You're completing ignoring Russia and Tulsi's parts in all this, which is what I had an issue with - not attacking Kamala. Which was something I agree with. Can you attack Kamala legitimately without relying on sources that support Russia and don't subvert democracy? This was never attacking Kamala for her flaws.
After all this your biggest beef is with Democrats, not the party who was supported by Russia and are putting kids in concentrations camps as we speak? Yes, it would. However, the choice is not simply between a pacifist and a war monger in the Democratic party. That is, unless Tulsi wins the nomination.
We're supposed to be fighting fascists, not letting them get elected. "Accessories," really? The Democrats were victims of the subversions of democracy in '16. Why are you completely ignoring the GOP in this equation, as though Russia's running the Democrats and not the opposite.
This is trending on RT, Russia's propaganda network.
Nope, that wasn't the argument. How did you get that conclusion? I've been very blatant with where I stand in all this. It's disingenuous to warp my argument into the complete opposite of wha I was saying.
Read what I actually wrote, rather than posting dishonest framing to look like this is a conspiracy theory. I've been very, very clear about all this, with my agreeing with Tulsi's attack on Kamala.
Your post does make me wonder: where's the concern about Tulsi's attack being signal boosted by Russia? Are you ok with that? It seems beneath you're notice. And why are you defending Tulsi so casually? Not that her complaint wasn't legitimate, you don't seem concerned about her history or why she's a controversial candidate in this primary.