Politics Hillary Clinton says Tulsi Gabbard is a 'Russian asset' groomed to ensure Trump reelection

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
jonnyboy said:
Never said any of those things. Once again you’re twisting my words to favor your argument.
Click to expand...

That's because you really never say much of anything of substance and don't articulate what you mean so it leads a person into filling in the blanks.
 
barfo said:
I think there is a bit more going on here than just 'payback'. Tulsi will either disappear or prove Clinton right, as there is zero chance that she wins the Democratic party nomination. Nor is she a possibility for a VP pick. Or a cabinet position, except maybe in a Yang or Sanders administration.

barfo[/
Click to expand...
 
barfo said:
I think there is a bit more going on here than just 'payback'. Tulsi will either disappear or prove Clinton right, as there is zero chance that she wins the Democratic party nomination. Nor is she a possibility for a VP pick. Or a cabinet position, except maybe in a Yang or Sanders administration.

barfo
Click to expand...
I think thats part of my problem here if she ran third party that DOES NOT prove Hillary is right about the russia stuff. All Hillary is doing IMO is telling us what the political playbook will be on anyone running third party, say Russia made em do it, find some time someone Russian talked to them and say it’s proof!
If Tulsi ran 3rd party it doesnt prove Hillary is right.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
I think thats part of my problem here if she ran third party that DOES NOT prove Hillary is right about the russia stuff.
Click to expand...

She's already right about the Russia stuff. Russians are supporting Tulsi.

All Hillary is doing IMO is telling us what the political playbook will be on anyone running third party, say Russia made em do it, find some time someone Russian talked to them and say it’s proof!
If Tulsi ran 3rd party it doesnt prove Hillary is right.
Click to expand...

If Tulsi runs as a third party candidate it will prove Hillary right about that too.

CLINTON: They’re also going to do third party again. And I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians, they have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. And that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she’s also a Russian asset.
Click to expand...

The only thing in there I think can be disputed is the very last clause.

barfo
 
All this Russia shit seems like deflection to me. We all know the real problem is China, I bet sooooooo many Politicians line their pockets with Chinese money then go and say talking to, meeting with, or eating out with Putin is the worst thing in the world.
 
barfo said:
She's already right about the Russia stuff. Russians are supporting Tulsi.



If Tulsi runs as a third party candidate it will prove Hillary right about that too.



The only thing in there I think can be disputed is the very last clause.

barfo
Click to expand...
No she's not. There is 0 proof that the Russians are grooming Tulsi. Even if there is "support for her" in Moscow that doesn't mean she herself is being used by Russia, nor does it mean they're "grooming her".
Even if she ran without the DNC nomination it doesn't prove a thing that they're "grooming" her, because that implies that she's actively participating in it. Support implies that they're propping her up, and they may be, but Hillary is basically accusing her of being a Traitor to the country in the same way Trump is with Russia.
 
That said, Clinton's comments did force Gabbard to declare that she wouldn't run as a 3rd party candidate, and that may have been the desired outcome for Clinton in the first place.
And I see that Yang has made a similar declaration today, so things are looking good, as those were only two plausible spoiler candidates from the democratic race.
There are of course plenty of spoilers available elsewhere, and I'm sure some will declare over the next 8 months or so.

barfo
 
barfo said:
That said, Clinton's comments did force Gabbard to declare that she wouldn't run as a 3rd party candidate, and that may have been the desired outcome for Clinton in the first place.
And I see that Yang has made a similar declaration today, so things are looking good, as those were only two plausible spoiler candidates from the democratic race.
There are of course plenty of spoilers available elsewhere, and I'm sure some will declare over the next 8 months or so.

barfo
Click to expand...
Didn't Gabbard Declare she wasn't going to run third party in August... How did what Clinton say in October make her do that?
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
No she's not. There is 0 proof that the Russians are grooming Tulsi. Even if there is "support for her" in Moscow that doesn't mean she herself is being used by Russia, nor does it mean they're "grooming her".
Click to expand...

Depends on whether you think 'grooming' requires her knowledge or active participation.

Even if she ran without the DNC nomination it doesn't prove a thing that they're "grooming" her, because that implies that she's actively participating in it.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess I should have read ahead... I would say it doesn't necessarily imply that. Trump was groomed by the Russians for years, but it's not clear if he knows that.
The phrase 'useful idiot' may apply.

Support implies that they're propping her up, and they may be, but Hillary is basically accusing her of being a Traitor to the country in the same way Trump is with Russia.
Click to expand...

I think it is possible she and Trump are both useful idiots. Of course, Trump is the more useful idiot, but he's had a lot more practice.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Depends on whether you think 'grooming' requires her knowledge or active participation.



Well, I guess I should have read ahead... I would say it doesn't necessarily imply that. Trump was groomed by the Russians for years, but it's not clear if he knows that.
The phrase 'useful idiot' may apply.



I think it is possible she and Trump are both useful idiots. Of course, Trump is the more useful idiot, but he's had a lot more practice.

barfo
Click to expand...
I suppose we could define it in a way that she's unknowing in the grooming. To me, it comes across as she's basically calling Stein and Gabbard traitors in the same vein she and others claim Trump is and there's a pretty big difference between the first two and the last one...

Edit: The reason why I say she's basically calling them traitors is when you call someone an "asset" it implies ownership, in most definitions of the word. So she's basically saying they own her.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ass.....69i57j0l5.3847j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
 
barfo said:
Well, good. Hopefully she means that and sticks to it.

Hopefully Clinton will be forced to say, a year from now, when Tulsi is campaigning on behalf of the Democratic nominee, that she was wrong to think ill of Tulsi.

And hopefully I will need to make the same apology.

We'll see.

barfo
Click to expand...
I do want a third-party candidate to vote for, but I don't want it to be Tulsi. She said she wouldn't go that route and she needs to stick with it, win, lose or draw in my opinion. I'm not sure if she runs w/o the Nomination it proves the Russia stuff to me, but I certainly wouldn't vote for her at that point no matter what explanations she tried to conjure up.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
Edit: The reason why I say she's basically calling them traitors is when you call someone an "asset" it implies ownership, in most definitions of the word. So she's basically saying they own her.
Click to expand...

I agree on that. I think calling them assets was a step too far.

barfo
 
CupWizier said:
That's because you really never say much of anything of substance and don't articulate what you mean so it leads a person into filling in the blanks.
Click to expand...
Or learn how to read. There’s that too. You seem to be the only one constantly struggling to decipher what I mean. Everybody else seems to get along just fine, whether they agree or not.
 
Last edited:
barfo said:
Ok, I don't think campaigning is the same thing as bipartisanship.

Better?

barfo
Click to expand...
Not really. You’re trying too hard to hold your anti-Tulsi position while not disparaging Hillary and it really just comes off as disingenuous, especially from a person we all know isn’t stupid.
 
jonnyboy said:
Gabbard’s affiliations with Russia are definitely questionable, I have to admit. Remember when she allowed Russia to buy American Uranium and got a $145 million “donation” to her family’s foundation from the Russian Government shortly thereafter? That was fucked up.
Click to expand...
Throw her over Trump's Mexican barb wired wall...……>>Dishonest "B_______"

QUOTE="Hoopguru, post: 4826754, member: 28433"]The Black Widow strikes again accusing a high ranking Military officer of being a Russian asset! WOW...kind of like "it was in response to a anti Muslim video that got your kids killed" . I think Gabbard has been tough and outspoke about the Russians. The Clintons have made millions from Russian oligarchy. Im hoping that non of the other dem candidates take the hook line and sinker. She's is as vindictive as it gets. Her Trump, Wienstien, Epstien all form the same cloth.
Bring on that third party![/QUOTE]

Make it five parties so we really have a choice of corruption like it is in Italy..
 
jonnyboy said:
Or learn how to read. There’s that too. You seem to be the only one constantly struggling to decipher what I mean. Everybody else seems to get along just fine, whether they agree or not.
Click to expand...

or say what you mean and mean what you say rather than post such loose ended posts that are left for interpretation. Also, if you had noticed, my replies were mostly in question form so that I could get clarification as to what you really mean, but instead I get mostly attacks.
 
stampedehero said:
Throw her over Trump's Mexican barb wired wall...……>>Dishonest "B_______"

QUOTE="Hoopguru, post: 4826754, member: 28433"]The Black Widow strikes again accusing a high ranking Military officer of being a Russian asset! WOW...kind of like "it was in response to a anti Muslim video that got your kids killed" . I think Gabbard has been tough and outspoke about the Russians. The Clintons have made millions from Russian oligarchy. Im hoping that non of the other dem candidates take the hook line and sinker. She's is as vindictive as it gets. Her Trump, Wienstien, Epstien all form the same cloth.
Bring on that third party!
Click to expand...

Make it five parties so we really have a choice of corruption like it is in Italy..[/QUOTE]
She and Bill could become Queen & King of Bora Bora or somewhere.
 
calvin natt said:
100%, and thought this since day one. Way before any Hilary stuff. They both need to just go away.
Click to expand...
Your spidey senses tingling may not be enough justification to deter those who like her policy ideas.
 
CupWizier said:
or say what you mean and mean what you say rather than post such loose ended posts that are left for interpretation. Also, if you had noticed, my replies were mostly in question form so that I could get clarification as to what you really mean, but instead I get mostly attacks.
Click to expand...
Have you tried hooked on phonics?
 
barfo said:
Well, good. Hopefully she means that and sticks to it.

Hopefully Clinton will be forced to say, a year from now, when Tulsi is campaigning on behalf of the Democratic nominee, that she was wrong to think ill of Tulsi.

And hopefully I will need to make the same apology.

We'll see.

barfo
Click to expand...
You just pulled off the rare triple "hopefully" post!
 
calvin natt said:
It’s plenty. I have seen and heard enough from this woman. She’s bad news.
Click to expand...
Care to elaborate? I’m genuinely curious what it is about her that drives the mainstream establishment voters bonkers. People either like her or absolutely despise her. There’s not a lot of in between. I understand her not moving the needle for some, fair enough. I just don’t get the blood-boiling hatred she draws from others. Seems unwarranted from a party that ran Hillary Clinton with a straight face.
 
jonnyboy said:
Care to elaborate? I’m genuinely curious what it is about her that drives the mainstream establishment voters bonkers. People either like her or absolutely despise her. There’s not a lot of in between. I understand her not moving the needle for some, fair enough. I just don’t get the blood-boiling hatred she draws from others. Seems unwarranted from a party that ran Hillary Clinton with a straight face.
Click to expand...

- her refusal to rule out torture in Syria
- her denying that Assad used chemical weapons
- her support of Russia- bombings in Syria
- her refusal to attack Trump
- her fake “I’m not going to the debate wahhhh” then predictably going to the debate
- she’s blatantly doing this for personal gain
- Russia is a fan of hers

I could probably go find more but don’t feel like researching
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top