The smart ones that recognize there is no gain here for Bernie. Glad to see there are some. Bernie is still my number two, but come on man. All he did was just go to bat for a horrible person that fits more at home on Fox News than the Democratic party.
-
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.
tulsi gabbard responds to hillary clinton (NYT corrects reporting, Clinton said Republicans and not Russians are grooming her for a 3rd party run)
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
You wouldn't know it from her dumb fucking sound bites, but Tulsi's platform is actually a carbon copy of Bernie's. The only person running on an even more leftist platform is Marianne but she already got smeared to utter irrelavance.
Jesus, let's not forget how much of this wasn't cyber attacks. Manafort handed over Trump campaign data and Cambridge Analytica leveraged it very effectively. Illegal, but not about cyber security.
After reading this thread on and off, and being amazed that it's still going... yeah that sounds pretty accurate.
User warned: trolling
That Tulsi is a Russian asset was obvious since when she attacked queen Harris
i understand it fine. its him being a loyal nice-guy even when its fucking useless for him politically. political boldness is cool when you're a socialist during the cold war but is lame when youre aiming for +2 respect points from libertarian-curious neckbeards who werent gonna vote for you anyway
If you like Bernie for his policy ideas I don't understand how you could support Tulsi who seems completely opposite of him.
Dear God thinking about, my jaw will drop if Bernie ends up choosing Tulsi as his Vice President!
Last edited:
Terrible. Tulsi doesn't deserve or need to be defended. Should have stayed out of this fight between 2 awful people.
Yup. Writing off people's concerns about the coordinated attacks as "Russia crazed" is basically gaslighting at this point.
Fortunately he won't get that far.
Let's not forget there were Bernie or Trump supporters in 2016. They may have been a small group, but these people exist.
okay ill bite. i said why i dont think he should do this but lets speak to the actual substance of the comment. it was beyond dumb as fuck for hillary to say she was an asset with literally no evidence. if there was any cooperation between the kremlin and gabbard she should be in jail. this isnt something to take lightly
If you read the thread you'd know that cooperation isn't necessary to meet the intelligence definition of an asset.
How are people still arguing this when the difference between asset and agent has been made repeatedly? Hillary never claimed that Gabbard was on Russia's payroll or that she was even communicating with them directly. She's just saying that Gabbard's goals are in line with Russia's in many ways and that her actions are propped up by Russia whether she welcomes it or not. Gabbard has also refused to denounce the demonstrable litany of Russian support.
Is the claim that she is a useful idiot for russian interests
or are you saying there is collusion between them?
you get that only the second thing is wrong on gabbard's part right?
really showing my true colors in valuing evidence
She is a useful idiot is the claim, all the way down. And saying that's fine is kinda like saying Trump's coziness with Russia is fine. Or the fact that both candidates were endorsed by David Duke is fine. They didn't ask to be endorsed by David Duke. David Duke just finds them good for his world view.
so outside of her politics, would you be comfortable in saying tulsi gabbard did nothing wrong?
Outside of her doing tons of things wrong, I guess she didn't do anything wrong.
Would you be comfortable saying that Steve Bannon has done nothing wrong?
Imagine thinking this as our current President seems to have made it his personal mission to make Russia as happy as possible. Russia is just Democrat imagination run wild! Election interference is fake news too.
It's almost as if some posters have more in common with Tulsi than they think, and maybe Clinton wasn't wrong about useful Russian assets.
In his politics? yeah he's done a lot wrong.
honestly, this is just a weird gaslightly discussion because we all know that half of the tulsi gabbard discussion happening now involves the direct assertion that she has duel allegiances. you all know this is being said.
going to war with iran to make daddy vladimir happy
Are you asking if I think she coordinates or something?
What she's done wrong is not disavow support, gone on Fox to spin nonsense about the DNC, and traveled to meet with a murderous dictator or two. None of those are political positions per se, they're all bad actions.
"i don't know anything about politics, my entire political theory is defined by my hate of hillary clinton and thus i will always, without fail, profess vocal support of anyone who opposes anything even tangentially related to her or what she says and i will contort myself to deny reality to keep my singular ideal safe from harm" - - Too many people who aren't being honest about themselves
Not by the majority, and that's not what Clinton said either. The gaslighting is saying otherwise.
I don't understand why all the talk of foreign interference is about russia. Why don't we ever mention saudi arabia or israel?
i think thats fair tbh. as long as the claim isn't that she is an agent, which again, you know many people are saying, then i dont see why id disagree with you
It's how she's acting that raises the question. Why signal boost Kremlin talking points? What's her worldview that leads her to do that?
I don't think she's doing anything illegal. I do think that she does a lot of things that line up with Russian goals. Why'd she back Bernie?
Uh huh. The blind eye to what Russia is doing in our politics right now is the problem Clinton was calling out, that and how certain people are fine not just ignoring it but bolstering what Russia wants. Trump, Tulsi.
I mean you're not even trying to post in good faith by claiming what really Clinton meant is that Tulsi is working directly with Russia and everybody here knows it, when, I think literally nobody has said that but you.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are blatant with their influence on American politics and many people consistently call out politicians when they give in to those countries. They aren't covertly propping up politicians and talking points to sow division like Russia is.
I'm game, but I don't think those are Tulsi's jam.
I don't know how much Saudi Arabia interferes with elections, but they certainly mess with our foreign policy. And Israel basically has most of want they want from us doing all the influencing out in the open. Though they haven't gotten us to attack Iran yet.
we gonna pretend people have not literally been calling her a 'puppet' of the kremlin? is an asset a puppet?
come on man you know the answer to these questions. you know there's a ton of overlap between leftist anti-imperialism rhetoric and the interests of the russian government. us withdrawing troops, whether you want us to do that or not, would be in the interests of the russian government. thats why tons of lefties will go on RT to say what they're not allowed to say otherwise. Tulsi is a liar and isnt really anti-intervention but her talking points against interventionism are coming from a specific tradition that has nothing to do with putin
my goal is to make sure this conversation isnt just some neo-McCarthyism run amok. a lot of people are saying tulsi gabbard is an agent and its frustrating that people have to retreat to pretending thats not a big part of whats being said.
Last edited:
People talk about SA a lot. Pointing out the obvious about Israel is a bit more fraught.
What's your end goal here? Is it just deflecting Tulsi criticism with semantics, demonizing Clinton for her statement, or just wanting to believe that Bernie had to be right to tweet that?
What exactly is this war with Iran thats supposedly happening now?
Because we dont have that. Instead we have Trump pulling troops from Kurdish controlled Northern Syria in order to allow Turkey to attack them, forcing the Kurds to go to Russia and Syria for protection and allowing Assad's russian vassal state to reclaim the territory.
do you think russia wanted us to tear apart the iran deal? are you so fucking partisan you're gonna pretend we arent destroying the Iranian economy and threatening war with them at every turn?
jesus fucking christ the democrats suck so hard dude
hahaah okay bro thats some killer spin. they love seeing their ally's economy collapse too i bet. i cant wait to hear the new spin when the dude bombs them when he doesnt have to worry about reelection
"no thats stupid"
Last edited:
Yes a specific tradition of "lefties" carrying water for authoritarian fascists.
I thinl they want the US and Iran on bad terms, yes. Tearing up the deal pushes Iran towards reliance on Russia and away from becoming an independent actor.
Second dumbest comment typed in this topic. Congratulations, you said something ever so slightly less idiotic than the dude who says you should take David Duke's endorsement if you can get it.
- Status