Elections Is Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset?

[HereticBD]

Excused and defended it? The "Liberal" networks made Hillary's emails seem like the 21st century version of Watergate.

No, they did not. You're just lying.

 

[58miles]

No, they did not. You're just lying.

Go back and look at the three yes three frontpage NY Times stories on the same day just before the election and tell me that they were treating Hillary's emails like no big deal or were trying to excuse and defend it?

You have no idea wtf you are talking about.

 

[SBJJ]

It was presented as a story. It was also dismissed largely by the Liberal networks as "nothing to see here", despite how much they may have covered it. The context in how it was covered matters, in how damaging it may have been. All the Liberal networks were largely in damage control as to how they covered it, and were rabidly trying to convince people that it was no big deal.

So while it may have been "covered", it wasn't covered in the negative sense across the board, like you're disingenuously trying to convey.

In a year he will tell us how the media ran the Hunter Biden/Burisma/Firing of Shokin story negatively

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't agree that was the point in dispute. To me, the point is biased framing.

That wasn't the point in dispute as the discussion evolved. After you were definitively proved wrong, you just now shifted the point you want to dispute to something fuzzier. I'll bet that we can take this to a panel (say four people, with each of us proposing two and accepting two--none in this thread and not necessarily WRers) and ask what was being disputed, and they will agree that you were claiming that Merrill's factual claim was false.

 

[waiguoren]

That wasn't the point in dispute as the discussion evolved. After you were definitively proved wrong, you just now shifted the point you want to dispute to something fuzzier. I'll bet that we can take this to a panel (say four people, with each of us proposing two and accepting two--none in this thread and not necessarily WRers) and ask what was being disputed, and they will agree that you were claiming that Merrill's factual claim was false.

Upon reviewing my response to 58miles, I think you are correct. I was wrong when I wrote that the podcast interview "contradicted" Nick Merrill's tweet. I think Clinton made multiple outlandish claims that she can't support, but she did not claim that Russia was grooming Gabbard and Nick Merrill was correct about that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Upon reviewing my response to 58miles, I think you are correct. I was wrong when I wrote that the podcast interview "contradicted" Nick Merrill's tweet. I think Clinton made multiple outlandish claims that she can't support, but she did not claim that Russia was grooming Gabbard and Nick Merrill was correct about that.

I'll give you half credit here. Clinton didn't make any outlandish claims unless you interpret her mundane claims outlandishly.

 

[Overtures]

Don't think so but she is boring as fuck.

 

[Happy Man]

Excused and defended it? The "Liberal" networks made Hillary's emails seem like the 21st century version of Watergate. At the end of the day the official State Department investigation found no systemic or deliberate mishandling of classified information.

they excused it every second of every day.

 

[waiguoren]

Clinton didn't make any outlandish claims

• What did Clinton mean when she said that "[The Republicans] are grooming [Gabbard] to be the third-party candidate"? How would this Republican "grooming" work? Seems pretty loony.
  
• What's the evidence that Gabbard is the "favorite of the Russians"?
  
• What's the evidence that Jill Stein is a Russian agent? I suspect it's non-existent.

 

[Amerikuracana]

The recurring lefty that showed up on Tucker didn't dismiss this, and pointed to "telling signs," saying things he obviously cannot really believe because leftism is a cult and you cannot disagree with the high priestess and still be a high ranking member

 

[giusti825]

Er, are you saying that they don't exist?

It's quite telling that Gabbard defenders can't make a point without lying or denying uncontroversial facts.

The entire "Russia interfered in muh elections," was bullshit. It was an excuse for why clinton lost to a political novice instead of her own soulless campaign and ignoring midwestern swing states. Not to mention, rigging the democratic primary, which should be a criminal offense.

Russia did not hack the emails, it was a leak. The transfer speeds of the data indicate transfer to an external device, not transmission over an internet connection. But of course, when politicians get caught with their pants down, it always becomes about smearing the source of the info instead of the truth or substance of the information released.

The grand total of evidence that the "russia attacked muh election" CT has come up with is some ads from a private troll farm that was trying to get hits and followers to sell social media accounts for marketing. The ads in question were ridiculous on their face (the jesus vs devil ad for example) and didn't even widely circulate until after the election.

How many times have real people have been smeared as "bots" just to find out later that they are actual people who blasphemously disagree with the narrative of government spin doctors when it comes to matters of war?

Social media is not the reason Hillary lost. Russia is not the reason Hillary lost. Susan Sarandon is not the reason Hillary lost. Jill Stein isn't the reason Hillary lost. Hillary lost the election because people didn't want her as president, so badly in fact that they elected a reality tv show host.

The stupid red-baiting needs to stop. We need to focus on issues that actually affect the people. There are issues far more important than ridiculous conspiracy theories that can kill 3 years of the media cycle.

How much more media coverage were these ridiculous russia conspiracy theories getting than the 8 wars we are currently involved in?

 

[giusti825]

This was posted earlier in the thread but it's just one person, not sure what everyone else is saying.

The rest are saying.....and i shit you not.....
Tulsi didn't deny it.....

This are really the sources people are turning to for information....





The mainstream media doesn't know what journalism means anymore. No sourcing, no verification, no standards. Just repeating whatever comes from 'authoritative sources' with no vetting to avoid giving the public false information. You would think after the whole WMD situation that this wouldn't happen any more, but its just gotten much worse.

Its all the same now, and they get disgruntled that more and more people are turning to independent journalism and they try to smear those who are actually trying to inform the public.

Mainstream news stations have become over-glorified and over-paid script readers who dont give a shit about truth as long as they get their paycheck.

You cant really blame people for being this misinformed. They are told their entire lives that the news is to inform the public, and it wasn't always this bad.

 

[giusti825]

Thanks, good clip. Van Jones is correct that what Hillary is doing here is "dangerous".

Its not dangerous. She and the corporate media have accused so many people at this point that its become meaningless. Its immature and petty. It should just be laughed at or ignored entirely.

 

[giusti825]

He did once say that Russia/Trump scandal was a "nothing-burger".

It's entirely possible that the Russians have gotten to him.

There was nothing to it. After 3 years and an investigation with a special prosecutor....nothing. It was one of the saddest displays in american media history. Anyone STILL pedaling the Trump/Russia thing has gone full retard.

Never go full retard.

 

[Last Samurai]

There was nothing to it. After 3 years and an investigation with a special prosecutor....nothing. It was one of the saddest displays in american media history. Anyone STILL pedaling the Trump/Russia thing has gone full retard.

Never go full retard.

Let's not confuse one issue with another.

While there is zero evidence for Tulci Gabbard having any contact with the Russians, the same cannot be said for Trump.

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[giusti825]

Let's not confuse one issue with another.

While there is zero evidence for Tulci Gabbard having any contact with the Russians, the same cannot be said for Trump.

Spoiler

Spoiler

If there was something legitimate there, the inquiry would have come to that conclusion. Nov 2015? Sounds like its during the Obama administration.

Trump is no "Russian puppet". This seems like shit talking during an attempted business deal at a time where NOONE, not even Trump, could have possibly ever conceived he would actually get elected. If anyone would have said in November 2015 that Trump could win, they would've been laughed out the room.

Where is the evidence Russia actually was offering assistance to the Trump campaign and that he knew of it and accepted the help?

I dont like Trump, but the intelligence community coup, including the planted, unverified information in the media that took place during his presidency should scare the shit out of every American. They undermined damn near half of his presidency and forced his foreign policy toward Russia to be harsher than he would have liked to save face in the media.

Dont worry. Within the next month, someone else who publicly disagrees with the corporate democrats or the intelligence communities assessment of our foreign policy will be red-smeared and we will do this all over again. They do this every time they cant argue with logical points or when theyre caught in a lie.

I think Hillary learned some spy trade craft while she was secretary of state. First rule, "accuse others of your crimes."

She took 145 million from the russians while she was secretary of state. Matter of fact, the whole Clinton Foundation came off as a bribery scam under the guise of humanitarianism.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opin...tion-investigation-russia-20171120-story.html

She was as crooked as they come.

 

[Jack V Savage]

• What did Clinton mean when she said that "[The Republicans] are grooming [Gabbard] to be the third-party candidate"? How would this Republican "grooming" work? Seems pretty loony.
  
• What's the evidence that Gabbard is the "favorite of the Russians"?
  
• What's the evidence that Jill Stein is a Russian agent? I suspect it's non-existent.

That Republicans are grooming her to run third party. It would work by for example having her praised on Fox and get softball interviews, and suggesting that she's being treated unfairly.

The Twitterbot activity and praise on propaganda networks.

You're lying about this one.

 

[PEB]

Yes TYT but they destroy Hillary and Bernie defends Tulsi.

 

[giusti825]

To the few of you in here who actually believe in "russian bots" or boogeymen or the tooth fairy:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de...igned-to-link-kremlin-to-republican-roy-moore

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...803f26-0400-11e9-8186-4ec26a485713_story.html

They actually do it to people in the UK aswell.

During the Skripal false flag, this kind gentleman was misidentified as a russian bot.

https://news.sky.com/video/are-you-a-russian-bot-11339530

The guardian also misidentified a popular twitter personality, Maram Susli aka Syrian Girl as a russian twitter bot, despite her having a damn youtube channel where she discussed her views on syria.



It seems as though anyone who disagrees with intelligence agencies in the US or England gets this label.

 

[Rockapotomuss]

Who cares what the truth was at this pin to, let’s talk about what the truth is. This drama was great for getting both Hillary and Tulsi’s names out there, and that’s what matters.

This is a popularity contest reality show folks. Whoever gets the most eyeballs wins. It’s no different than the ufc.