They're talking about members having possible ties to foreign governments when a leading candidate's son was actually caught doing the exact same thing
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Hillary Clinton thinks Russia is grooming a current Democratic primary candidate to become a third-party candidate.
- Thread starter GrapeApes
- Start date
- Status
You really think Russian bots (most of whom are obvious and shitty) had more of an effect on Hillary's popularity than years of domestic right-wing smearing? That's dumb.
And one thing Russia did was pushing on the Hillary/Bernie division (through coordinated social media campaigns, pretending to be legitimate U.S. political discourse) after the primary was over and after Bernie already endorsed her. Not something he or his campaign had anything to do with; Russia targeted divisions among potential Democratic voters and tried to depress turnout. And they'll do it again, regardless of who wins the nomination.
That kid isn't a politician nor held any public trust. Heck, I have foreign ties via marriage and work, that doesn't mean a dang thing.
And he wasn't 'caught' as he never attempted to hide it. It also wasn't any sort of crime to take the job.
Idiot: "The Earth is flat"
Person A: "Wow, you're an idiot"
Idiot: "Hah! Where's the counter argument!??"
yeah because that's what I said
No one on Hillary's "side" here has ever suggested it was one singular thing that brought her numbers down or cost her the election, that's the people who won't stop fucking whining that she was too good to campaign in Wisconsin
You know, it's possible to think Hillary is extremely flawed yet also correct on Gabbard. There's no monolithic thinking required around her or any politician.
Are people actually denying that a bunch of her online support is being pushed by Russian trolls? Or that she's buddy buddy with a Russian-supported dictator in basically complete defiance of her party?
There's enough of a thread there that is widely supported and acknowledged. She is knowingly accepting support in bad faith by bad actors for financial gain and fame, and in spite for a political party that she is only a part of because her district is too Blue for her to win otherwise.
There's enough of a thread there that is widely supported and acknowledged. She is knowingly accepting support in bad faith by bad actors for financial gain and fame, and in spite for a political party that she is only a part of because her district is too Blue for her to win otherwise.
Right... like the Russians really didn't actively try to influence the 2016 election in favor of Trump. Hilary is only stating the obvious at this point, how they will influence the 2020 election again by influencing voters by propaganda just enough so their good ol' boy agent orange wins another electoral college.
No you're either right on everything on wrong on everything, it is known. Nuance is dead.
That sounds like some concerning news, for sure. Unfortunately I have no idea who she could be talking about, even after extensively reading every post on this thread.
I guess it will be forever a mystery, but I just hope one day future historians will figure out who she was talking about.
I guess it will be forever a mystery, but I just hope one day future historians will figure out who she was talking about.
ITT: They haven't.
Hillary was right about Trump in so many ways dirtbag leftists are unwilling to admit.
She's right here too. Tulsi and Jill are both pawns. Willingly or unwillingly. Both don't deserve a platform.
The Russia interference is not why she lost the election. I've yet to see any evidence it meaningfully affected her popularity/poll numbers/etc. Your post suggested that the shoddy Russian interference tactics have a direct link to her middling popularity, and there is really very little evidence to suggest that.
Of course that's possible, but the post I was quoting and my response to it were specifically talking about one individual poster's need to run defense for everything she says.
What is Clinton basing this on? She isn't involved with the State Department or any intelligence agencies, in an official capacity, any longer. She doesn't get intelligence briefings. So this is just vacuous accusation and speculation to attack politicians that she doesn't like. In fact, we've seen so far third-party attacks and Dem primary threats from centrist billionaires. I don't hear her raising a fuss about that?
At some point Hillary Clinton should accept responsibility for her disastrous 2016 campaign, which gave us the current Trumpian nightmare. Should, but won't. Can't. And so I'll say that there are terrible people in politics, but the Clintons really stand out even in that crowd. The Clintons have no redeeming qualities. I said it right after the 2016 election, and this has been proven time and time again since- Bill and Hillary (and Chelsea) should withdraw from public life altogether. They have nothing to add, and any publicity for them is a major negative for Democrats in general.
Thanks for Trump and for Third Way Democratic politics. Shut up and go away Hillary, and take your husband and daughter with you.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/low-angle-view-scarecrow-against-cloudy-sky-562838541-5aaf18adfa6bcc00360a609c.jpg)
I didn't even say Russian interference is why she lost the election, I just said it happened (which is also what Hillary said). You're the one who keeps inventing that first argument.
But sure, let's go there. FiveThirtyEight weighed in on the matter and said it's literally inconclusive:
Gee it's almost like in a close election there were a number of things that, had they gone differently, would have swung the result and going "nope, it's entirely on her for being a bad candidate, case closed, rigged" is dumb and shallow analysis.
A sitting US congresswoman and major in the reserve is a Russian asset. Suuuuuuure. Give me a break.
Hillary and all of her former staffers and acolytes need to leave politics forever. She is literally helping Donald Trump with this conspiratorial garbage.
Hillary and all of her former staffers and acolytes need to leave politics forever. She is literally helping Donald Trump with this conspiratorial garbage.
Biden's son was "caught " doing the normal "soft nepotism " every single significant politician's family does- which btw should be a crime or at least a specifically identified conflict - as should congress insider trading and all sorts of other shit that goes on - but in this case it's worth presenting the accusation vs the facts - and remembering that this snowballed from this previously debunked accusation:
Original accusation: Hunter Biden got billions of dollars for his hedge fund by accompanying his father on an official Chinese visit.
actual events: Hunter Biden filed the paperwork for Chinese funding long before the visit. Then attended a private party to meet his potential client during the Biden state trip (which he did not attend other than to tag along). The paperwork cleared shortly after- but well within the average time frame that paperwork normally takes - then no money actually changed hands until some time after Biden left office and it wasn't billions of dollars it was less than ten million- the seed of which was Hunter Biden's own investment- per how these things normally occur.
I think it's absolutely directly related to who his father was- but the conspiracy version is false on every major element- from legality to timing to the amount of money involved.
Roughly the same thing is happening with the Ukrainian energy company accusation only the numbers and unseemliness are even smaller.
I think Biden and his son are classic examples of soft corruption and aura effect nepotism but that's not what's being alleged.
not even going to bother with the hypocrisy from the Trump family.
Because Bill Clinton is a credibly-accused rapist (and perhaps worse, a pedophile) in the age of #metoo and Hillary Clinton damages the Democratic Party whenever she is in the media cycle, which is why right-wing media keeps her name out there.
regardless of anything that happened in the past
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE, LET ALONE THE PROOF that Tulsi is being "groomed by the Russians to be a third-party candidate"
y'all will believe anything
Schrödinger's Tulsi: polling at 1% but also Trump's greatest asset
Hillary didn't mention anyone by name, you're the one suggesting it is Tulsi according to your post. I'm only stating that the Russians will interfere with the 2020 election to promote the candidate that will be most beneficial to them, which is Trump.
They can both do whatever they want. If it hurts the party, that's on the party.
Fuck Bill for all of that, but this idea that we need to shame Hillary out of existence in a world where McCain and Romney got to remain in politics is bullshit. Nevermind the rest of the GOP asswipes.
And Chelsea, that's just plain a you problem. At best
You're not even gonna say anything about those huh. You're that much of a bitch I guess. Back to gaf mate.
How is it a strawman? These are your words:
I didn't even say Russian interference is why she lost the election, I just said it happened. You're the one who keeps inventing that first argument.
But sure, let's go there. FiveThirtyEight weighed in on the matter and said it's literally inconclusive:
Gee it's almost like in a close election there were a number of things that, had they gone differently, would have swung the result and going "nope, it's entirely on her for being a bad candidate, case closed, rigged" is dumb and shallow analysis.
"Even so, Clinton's favorability ratings were barely underwater in June 2015, when she first announced her run for president and when Russian troll farms started attacking her on social media. Within months she settled into the 40-55 trend she was at for most of the election. Are you sure that isn't a coincidence?"
You are making a direct connection between Russian troll farms attacking her and her favorability ratings. I disagree with you that they had a meaningful impact on her favorability, you think they did, but you are admitting it's impossible to say. My main point was that there isn't enough evidence to draw that conclusion...which you agree with. You still contend that it had a measurable effect, I disagree. It's that simple.
haha Jesus dude.
I can't believe you're making me defend Tulsi
Neither of these two stories have anything to do with the topic at hand, unless you're that special brand of #resist that thinks Eric Garland is a genius
You're going to have to give me sources and explain what that fucking means dude. I legit want to see why everyone hates her.
Does that mean she's a devote christian or that she's actually in a cult?
Off topic a bit, but I do think that one is a tad more interesting. She was raised in not just a conservative home, but one led by a man who was EXTREMELY anti-gay. The fact that she came out the other side in a far more correct mindset, in her 20s, is commendable to me. A lot of people don't break away from that level of hate. And hell, a lot of progressive politicians certainly didn't shift their views until far later in life. Well, most of them shifted the moment the polls told them they should. I think people forget just how recently both Clinton and Obama spoke in favor of gay marriage.
You're views on politics are far from being concrete enough for you to make such a reference
She is cozy with Assad/Modi, said really nasty stuff about LGBTQ+ (which she has disavowed, not entirely convincingly), and is on the "DnC rIgGeD tHe PrMaRy" nonsense.
Her policy positions are otherwise largely bog-standard left-leaning Democrat
Kerry got to remain in politics too, but neither he, nor McCain, nor Romney had her baggage or unfavorables. If she cares about the future of the country she'd find a bomb shelter and set up full-time residence there. Any time she opens her mouth she does damage. See: her going full TERF sympathizer this week. Or comparing staying with Bill to parenting a transgender child.
As far as Chelsea, she's just another neoliberal ghoul and a pure product of nepotism. When we have bright young stars coming in the party, why would we want to give her a platform?
And this was what you responded with:
which is not something I ever said. You have spent this back-and-forth doing nothing other than misrepresenting my point, which was that the Russian misinformation campaign coincides perfectly with Hillary's dip in favorables. Perhaps "coincidence" was the wrong word.
Kerry's approval ratings were just as bad as Clinton's were after he lost the election (mid-30s), people soured on him almost immediately. He still got to be Secretary of State.
McCain also had terrible approval ratings post-election, as did Romney. This happens to literally everyone who comes for the title and misses.
Also what makes you say Chelsea is "just another neoliberal ghoul"? Any statements or policies of hers you want to point out that suggests this? Or is her last name that much of a liability for you?
Not really though? I mean she's set herself apart pretty successfully from the rest of the field.
Here's a good article about her base
https://thebaffler.com/latest/inside-the-tulsi-hive-malmgren
Right, because right-wing smearing and the email scandal are way more obvious sources of her favorability going down than shoddy Russian bot networks. Things which you didn't even mention in your post, in favor of suggesting Russian interference was the cause.
I didn't mention them because we were talking about the Russian misinformation campaign and specifically their attempts to boost Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard, which people are pretending never happened!
Eh...you don't need to prop up Tulsi, she's a shit candidate.
- Status