independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Mon 9th Dec 2019 1:37pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Hillary Clinton: Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 2 <12
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 10/31/19 7:49am

poppys

nd33 said:

poppys said:


Can't say I feel for people's opinions who can't even vote here, and always think it's better to throw your vote away than participate in the system we have, flawed as it is. What's that JJ says? The perfect is the enemy of the good.


Wrong, I advocate voting whenever you have the opportunity.


We've been through this a few times at least. Voting for any third party right now is what I mean by throwing your vote away. I've been voting a long long time, and know what gets at least some results.

politics: the art or science of government.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 10/31/19 8:01am

RodeoSchro

avatar

Well, I'll be darned! It seems Hillary Clinton is not the only person who thinks Tulsi Gabbard is setting herself up for a third-party run (or that she is knowingly or unknowingly being aided by Russians):

https://thehill.com/homen...-democrats

Democrats are growing increasingly suspicious of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s (D-Hawaii) political intentions, fearing that she may be considering a third-party bid for the White House in 2020 if she doesn’t win the Democratic presidential nomination.

Gabbard’s announcement last week that she would not seek reelection to her House seat and would instead focus solely on her presidential bid only served to hasten those concerns.

[...]

She faced a formidable primary challenge from Hawaii state Sen. Kai Kahele, who has repeatedly criticized Gabbard for her absence from her congressional duties while on the campaign trail. Meanwhile, she has transferred most of the money for her House campaign to her presidential bid, leaving her reelection account strapped for cash.

[...]

“I’m not on Twitter getting attacked by real people when Tulsi and I have a spat or a disagreement,” said Bakari Sellers, a top surrogate for Sen. Kamala Harris’s (D-Calif.) presidential campaign who is also supporting Kahele’s House bid. “I’m getting attacked by Russian bots. This isn’t rocket science. This is something we’ve seen before.”

There is no evidence of coordination between Gabbard’s campaign and the online bot networks, and experts note that bot activity is typically aimed at sowing discord and divisions among a broad array of groups.


But lingering concerns about online disinformation campaigns and foreign interference in U.S. elections has put many Democrats on high alert, creating a flashpoint in the party’s presidential race with Gabbard at the center of it.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 10/31/19 8:17am

nd33

poppys said:



nd33 said:


poppys said:



Can't say I feel for people's opinions who can't even vote here, and always think it's better to throw your vote away than participate in the system we have, flawed as it is. What's that JJ says? The perfect is the enemy of the good.




Wrong, I advocate voting whenever you have the opportunity.


We've been through this a few times at least. Voting for any third party right now is what I mean by throwing your vote away. I've been voting a long long time, and know what gets at least some results.



Shaming/pressuring people to vote for one of two selected candidates is not democracy, though.

Even the tiny Green Party in the US has played it’s part, because climate change has become a major political topic. And it’s also interesting that free public healthcare is across the board now, when Bernie was thought to be a wacky far lefty four years ago for advocating it. Everything once was fringe before it became mainstream. We should be grateful to the people that are brave and bold enough to go outside the box.
Music, sweet music, I wish I could caress and...kiss, kiss...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 10/31/19 8:28am

poppys

nd33 said:

poppys said:


We've been through this a few times at least. Voting for any third party right now is what I mean by throwing your vote away. I've been voting a long long time, and know what gets at least some results.


Shaming/pressuring people to vote for one of two selected candidates is not democracy, though. Even the tiny Green Party in the US has played it’s part, because climate change has become a major political topic. And it’s also interesting that free public healthcare is across the board now, when Bernie was thought to be a wacky far lefty four years ago for advocating it. Everything once was fringe before it became mainstream. We should be grateful to the people that are brave and bold enough to go outside the box.


Not in 2020. One size does NOT fit all, every voting year is different. I won't be shamed or pressured into thinking voting for a third party is a good thing this time around.

You are trying to put me in a box. And, for about the millionth time, I would've voted for Bernie IF he was the Dem nom and had a chance of winning. Math is fundamental.

I get that you stan Tulsi, but you can't guilt me into her bullshit either.

politics: the art or science of government.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 10/31/19 8:54am

djThunderfunk

avatar

falloff lol lol

So, it's okay to shame/guilt someone who votes 3rd party, but it's not okay to shame/guilt someone who won't?

Now that's a HOOT! biggrin



[Edited 10/31/19 8:54am]

REEFER MADNESS!
Joe Biden still thinks marijuana is a gateway drug:
https://www.businessinsid...t-2019-11/
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 10/31/19 9:06am

poppys

I've posted here for YEARS now, that I've voted third party in the past, not this year. Start all the fake news you want. Not credible.

I don't go on political websites and tell citizens of other countries how to vote. The nd33 drumbeat is a constant.

politics: the art or science of government.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 10/31/19 9:57am

nd33

poppys said:

I've posted here for YEARS now, that I've voted third party in the past, not this year. Start all the fake news you want. Not credible.

I don't go on political websites and tell citizens of other countries how to vote. The nd33 drumbeat is a constant.



Unfortunately, the government military representing you, goes to other countries and murders thousands of their citizens and makes hundreds of thousands of others homeless. Whether Dem or Rep White House, the drumbeat of war is constant.
Music, sweet music, I wish I could caress and...kiss, kiss...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #37 posted 10/31/19 10:01am

guitarslinger4
4

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

guitarslinger44 said:


lol So in addition to being a shill, you're a conspiracy throrist now too? You REALLY think Tulsi Gabbard, who was THE VICE CHAIR OF THE DNC ITSELF and a member of the US military is a Russian asset? Really? You're a funny dude Rodeo, but I guess we'll see how it all shakes out. lol If it turns out you're right, I'll send you a pack of your favorite guitar strings.

I never said I didn't like Hillary because of what Bill did, I don't Bill either, but I get why people like him. I really think you didn't read my original post all too closely. I never said that Bill had anything to do with her views on gay marriage, only that he signed a piece of anti-gay legislation in the DOM ACt, and that, when questioned as to why she changed her mind RE gay marriage, she was dodgy and gave a non-answer rather than saying, "I learned." or something to that effect. Easy answer, but she couldn't bring herself to say it, and even if she had, anyone who remembers the 2008 primary remembers she came out against it. ( https://www.snopes.com/fa...d-a-woman/ ) ( https://www.theatlantic.c...em/372717/ )


AS for the birther stuff, I never said she started it, but her campaign was sending out emails claiming Obama was a muslim ( https://www.washingtonpos...omination/ ) and they never denounced the birtherism movement that I'm aware of. Her strategist Mark Penn sent out a memo talking about capitalizing on Obama's "lack of American roots" ( https://www.theatlantic.c...008/37952/ ) so we dont' really know I guess, but the evidence doesn't look good.

At least she doesn't make racist jokes like your buddy Trump. Oh wait... ( http://www.nbcnews.com/id...bjQhql7lTY )

And your whole reason for liking her had nothing to do with policy either, it was basically, "because Republicans DON'T like her." It's hilarious to me that you can rail so hard against Trump, but shill for someone who's just like him, but on your chosen team. disbelief

[Edited 10/29/19 17:04pm]



As they say on talk radio, let's take these in reverse order!

You didn't ask me why - or even IF - I liked her. In response to my statement of "Give me some REAL reasons to dislike Hillary Clinton and I'm happy to talk about them" you replied, "I guess the question is, why DON'T you?" Clearly we were talking about reasons to dislike her; NOT reasons to like her. If it matters, she wasn't my first choice for the Democratic nomination but in my view she was a far better option in the general election than unrepentant serial adulterer Donald J. Trump. If you want to talk about why as it relates to her policies, that's cool but also irrelevant as that election is over and Hillary Clinton isn't running again.

Next we have the Ghandi joke. No one in the article you posted said it was racist. It was, however, clearly a mistake and she apologized for it. Your article does end with this bit of information:

Michelle Naef, administrator of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, a Memphis, Tenn.-based organization founded in 1991 by a Gandhi grandson, credited Clinton and her husband, former President Clinton, with long having “supported the Gandhi message.” But she said Saturday’s remarks “could be incredibly harmful.”

I don’t think she was, in any way, trying to demean Mahatma Gandhi,” Naef said. “To be generous to her, I would say it was a poor attempt at humor. Perhaps I’m overly sensitive, but I find it offensive when people use stereotypes in that way.”

I don't mean to be snarky, but did you even read that article before you posted it? What kind of search phrase would even led to that article? You were trying to portray her as saying something racist, but the word "racist" does not appear in that article. So - how did you find it? If I were a pessimist, I'd say you got it not from NBC News itself, but from somewhere that commonly mischaracterizes news, like Breitbart or Drudge. Am I correct?

Then you said, "AS for the birther stuff, I never said she started it, but her campaign was sending out emails claiming Obama was a muslim". Hang on - being a Muslim has absolutely nothing to do with where anyone was born. You do know that there are a few million Muslims here in America who were actually born here, right? Why would you conflate these two points?

And clearly you did not go to the Politico link I posted because if you had, you would have read this:

Much of the insinuation that Clinton had a hand in birtherism traces to the role of her then-senior strategist Mark Penn, who issued a memo in 2007 suggesting that Clinton emphasize Obama’s upbringing in Hawaii and Indonesia and paint him as fundamentally un-American. The memo never questioned Obama’s citizenship but did suggest highlighting his “lack of American roots.”

And this:

Clinton’s former senior aide Patti Solis Doyle acknowledged that a volunteer coordinator in Iowa forwarded a birther-related email. “Hillary made the decision immediately let that person go,” she said. “We let that person go. It was so beyond the pale of the campaign Hillary wanted to run and that we as a staff wanted to run that I called David Plouffe who was managing Barack Obama to apologize to say this is not coming from us, that this was rogue volunteer.”

Had you taken the time to read the back-up I provided, you would have saved yourself a lot of embarassment. You say, "we dont' really know I guess" but we dang sure DO know. And what we DO know is that your position on Hillary Clinton/birtherism is 100%, verifiably wrong.

OK, number next. Getting close to the end, or the beginning if you look at it that way. You try to backpeddle on Bill Clinton but it was YOU who, in your dissertation about why you dislike Hillary Clinton, that - and I quote - said, "Remember too that Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense Of Marriage Act."

Now you're trying to say Bill Clinton has nothing to do with anything. Well - why in the name of Sam Hill did you bring him up? I can't think of any valid reason why - given what you are now posting - that you would do that.

You can criticize Hillary Clinton all you want for her prior position, but she's on the record as now supporting marriage equality for all. It's right there in black and white. If she says anything otherwise, she's going to get her well-documented support of it thrown right back at her. Politicians as experienced as her don't paint themselves into corners like that. If she's on the record with a position, then it is her position.

And finally! Tulsi Gabbard! Is she or is she not a Russian asset? I think that if she is a Russian asset, she's an unknowing one. I would absolutely not be surprised to find out that Russian trolls are doing all they can to convince her online that she should run as a third-party candidate. This would be just one of many Russian strategies to split the Democratic vote.

Again - just like Carter Page, she could be used by the Russians and never know it. That's not a knock on her patriotism, but it is a condemnation of her ability to know when she's being used. I would like to think she's smarter than that, but maybe she isn't.

I like D'Adarrio 10s for my acoustic guitar, and Dean Markley 9's for the Telecaster.



EVerything you've posted other than that link in the previous post is your own editorializing and conjecture. If that's all this is going to be, I'm out. I posted links and backup, and other than that one time, you haven't. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I still think it's really funny that you'll defend someone who is basically the same as Trump because she's on your chosen team. Makes me wonder if you'd be stanning for Trump this hard if he'd run as a Democrat (and remember, he WAS a Democrat for a long long time.)

YOu oughtta try 11's on your acoustic, they'll give you a bit more tone for just a little more thickness! And I've been using 11's on my electrics, but I have this electric someone else bought that I've been playing that has 9's on it and I'm thinking about moving back that way. Bending on those things is so much fun~!

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 10/31/19 10:05am

guitarslinger4
4

avatar

nd33 said:

poppys said:


We've been through this a few times at least. Voting for any third party right now is what I mean by throwing your vote away. I've been voting a long long time, and know what gets at least some results.

Shaming/pressuring people to vote for one of two selected candidates is not democracy, though. Even the tiny Green Party in the US has played it’s part, because climate change has become a major political topic. And it’s also interesting that free public healthcare is across the board now, when Bernie was thought to be a wacky far lefty four years ago for advocating it. Everything once was fringe before it became mainstream. We should be grateful to the people that are brave and bold enough to go outside the box.


If we really only have two viable candidates on the ballot, how much different are we than places like Russia or North Korea who only have one?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 10/31/19 10:16am

guitarslinger4
4

avatar

I think this quote is a lot of why Clinton is taking shots at someone like Gabbard who is standing up to the system that Clinton and her acolytes are so inured to:


“If they can falsely portray me as a traitor, then they can do it to anyone,” Gabbard said in a video message to supporters earlier this month. “And in fact that’s exactly the message that they want to get across to you: That if you stand up against Hillary and the party power brokers, if you stand up to the rich and powerful elite and the war machine, they will destroy you and discredit your message.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/468167-gabbard-stokes-fears-among-democrats

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 10/31/19 11:13am

RodeoSchro

avatar

Gabbardd voted for the impeachment inquiry so I guess she's not quite the maverick some think she is.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 10/31/19 11:21am

RodeoSchro

avatar

guitarslinger44 said:

RodeoSchro said:



As they say on talk radio, let's take these in reverse order!

You didn't ask me why - or even IF - I liked her. In response to my statement of "Give me some REAL reasons to dislike Hillary Clinton and I'm happy to talk about them" you replied, "I guess the question is, why DON'T you?" Clearly we were talking about reasons to dislike her; NOT reasons to like her. If it matters, she wasn't my first choice for the Democratic nomination but in my view she was a far better option in the general election than unrepentant serial adulterer Donald J. Trump. If you want to talk about why as it relates to her policies, that's cool but also irrelevant as that election is over and Hillary Clinton isn't running again.

Next we have the Ghandi joke. No one in the article you posted said it was racist. It was, however, clearly a mistake and she apologized for it. Your article does end with this bit of information:

Michelle Naef, administrator of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, a Memphis, Tenn.-based organization founded in 1991 by a Gandhi grandson, credited Clinton and her husband, former President Clinton, with long having “supported the Gandhi message.” But she said Saturday’s remarks “could be incredibly harmful.”

I don’t think she was, in any way, trying to demean Mahatma Gandhi,” Naef said. “To be generous to her, I would say it was a poor attempt at humor. Perhaps I’m overly sensitive, but I find it offensive when people use stereotypes in that way.”

I don't mean to be snarky, but did you even read that article before you posted it? What kind of search phrase would even led to that article? You were trying to portray her as saying something racist, but the word "racist" does not appear in that article. So - how did you find it? If I were a pessimist, I'd say you got it not from NBC News itself, but from somewhere that commonly mischaracterizes news, like Breitbart or Drudge. Am I correct?

Then you said, "AS for the birther stuff, I never said she started it, but her campaign was sending out emails claiming Obama was a muslim". Hang on - being a Muslim has absolutely nothing to do with where anyone was born. You do know that there are a few million Muslims here in America who were actually born here, right? Why would you conflate these two points?

And clearly you did not go to the Politico link I posted because if you had, you would have read this:

Much of the insinuation that Clinton had a hand in birtherism traces to the role of her then-senior strategist Mark Penn, who issued a memo in 2007 suggesting that Clinton emphasize Obama’s upbringing in Hawaii and Indonesia and paint him as fundamentally un-American. The memo never questioned Obama’s citizenship but did suggest highlighting his “lack of American roots.”

And this:

Clinton’s former senior aide Patti Solis Doyle acknowledged that a volunteer coordinator in Iowa forwarded a birther-related email. “Hillary made the decision immediately let that person go,” she said. “We let that person go. It was so beyond the pale of the campaign Hillary wanted to run and that we as a staff wanted to run that I called David Plouffe who was managing Barack Obama to apologize to say this is not coming from us, that this was rogue volunteer.”

Had you taken the time to read the back-up I provided, you would have saved yourself a lot of embarassment. You say, "we dont' really know I guess" but we dang sure DO know. And what we DO know is that your position on Hillary Clinton/birtherism is 100%, verifiably wrong.

OK, number next. Getting close to the end, or the beginning if you look at it that way. You try to backpeddle on Bill Clinton but it was YOU who, in your dissertation about why you dislike Hillary Clinton, that - and I quote - said, "Remember too that Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense Of Marriage Act."

Now you're trying to say Bill Clinton has nothing to do with anything. Well - why in the name of Sam Hill did you bring him up? I can't think of any valid reason why - given what you are now posting - that you would do that.

You can criticize Hillary Clinton all you want for her prior position, but she's on the record as now supporting marriage equality for all. It's right there in black and white. If she says anything otherwise, she's going to get her well-documented support of it thrown right back at her. Politicians as experienced as her don't paint themselves into corners like that. If she's on the record with a position, then it is her position.

And finally! Tulsi Gabbard! Is she or is she not a Russian asset? I think that if she is a Russian asset, she's an unknowing one. I would absolutely not be surprised to find out that Russian trolls are doing all they can to convince her online that she should run as a third-party candidate. This would be just one of many Russian strategies to split the Democratic vote.

Again - just like Carter Page, she could be used by the Russians and never know it. That's not a knock on her patriotism, but it is a condemnation of her ability to know when she's being used. I would like to think she's smarter than that, but maybe she isn't.

I like D'Adarrio 10s for my acoustic guitar, and Dean Markley 9's for the Telecaster.



EVerything you've posted other than that link in the previous post is your own editorializing and conjecture. If that's all this is going to be, I'm out. I posted links and backup, and other than that one time, you haven't. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I still think it's really funny that you'll defend someone who is basically the same as Trump because she's on your chosen team. Makes me wonder if you'd be stanning for Trump this hard if he'd run as a Democrat (and remember, he WAS a Democrat for a long long time.)

YOu oughtta try 11's on your acoustic, they'll give you a bit more tone for just a little more thickness! And I've been using 11's on my electrics, but I have this electric someone else bought that I've been playing that has 9's on it and I'm thinking about moving back that way. Bending on those things is so much fun~!



I think I'm replying to editorializing and conjecture - as well, apparently, to inane comments about Bill Clinton. I'm still wondering why in the world you brought him up.

And again - I'm not defending her. I'm answering your question of "why DON'T you (dislike Hillary)?" As I previously said, if you want to debate or discuss the merits of either the policies she promoted during the 2016 campaign, or the stuff she did/voted for while Secretary of State/a Senator then cool. Say so. Post what you don't like about her policies or actions and we can discuss that.

But the entire premise of this discussion has been about why you dislike Hillary Clinton. you've not given one solid answer that has stood up to fact-checking, and it looks like you never will, so yes - this conversation is over.

I bash my acoustic way too much to value tone. That kind of stuff is for guys that have talent! But I might give them a try.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #42 posted 10/31/19 12:15pm

guitarslinger4
4

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

guitarslinger44 said:



EVerything you've posted other than that link in the previous post is your own editorializing and conjecture. If that's all this is going to be, I'm out. I posted links and backup, and other than that one time, you haven't. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I still think it's really funny that you'll defend someone who is basically the same as Trump because she's on your chosen team. Makes me wonder if you'd be stanning for Trump this hard if he'd run as a Democrat (and remember, he WAS a Democrat for a long long time.)

YOu oughtta try 11's on your acoustic, they'll give you a bit more tone for just a little more thickness! And I've been using 11's on my electrics, but I have this electric someone else bought that I've been playing that has 9's on it and I'm thinking about moving back that way. Bending on those things is so much fun~!



I think I'm replying to editorializing and conjecture - as well, apparently, to inane comments about Bill Clinton. I'm still wondering why in the world you brought him up.

And again - I'm not defending her. I'm answering your question of "why DON'T you (dislike Hillary)?" As I previously said, if you want to debate or discuss the merits of either the policies she promoted during the 2016 campaign, or the stuff she did/voted for while Secretary of State/a Senator then cool. Say so. Post what you don't like about her policies or actions and we can discuss that.

But the entire premise of this discussion has been about why you dislike Hillary Clinton. you've not given one solid answer that has stood up to fact-checking, and it looks like you never will, so yes - this conversation is over.

I bash my acoustic way too much to value tone. That kind of stuff is for guys that have talent! But I might give them a try.


I've given plenty of good reasons, they just aren't reasons you like, so you dismiss them just like you dismiss a lot of things I write on here that you don't like. shrug Anyway...

Heavier strings would help you bash harder! lol

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 10/31/19 12:29pm

poppys

nd33 said:

poppys said:

I've posted here for YEARS now, that I've voted third party in the past, not this year. Start all the fake news you want. Not credible.

I don't go on political websites and tell citizens of other countries how to vote. The nd33 drumbeat is a constant.


Unfortunately, the government military representing you, goes to other countries and murders thousands of their citizens and makes hundreds of thousands of others homeless. Whether Dem or Rep White House, the drumbeat of war is constant.


I've started anti-war/violence threads here in P&R. Funny, you didn't even participate. I come from religious conscientious objectors, many who went to jail instead of war. We don't all fit in your dogma box.

https://www.bloomberg.com...0-k2eklktj

...Democratic voters really, really, really dislike President Donald Trump. They’re going to be motivated to vote for whoever the party nominates. They’re also going to be far less willing to risk a third-party vote after the 2016 election, just as voters in 2004 abandoned Nader when he ran again.

And then there’s Gabbard herself. I don’t know if Jonathan Chait is correct about her motivations, but so far her strategy has included running an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal and going on Fox News programs. At that rate, she’s more likely to appeal to Republicans than to Democrats — and it’s not impossible that she could wind up taking more votes away from Trump than from his opponent.

[Edited 10/31/19 16:43pm]

politics: the art or science of government.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #44 posted 11/01/19 12:04pm

guitarslinger4
4

avatar

I think she's more likely to appeal to moderate and not-leftist liberals than people like Warren or Sanders, which is part of her appeal. Those are the people the Dems need to shore up 2020 and while Biden could bring them in, he's a less attractive candidate, at least to me, because he seems to be riding Obama's coattails rather than having his own agenda. Gabbard has some great ideas and is young enough that the events of the next 20 years and going to impact her. That's the problem with having a bunch of septagenarians running, they're going to legislate like a septagenarian.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #45 posted 11/07/19 7:32am

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

Good to see Tulsi go back on the The View and confront the goons there.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #46 posted 11/07/19 12:45pm

poppys

Right, They had her back. You are aware that the View's hosts are a mixed bag of Dems and Repubs?


She's running as a Democrat, but she's more of a Republican. They asked her why she only goes on Fox "news" and shows like Tucker (shill) Carlsons. She really didn't have a good answer. She's barely holding 2% and still running. The money is coming from somewhere.


https://spectator.us/tuls...epublican/

When will Tulsi Gabbard become a Republican?

...The on dit is that Silicon Valley is desperate not to be associated with Russian interference in American elections. Gabbard’s accounts have been reportedly flagged for ‘unusual activity’ and ‘large spending changes’ – thus triggering automatic fraud prevention systems.

‘That’s completely false,’ Gabbard spox Cullen Tiernan told me. ‘In fact, we contacted our bank on the night that our ads account was suspended, and the bank confirmed no unusual activity. The fact remains that for hours, Tulsi’s campaign advertising account remained offline…Google never explained, and still has not explained to us why Tulsi’s account was suspended.’

Team Gabbard will doubtless be displeased with the headline of this article, as their candidate pursues the nomination – for president of the United States – of the party opposite. But her row with Google is just the latest example of common interest with the Right...

[Edited 11/7/19 12:47pm]

politics: the art or science of government.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #47 posted 11/07/19 1:09pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

I'm not a fan of Tulsi, never have. But I'm more against political dopes flagrantly playing into manipulation of narratives. Yes I know it's part of the game in politics, but we can still call it out.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #48 posted 11/07/19 1:17pm

poppys

Okay. But everything on TV is manipulation of narratives, bar none. When I don't like it, I turn it off. They hung in there with Trumpy Jr today. What a trainwreck!

politics: the art or science of government.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #49 posted 11/07/19 1:23pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

poppys said:

Okay. But everything on TV is manipulation of narratives, bar none. When I don't like it, I turn it off. They hung in there with Trumpy Jr today. What a trainwreck!


i didn't know Jr. was dating Caitlyn Jenner. But yeah, it was pretty bad.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #50 posted 11/07/19 2:48pm

poppys

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

poppys said:

Okay. But everything on TV is manipulation of narratives, bar none. When I don't like it, I turn it off. They hung in there with Trumpy Jr today. What a trainwreck!


i didn't know Jr. was dating Caitlyn Jenner. But yeah, it was pretty bad.

falloff

politics: the art or science of government.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #51 posted 11/09/19 3:30pm

guitarslinger4
4

avatar

poppys said:

Right, They had her back. You are aware that the View's hosts are a mixed bag of Dems and Repubs?


She's running as a Democrat, but she's more of a Republican. They asked her why she only goes on Fox "news" and shows like Tucker (shill) Carlsons. She really didn't have a good answer. She's barely holding 2% and still running. The money is coming from somewhere.


https://spectator.us/tuls...epublican/

When will Tulsi Gabbard become a Republican?

...The on dit is that Silicon Valley is desperate not to be associated with Russian interference in American elections. Gabbard’s accounts have been reportedly flagged for ‘unusual activity’ and ‘large spending changes’ – thus triggering automatic fraud prevention systems.

‘That’s completely false,’ Gabbard spox Cullen Tiernan told me. ‘In fact, we contacted our bank on the night that our ads account was suspended, and the bank confirmed no unusual activity. The fact remains that for hours, Tulsi’s campaign advertising account remained offline…Google never explained, and still has not explained to us why Tulsi’s account was suspended.’

Team Gabbard will doubtless be displeased with the headline of this article, as their candidate pursues the nomination – for president of the United States – of the party opposite. But her row with Google is just the latest example of common interest with the Right...

[Edited 11/7/19 12:47pm]


So you don't like her because she doesn't fit in your neat little box of what a Democrat should be. Got it.

What views of hers do you dislike? What policies that she champions do you have problems with? Or is it just taht Hillary shat on her?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #52 posted 11/11/19 10:20am

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

I don't know what took her so long for this? She should have demanded an apology immediately!

Tulsi Gabbard’s Lawyers Accuse Hillary Clinton Of Defamation For Russia Remarks

The Democratic presidential contender’s lawyers demanded that Clinton issue a retraction for calling an unnamed candidate “the favorite of the Russians.”

https://www.huffpost.com/...fb7f6a2625

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #53 posted 11/11/19 3:09pm

guitarslinger4
4

avatar

It's definitely slander, and Clinton making such comments to that effect without any evidence in a time where left wingers use Russia as a means of dismissing anything or anyone they don't like is fucking disgusting.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 2 <12
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Hillary Clinton: Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset?