . Heck the first insult thrown at me in this thread was that I don't post enough. I must be missing my quotas...

but, guilty until proven innocent, yet again. I must be a DNC employee

Even though I shill for Yang, and you know that. And the DNC has no love for Yang

I agree that the DNC is pulling strings on some level. And as a Yang fan, I'm open to learning more about their misdeeds.

I just don't see any value in pushing that narrative where it doesn't fit. It only helps the deepest of R's, which is why this thread is full of the deepest of Rs pushing a baseless accusation
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hotspurr

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
6,148
2,910
670
Canada
Obviously not true, with even a cursory glance at my post history. Particularly considering I shill for an outsider candidate who has also been associated with accusations against the DNC

but since DunningKruger can't, feel free to point out how treating the latest Washington Post / ABC News poll the same way the prior Washingtot Post / ABC News poll was treated is unethical? I'm waiting

or are you one of those guilty until proven innocent folks as well?



there it is...
You should have done your usual thing and cut up every sentence of a post because you don't seem to have a good grasp when reading entire quotes. They were clearly agreeing that guilty until proven innocent is dangerous.
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,071
517
1,605
USA
You should have done your usual thing and cut up every sentence of a post because you don't seem to have a good grasp when reading entire quotes. They were clearly agreeing that guilty until proven innocent is dangerous.
He claimed I jumped into this thread to defend unethical behavior on the DNC's behalf
I asked him to prove that the DNC was acting unethically by treating this poll the same as the last one

but since DunningKruger can't, feel free to point out how treating the latest Washington Post / ABC News poll the same way the prior Washington Post / ABC News poll was treated is unethical? I'm waiting
thus, Bolivar687 Bolivar687 is treating the DNC as guilty of poor ethics until proven innocent. He has claimed they did something unethical, but he has no proof (and in fact he has ignored proof that they are acting in good faith). He's convinced that the DNC is acting unethically because he loathes the DNC, not because treating this poll the same as the prior poll is in any way unethical

My reason for quoting Bolivar687 Bolivar687 's opinion on 'guilty until proven innocent' is to show that he applies his beliefs selectively
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
14,102
26,395
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
great, so you are actually going to defend your position this time. That's what I was looking for, sorry I had to twist it out of you

But how about actually presenting the information instead of dropping a block of italicized text?

My post was concerning the recent Washington Post / ABC News poll. I have pointed out that it is being treated the same as the prior Washington Post / ABC poll. My point still stands.

If there are other polls that are being disqualified unreasonably, as a Yang supporter, I am interested in the details.
Believe it or not, one of us can be convinced.
But, I'm not interested in propping up FUD to help my preferred candidate. I see that as a losing strategy. So convince me. Which polls should have counted for Tulsi but didn't. I'm not convinced by the one in the OP
I didn't realize you were expecting to be taken seriously, seeing how you entered the thread with a cute nickname and a dismissal of the story without doing any digging yourself.

You're not worth the time. Go find a Google thread to shill in if you're feeling especially lonely.
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,071
517
1,605
USA
weird, not something I intended to block. I do have my profile blocked
You can't find my old posts via search?

I don't even know what you're trying to say.
see above

I didn't realize you were expecting to be taken seriously, seeing how you entered the thread with a cute nickname and a dismissal of the story without doing any digging yourself.

You're not worth the time. Go find a Google thread to shill in if you're feeling especially lonely.
I did the digging. I'm the only one who did any digging in this thread. I saw that you made two false statements, and I showed that they were false. With sources to back up my accusations.

I didn't realize you were expecting to be taken seriously, seeing as you started this thread with 66% lies and 100% smears (based on lies per sentence).

I don't need your time to point out you're dishonest. I didn't ask you to reply. You chose to
But, once again, I do give you the option of correcting and defending yourself when I make such accusations.
Something you do not reciprocate

I've been here long enough to understand how you work. If you can't win with facts, you attempt to win via exhaustion.

When someone points out you're showing your ass with your misguided one-liner conjectures, you defend yourself with a data dump that completely lacks relevance or analysis or digestion and call it "win".

Then you expect me to spend my time reading it, parsing it, and coming up with a detailed reply. If I come up with such a reply, it doesn't matter how right I am, because I'll just be mocked for taking your argument seriously and actually replying to it in full. I'll be spewing a 'wall of text', or as we've already seen in this thread:
You should have done your usual thing and cut up every sentence of a post
In the end, I'm down an hour, and you're down 5 minutes. Rinse, repeat. So if you want to convince me Tulsi's been done dirty, tell me in your own words, as I have done for you.

So I will re-iterate:

You lied twice in the OP of this thread
If the DNC is doing candidates wrong, as a Yang fan I would like to be convinced
I, however, see no value in pushing that narrative where it doesn't fit. It only helps the deep red, it isn't done to help these candidates
And you won't convince me with mindless article dumps, especially from questionable sources. That's NPC behavior. I'm open to reasoned arguments, which this thread lacks
From where I am standing, leaving the threshold at 2% is actually the DNC being permissive, and will let too many in. That the DNC did not raise the stakes for future debates is a fact, and points to them cutting Tulsi some slack (as nobody else beyond Steyer has a chance of benefiting)
You still lied
 
Last edited:

Cucked SoyBoy

Member
Dec 18, 2018
493
684
280
With Biden physically falling apart before their eyes, the establishment has now fixated on Warren as "the chosen one."

These people are control freaks. They are used to getting their own way, and they don't leave anything to chance. Incidentally, this is why they have gone bugfuck insane with Trump's election. This wasn't supposed to happen. They don't know how to emotionally deal with something not going their way for once in their lives.

Thus, they are going to rig everything to favor Warren and nothing will be allowed to interfere with Warren. As we saw with Trump though, sometimes the voters throw you a curveball that you can't handle....
 

Super Mario

Member
Nov 12, 2016
1,217
1,385
415
While I won't vote anything other than R at the moment, I wouldn't completely loathe the Democrats as much as I do now if she was the face of the party. Unfortunately, that party is about more of the same. Their candidate was already chosen long ago
 

zeorhymer

Gold Member
Nov 9, 2013
1,416
899
615
San Francisco, CA
*Shrug* This is all I know taken from The Hill

The campaign noted that Gabbard has exceeded 2 percent support in 26 national and early state polls but said only two of those are on DNC's “certified” list, even as "many of the uncertified polls, including those conducted by highly reputable organizations such as The Economist and the Boston Globe, are ranked by Real Clear Politics and FiveThirtyEight as more accurate than some DNC 'certified' polls."
I don't know which 26 polls were used by Gabbard's team and I don't even know which 16 polls are being used by the DNC. There's a list on the DNC, but some of the polls are the same, but at different times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bolivar687

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
24,263
24,773
1,075
*Shrug* This is all I know taken from The Hill


I don't know which 26 polls were used by Gabbard's team and I don't even know which 16 polls are being used by the DNC. There's a list on the DNC, but some of the polls are the same, but at different times.
If you can’t find information readily and easily as a voter, it’s by design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Teletraan1

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
1,956
1,782
1,545
Montreal, Quebec
This is a question more Democrats should be asking, but the radicals on the left have branded her as toxic so the moderates won't even bother speaking up. Tulsi's one of the most reasonable candidates out of that large field, the party isn't doing itself any favors by being so selective on the polling criteria.

Tomorrow night's debate on ABC sees the 10 qualifying candidates all on the same stage for the first time, but that might change again in October's debate since Tom Steyer also qualified for it.
 

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
550
693
370
PkunkFury PkunkFury usually when DunDunDunpachi DunDunDunpachi has told you to go read something and that he won't continue the argument it generally means he/she has been thoroughly embarrassed. Thanks for being the voice of reason in this thread. I do like Tulsi but some people have their conspiracy hats a little too tight.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,135
3,955
635
PkunkFury PkunkFury usually when DunDunDunpachi DunDunDunpachi has told you to go read something and that he won't continue the argument it generally means he/she has been thoroughly embarrassed. Thanks for being the voice of reason in this thread. I do like Tulsi but some people have their conspiracy hats a little too tight.
Conspiracy hats too tight? When you read the last chapters, did you miss the parts about pied piper candidates, and timing HRC and Bernie debates for some of the least effective times possible in terms of getting people to watch?
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
4,077
2,256
910
I mean to be fair, they had already disqualified that poll ahead of time, another of the !5 guys had tried to put pressure on them for that, it's just most people didn't know until this moment.

But it wouldn't matter anyway, if she got in they would just treat her like Rand Paul or Ahead of Trump polling Carson and give her no questions.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
14,102
26,395
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
PkunkFury PkunkFury usually when DunDunDunpachi DunDunDunpachi has told you to go read something and that he won't continue the argument it generally means he/she has been thoroughly embarrassed. Thanks for being the voice of reason in this thread. I do like Tulsi but some people have their conspiracy hats a little too tight.
I can speak for myself, but thanks for the poisoning the well fallacy help.

It reinforces my suspicion that I'm jabbing at the right questions.
 

Bolivar687

Member
Jun 13, 2014
4,757
2,285
555
USA
Conspiracy hats too tight? When you read the last chapters, did you miss the parts about pied piper candidates, and timing HRC and Bernie debates for some of the least effective times possible in terms of getting people to watch?
I'm sure he's typing out a response as to why those episodes weren't problematic, either.

I'm just glad the old days are long gone when 75% of posts were

 
  • Like
Reactions: NickFire

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
4,512
5,162
820
I'm sure he's typing out a response as to why those episodes weren't problematic, either.

I'm just glad the old days are long gone when 75% of posts were

Just remember, the DNC and its allied orgs have paid shills working the election on social media.

There were so many sock puppets here back then. Still are a few, by the look of this thread.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
4,077
2,256
910
At the end of the day none of this really matters because she won't get the far left and they can use that to cover for moving the super delegate to the preferred nominee if she did end up climbing the latter.
 

pennythots

Member
May 14, 2019
806
1,213
445
Aren't they basically the same thing? 🤔
Kind of but it stems from the US using Hawaii as a stopping post for trade routes in the 1700s and 1800s so a lot of Chinese and other Asians started to mix in with the native Hawaiians and now you have very few pure natives left.
 

Nymphae

Gold Member
Jun 3, 2013
7,624
6,409
855
Canada
Didn't know where to put this, made me laugh




As the debate began, the opening pans showed at least three of the candidates standing on booster boxes: Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, California Sen. Kamala Harris and Castro.
I get why they do this I suppose but it's still funny to me.
 

kunonabi

Member
Dec 2, 2010
16,815
1,793
795
Turns out my dad who votes Republican is actually a Gabbard fan. He doesnt agree with her on everything but overall he finds her to be the best choice. He's a staunch fox news viewer and hates just about everything the Democrats propose so I was pretty surprised.
 

Texas Pride

Gold Member
Feb 27, 2018
1,210
1,710
580
Texas
How the fuck is Tom Steyer more popular then her? Sounds rigged.

It is and has been rigged for the Democrats. Nothing has really changed since Bernie was shafted for Hillary except they hide it better. These debates and polls are a dog and pony show when they've already settled on who their candidate will be. Biden/Harris vs Trump/Pence is what we'll see.