Liberals here are going to dismiss it because its from the Intercept. When they do just provide them with every other source backing the same stories.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
2020 Presidential Democratic Primary Debates 3&4 |OT| July 30-31, 2019
- Thread starter SweetNicole
- Start date
- Status
Liberals here are going to dismiss it because its from the Intercept. When they do just provide them with every other source backing the same stories.
Why aren't you concerned about Russia's interference? Would you care if we had Russian trolls and bots here or other platforms?
I've gone over, in detail, what separates the message from Russian propaganda and you know it. Yet you continue to act as though we don't agree on this for ???
They're both dangerous to America, it's not multiple choice - which I've said in the past. The two feed each other, but you'd have me ignore one while focusing on the other.
the best way to ensure that tulsi (who Is possibly favoured by russia) doesn't benefit too much from her very much accurate and effective attack on kamala is to repeat the substance of what tulsi was saying about kamala as often as you can without saying it came from tulsi, so as to disassociate this accurate criticism of kamala from tulsi as much as possible
That's just terrible. She protected pedophile priests who abused children. Ugh. How did she even become a viable candidate for president with all this?
Why aren't you concerned about the actual topic at hand that were discussing rather than trying to make it into a conspiracy theory?
No youve yet to address what the difference is between holding up the discussion on the actual topic (IE Harris and her ignominious career) at hand. Youve tried to diminish that criticism by suggesting she also did some good things while plainly ignoring all the bad (and acting like Ive ever said she never did anything good)
No I'd have you focus on the one thats actually under discussion but continues to get distorted to an entirely separate narrative. You can think both are bad, it is indeed not a one or the other type of issue here. But this discussion has been railroaded into something it never actually was about by liberals deflecting the issue into conspiracy laden conjecture and taking up everyone's time discussing it rather than continuing to focus on what the central issue was.
Tulsi is a no one tho and is gone next round of debates. Its such a non issue in its entirety which is why its frustrating watching members here try to use it as a deflection of Harris.
do you have any citation to support the bolded? I don't see how Krasner's record bears any resemblance to Harris' at all.
While I respect the hustle of a cop? I respect all those poor people and black people and other people less fortunate that she helped put away for years on years
I did. Repeatedly. Which you've ignored.
I've made that very clear, ignoring that won't make it any less true. I've supported the criticism level at Kamala, not the source or the distributor exploiting this mess to make sure Trump gets a second term. Acknowledging that Kamala's career isn't being cartoonishly evil as a DA isn't diminishing anything, it's putting her candidacy into proper perspective. I don't see you complaining when others do this with Tulsi, who isn't completely evil either.
The mistake you're making is that we can't have this conversation on multiple things simultaneously relevant to the subject. The reason the Russia aspect is getting more steam is because I agree with you on the other part.
This issue has many elements to it, and you'd have us ignore vital parts that destabilise our democracy. It's a conspiracy theory that RT is posting about this? Google it, this isn't hard to find.
No government should do that. Have you seen the consequences Trump's done with the world?
Feel free to explain how were wrong then.
I'm sure that they do. They also see the consequences of what Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc. have one as well.
Turns out imperialism is bad
You do know liberals hate what the Bushes and Reagan and Trump did, right? Obama and Clinton supporters aren't exactly all happy about that, either.
Imperialism's bad, so why support it? It's not like Trump hasn't been trying to export it like the others. He's just failed to get the match lit. We're lucky he didn't start a war with North Korea over twitter, but he did his best effort. Would people be laughing then had he managed that? How about Venezuela and Iran? Are they laughing about the crisis the immigrants are suffering in the US are going through, too?
Harris used some irrelevant busing point to kick off her claim to presidential fame and lowkey was the reason Tulsi and Kristen tried to do the same thing. Focusing on others instead of themselves. I mean can anyone actually name Tulsi positions in criminal justice? No.
The only difference is that Biden swatted Kristen away for his only good moment in two debates after failing to swipe away at Harris last time . But Harris failed to swipe away Tulsi.
Stop talking about the Russians.
If Harris is a serious candidate, she was going to have to talk about her DA past anyways. It's literally her biggest barrier. And always was.
The only difference is that Biden swatted Kristen away for his only good moment in two debates after failing to swipe away at Harris last time . But Harris failed to swipe away Tulsi.
Stop talking about the Russians.
If Harris is a serious candidate, she was going to have to talk about her DA past anyways. It's literally her biggest barrier. And always was.
I didn't mention anything about liberals.
Who is supporting imperialism?
If I was American I would probably focus more on the influence of fossil fuel companies, banks, pharmaceutical companies and the obscene amount of money in general involved in American elections than hypocritically whine about something America has been doing exponentially more than any other country for almost a century. These are things that had a far greater impact on the 2016 result than some shitty memes on facebook and are much easier to combat, if only there was any will from either side to do so.
Last edited:
Is the idea here that if information or a critique may have come from a foreign/hostile source that people shouldn't discuss the critique or information?
The imaginary leftist that resides in their mind. Always fighting against it.
Can't wait for Tulsi going after Warren's Republican past!
Lol
I keep trying to ask this, especially as it pertains to the republican party, but haven't gotten any answers on it depsite asking literallt 4 or 5 times.
It's propaganda to tweet about something that happened live on CNN?
Well:
- if the information was hacked or otherwise stolen, or
- It's simply untrue.
You of course have to be wary of *which* information is being leaked and why. There is a clear strategy to sow discord
What's amusing to me is that they're denying it's a conspiracy theory when that's what it is by definition.
A conspiracy theory isn't inherently wrong, and they could in fact be right (though I'm more inclined to believe that Tulsi was just being opportunistic like everyone else at the debates, as politicians tend to do, and isn't an actual Russian agent or contractual accomplice) so I'm not sure why they don't just accept what they're doing.
And the attack wasnt untrue or stolen and many of us here AND in the american media have been saying it for months now. So neither is relevant
Last edited:
Okay, you asked for a reply. Then claim it's irrelevant.
Yes, *this* round of attacks are accurate.
But they won't always be, and it's targeted the way it is for a reason.
I asked for a reply as it pertains to this topic and as you just stated the answer provided didnt have anything to do with the topic.
What do you mean by this? Are you seriously saying that "Now that Tulsi (and maybe the Russian government by proxy) is using/signal-boosting an existing critique, we shouldn't talk about it or shouldn't take it seriously, because that would be playing into the Russians' hands"? How does this even play into their hands? I'd understand that if people here were widely congratulating or uplifting Tulsi, or if she was a serious candidate, but that's not the world we live in.
Um that poster is acting like we're all supposed to be accountable to him. What the fuck is wrong with these people lol. Also the complaints about propping up tulsi???Uhhhh hello, the debate was watched by millions of people. So the accusations of signal boosting are downright absurd.
No it isn't, its a terrible practice regardless of who does it or who does or who its being done to.
Lol.
Yes, her defending the Knights of Columbus, an extremist antigay right wing sect, THIS YEAR is really lovely and amazing.
Watching people go to bat for this turd is absolutely grotesque and a slap in the face to all queer people.
No... Who gives a shit about Tulsi? The Russians don't.
The point is that we should care about Russian influence/disinformation campaigns because there will come a time, in the near future, where such mechanisms will be used to spread either completely false information about the Democratic candidate or to signal-boost something negative during the 2020 campaign. Thus we should care about the mechanism through which this information is being spread.
Guys, it's not about Tulsi/Harris. At all. I don't know what more I can say to make that more clear.
I just hate his face. Dude doesn't look like a President.
Yup. Republicans and our own corporate interests are far more scary.
- Status