Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:50 am
Hillary Clinton thinks that Russia is going to back Tulsi Gabbard as a 3rd party candidate. Which, in this timeline, doesn't surprise me, but in a better timeline would make me go "WTF? Fucking majors, man."
I agree with this take:
Gabbard is by no means my favorite but baselessly accusing political opponents of being Russian agents is pretty despicable.
I don't think it's really a stretch to think Gabbard might be a Russian asset, given her weird stances on Assad and Syria and the fact she seems to do Putin's bidding there. And Hillary Clinton is a private citizen and doesn't owe anyone anything least of all the people who have been shitting on her for decades.
So it's OK to speculate on someone like Devin Nunes being a Russian asset, but when Hillary says it about Gabbard all of the sudden we need to see the receipts? Double standard, much?
Also, it's hilarious to see progressives defending Gabbard when she's at best a Russian shill if not a downright Russian asset.
There's a pretty good chance she's going to lose her House primary next spring because her constituents in Hawaii are sick of her shit and there's a credible candidate running against her. Wouldn't be surprised to see her switch parties, especially if Trump is defeated in 2020 and Gabbard emerges as a centrist GOP candidate for governor in Hawaii in 2022 (where the Dem governor is very unpopular, especially with Native Hawaiians thanks to the TMT project on Mauna Kea).
brian wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 12:14 pm
I don't think it's really a stretch to think Gabbard might be a Russian asset, given her weird stances on Assad and Syria and the fact she seems to do Putin's bidding there. And Hillary Clinton is a private citizen and doesn't owe anyone anything least of all the people who have been shitting on her for decades.
Gabbard’s stance on Syria was that she opposed arming the same extremist Sunni rebels that are currently rampaging in Nothern Syria and carrying out atrocities against the Kurds. But beyond that, the idea that dissenting from US foreign policy consensus makes one suspicious for being a foreign asset is an outrageously dangerous view. Russia opposed the 2003 Iraq invasion but that doesn’t mean Obama, Pelosi and Bernie Sanders were “Russian assets” or Saddam sympathizers because they dissented from the Democratic mainstream and opposed that war.
Devin Nunes has proven again and again with actions that he's got ulterior motives with Trump and Russia.
Gabbard just seems like she talks a buncha bullshit but has no real authority to do anything.
Unless I'm seriously, seriously missing something she's just a prick with a bad opinion. And I'm not defending her in the least. She needs to go away (along with 7 other Democrats) ASAP.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
I'm perplexed as to why anyone would go to such lengths to defend anyone who has cozied up to a butcher like Assad, any more than I would anyone like Trump who has cozied up to authoritarians like Erdogan and Putin, but you do you (JoeK).
brian wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 12:28 pm
I'm perplexed as to why anyone would go to such lengths to defend anyone who has cozied up to a butcher like Assad, any more than I would anyone like Trump who has cozied up to authoritarians like Erdogan and Putin, but you do you (JoeK).
And I’m perplexed, after what happened in Iraq and Libya, as to why anyone would think that a Congresswoman must be a Russia agent to oppose regime change actions in the Middle East, even when the leader in charge is a brutal dictator.
Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 12:53 pm
Anyone running as a third party candidate IN THIS ELECTION* is an anti-American piece of shit.
* - Because people sometimes like to get fired up about strawmen -- It's not anti-American under normal, non-Trump times.
What if it is a reasonable Conservative or Centrist Republican, running with the hope of siphoning off votes from Trump from Republicans who don't like Trump, but can't vote for a Liberal or Democrat
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 12:53 pm
Anyone running as a third party candidate IN THIS ELECTION* is an anti-American piece of shit.
* - Because people sometimes like to get fired up about strawmen -- It's not anti-American under normal, non-Trump times.
Yeah, Justin Amash might well be running as a Libertarian to syphon votes from Trump. I don't want to get into a purity test with third-party candidates, but I think it's reasonable to question their motives and wonder about where their backing is coming from. There is a LOT of evidence that Stein was being backed by the Russians in 2016. Certainly, their online troll farms were working overtime for her with the goal of weakening Clinton at a minimum. That's been proven. She's been cozy enough with Putin it's also reasonable to wonder if there was any financial assistance from Russians as well.
I'd like to posit that a secondary or tertiary intent of the right's nonstop lying is to create the opposite reaction from the left; where things that seem too crazy to be accurate must therefore be deemed false. An over-reliance on proven facts at the cost of reasonable assumptions and connecting dots.
Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:13 pmOh shit, you just reminded me about toilet paper.
I think it’s just as emblematic of the tendency of the pro-Bernie progressive left to criticize literally anything Hillary Clinton does because...well, reasons.
And we've barely scratched the surface on Guiliani's buddies that were funneling money into GOP and NRA coffers in 2016. I would love a thorough scrubbing of Stein's fundraising, but the Feds are barely able to keep up with the straight Trump corruption stuff.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
brian wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:05 pm
I think it’s just as emblematic of the tendency of the pro-Bernie progressive left to criticize literally anything Hillary Clinton does because...well, reasons.
I think it's emblematic of a pro-Hillary "centrist" to criticize anything Bernie does because...well. reasons.
sancarlos wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:13 pm
Has Gabbard indicated that she'd consider a third party run?
Nope. My guess is that Hillary’s anger of Gabbard stems from two things: (1) Gabbard was highly critical of the DNC’s actions in the 2016 campaign; and (2) Gabbard went after Harris, who is pretty clearly Hillary’s preferred 2020 candidate, in the debates. If she wants to criticize Gabbard for that, then by all means go ahead. But making fact-free allegations that she’s being “groomed by Russia” is sheer McCarthyite bullshit.
sancarlos wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:13 pm
Has Gabbard indicated that she'd consider a third party run?
Nope. My guess is that Hillary’s anger of Gabbard stems from two things: (1) Gabbard was highly critical of the DNC’s actions in the 2016 campaign; and (2) Gabbard went after Harris, who is pretty clearly Hillary’s preferred 2020 candidate, in the debates. If she wants to criticize Gabbard for that, then by all means go ahead. But making fact-free allegations that she’s being “groomed by Russia” is sheer McCarthyite bullshit.
Except McCarthy was a senator. Hillary Clinton is a cranky old woman out of politics.
brian wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:05 pm
I think it’s just as emblematic of the tendency of the pro-Bernie progressive left to criticize literally anything Hillary Clinton does because...well, reasons.
I think it's emblematic of a pro-Hillary "centrist" to criticize anything Bernie does because...well. reasons.
You said the same thing I said, but made it about me! Sick burn!
I will eat my words if Tulsi actually is a Russian asset, but for fuck's sake, I'm absolutely not going to believe the Godqueen because she's the fucking Godqueen.
Pokemon Go back to living your millionaire lifestyle out of the public eye forever, thanks.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:23 pm
I will eat my words if Tulsi actually is a Russian asset, but for fuck's sake, I'm absolutely not going to believe the Godqueen because she's the fucking Godqueen.
Pokemon Go back to living your millionaire lifestyle out of the public eye forever, thanks.
Here's another thing about Tulsi. She's a major in the Army National Guard. She has a security clearance. Don't you think that with the military being much more aligned (at least with white men) with Republicans someone would rat her out the second she showed any sort of allegiance elsewhere? She'd be kicked out of the military with a quickness -- almost as quick as failing a drug test. Except she wouldn't rebound with a job because of her family name.
Anyhoo, that's a lot of people.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 9:06 pm
Here's another thing about Tulsi. She's a major in the Army National Guard. She has a security clearance. Don't you think that with the military being much more aligned (at least with white men) with Republicans someone would rat her out the second she showed any sort of allegiance elsewhere? She'd be kicked out of the military with a quickness -- almost as quick as failing a drug test. Except she wouldn't rebound with a job because of her family name.
Not anymore.
“All I'm sayin' is, he comes near me, I'll put him in the wall.”
Good for Beto. Much better than the chickenshit non-answers that Buttegieg and Harris have given. Not at all surprising from Kamala, as she hired much of Clinton’s 2016 staff (I wonder why her campaign is struggling so much?) but very disappointing from Pete.
I would really like to see Sanders and Warren join Yang and Beto speaking out against Clinton’s remarks. They are the two candidates that stand to lose the most from the nonsensical notion that “challenging mainstream political views” = “Russian asset.”