Elections Is Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset?

[PolishHeadlock2]

 

[PEB]

Tulsi will not seek reelection in 2020 big news. Some Hillary talking heads say that she is setting up a 3rd party run.

 

[The ScorpioN]

Tulsi will not seek reelection in 2020 big news. Some Hillary talking heads say that she is setting up a 3rd party run.

Dems are playing 4D chess. Setting up Tulsi to run 3rd party to take away some of the conservative vote.

 

[PEB]

Dems are playing 4D chess. Setting up Tulsi to run 3rd party to take away some of the conservative vote.

I don't think so Tulsi not on board with the Democratic party. I believe she has talked to both Warren and Bernie and they both have plans for her to join their ticket in Bernie's case VP in Warren case defense or chief of staff. But seeing Holder with her at the funeral today I believe that he is looking for a VP post.The reason why I think this is Warren met with Tulsi and also Yang is interested in Tulsi from what I am hearing.

 

[njinsa]

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 "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 matter. There are issues far more important than ridiculous conspiracy theories that can kill 3 years of the media cycle.

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

That's exactly right. Lots of people succumbed so easily to the scapegoat agenda, that it's scary how much the media machine still has so much sway over the electorate, even in the age of information. I'd like to think that this will pass with new generations that have developed better skills in finding valuable information and truth on their own effort. But you never know what new ways the media will come up with to control the narrative better in the future. Plus intellectual laziness that avoids any self-research should not be underestimated.

 

[Darkballs]

Seems that way

Not really. It's a debate tactic. You trump supporters through out whatabouttism at every turn when you've run out of arguments.

Take the example you were just bleating on about, Obama's comments to Romney regarding Russia during their debate. The point was, that Russia was not our #1 geopolitical enemy. They weren't, and have been for years. That was not to suggest that Obama, and therefore liberals in general, could not ever criticize Russia as a bad actor.
For fucks sake, the Trump WH itself has acknowledge that Russia interfered in our election. That should bother you.

Instead, you've parlayed it into some retarded "but libs said we have to love russia" strawman, that isn't even supported by the evidence you give.

Your whataboutism is just boring and lacks merit.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Not really. It's a debate tactic. You trump supporters through out whatabouttism at every turn when you've run out of arguments.

Take the example you were just bleating on about, Obama's comments to Romney regarding Russia during their debate. The point was, that Russia was not our #1 geopolitical enemy. They weren't, and have been for years. That was not to suggest that Obama, and therefore liberals in general, could not ever criticize Russia as a bad actor.
For fucks sake, the Trump WH itself has acknowledge that Russia interfered in our election. That should bother you.

Instead, you've parlayed it into some retarded "but libs said we have to love russia" strawman, that isn't even supported by the evidence you give.

Your whataboutism is just boring and lacks merit.

 

[Darkballs]

This forum should just autocorrect all of those gifs into one of someone tapping out.

Kinda obvious when you can't even come up with a response.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

@Jack V Savage this is an even better example than the WaPo headline. How did nobody check that podcast before running with this story? It took 3 days to run a correction, by which time it was already viral. She still sounded like a kook, but still.

 

[Happy Man]

fake news! This is how fake new is, and how fake the NYT is.

The NYT went back and stealth edited the story, to help out Clinton.




Watch the first couple of minutes.

ARCHIVING. It’s a thing.

caught in the act. Full deceit.

 

[Happy Man]

@Jack V Savage this is an even better example than the WaPo headline. How did nobody check that podcast before running with this story? It took 3 days to run a correction, by which time it was already viral. She still sounded like a kook, but still.

bc it’s proven that it’s fake



Still like your lying media now? Internet archiving is a thing

it’s 1984 style shit.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

bc it’s proven that it’s fake



Still like your lying media now? Internet archiving is a thing

it’s 1984 style shit.

I listened to it; I'm always eager to bash Clinton, and there is enough here to do it, but it too ambiguous for me to think with 100% certainty that she meant russians grooming, so I"m going to let it go. Its egregious enough to accuse her and Stein of being Russian assets.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

I don't think so Tulsi not on board with the Democratic party. I believe she has talked to both Warren and Bernie and they both have plans for her to join their ticket in Bernie's case VP in Warren case defense or chief of staff. But seeing Holder with her at the funeral today I believe that he is looking for a VP post.The reason why I think this is Warren met with Tulsi and also Yang is interested in Tulsi from what I am hearing.

Zero chance Warren hires Tulsi as chief of staff.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

This forum should just autocorrect all of those gifs into one of someone tapping out.

Kinda obvious when you can't even come up with a response.

Your post had nothing to do with anything I said. You're spiralling. Again.

It's boring and repetitive arguing with people like you because you just make shit up.

 

[waiguoren]

bc it’s proven that it’s fake



Still like your lying media now? Internet archiving is a thing

it’s 1984 style shit.

This is not true, Mr. Happy. Tim Pool is off his rocker again. If you listen to the extended segment, you'll see that HRC claimed the RNC or some other group of Republicans were "grooming" Gabbard to run third party. The comments about Russia came later.

 

[Happy Man]

This is not true, Mr. Happy. Tim Pool is off his rocker again. If you listen to the extended segment, you'll see that HRC claimed the RNC or some other group of Republicans were "grooming" Gabbard to run third party. The comments about Russia came later.

what are you saying never happened? The stealth edit by NYT? Or are you claiming Clinton never said Russians?

in this, it’s easy to see that she is saying Russians are grooming. At 40 seconds in

 

[waiguoren]

I'm saying that 1) Clinton never alleged 'Russia' or 'the Russians' were 'grooming' anyone to do anything 2) Clinton did allege that some undefined group of Republicans was 'grooming' Gabbard to run third party 3) Clinton alleged that Jill Stein is a Russian asset (i.e., agent) 4) Tim Pool's outrage makes no sense.

 

[Happy Man]

This is not true, Mr. Happy. Tim Pool is off his rocker again. If you listen to the extended segment, you'll see that HRC claimed the RNC or some other group of Republicans were "grooming" Gabbard to run third party. The comments about Russia came later.

how about the TYT reporting that Clinton “PRESSURE” is making fake news sites like the NYT issue correction. As Tim pool showed, NYT didn’t even issue a correction. They went in and tried a stealth edit



this is nefarious. And much of mainstream media can’t be called media anymore

 

[Happy Man]

I'm saying that 1) Clinton never alleged 'Russia' or 'the Russians' were 'grooming' anyone to do anything 2) Clinton did allege that some undefined group of Republicans was 'grooming' Gabbard to run third party 3) Clinton alleged that Jill Stein is a Russian asset (i.e., agent) 4) Tim Pool's outrage makes no sense.

you listened to that full podcast? Where does she say republican first in that quote. She doesn’t. Have fun trying to find that podcast now.

 

[waiguoren]

you listened to that full podcast? Where does she say republican first in that quote. She doesn’t. Have fun trying to find that podcast now.

I listened to it on iTunes after this controversy broke. I'll try to find it again now.

...


Here is a link to the podcast. The exchange starts around 34:30.


Plouffe: Donald Trump, as you know better than anyone in the world, only got 46.1% of the vote nationally. He got 47.2% in Wisconsin, 47.7% in Michigan. If you had said those before the election, you would have said 'he's going to lose in a landslide.' But one of the reasons he was able to win is the third party vote.

Clinton: Right.

Plouffe: And what's clear to me is...you mentioned 'he's going to just lie.' He's going to say, whoever our nominee is will ban hamburgers and steaks....

Clinton: Absolutely.

Plouffe: ...and you can't fly, and infanticide...and people will believe this. So, how concerned are you about that? For me, so much of this does come down to the win number. If he has to get 49% or even 49.5%...

Clinton: He can't do that.

Plouffe: ...I don't think he can. So he's going to try to drive at people not to vote for him, but just to say, "you can't vote for them either."

Clinton: Right.

Plouffe: That seems to be, to the extent that I can divine a strategy, their key strategy right now.

Clinton: I think there's going to be two parts and I think it's going to be the same as 2016. 'Don't vote for the other guy. You don't like me, (fine, but) don't vote for the other guy because the other guy is going to do X Y and Z. The other guy did such terrible things. I'm going to show you in these, you know, flashing videos that appear and then disappear and they are on the dark web and nobody can find them.' But you're going to see them, and you're going to see that person doing these horrible things. They are also going to do third party again. And I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on someone 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, because she's also a Russian asset.

Plouffe: (laughs)

Clinton: Yeah, she's a Russian asset! I mean, totally! And so, they know they can't win without a third party candidate and so I don't know who it's going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third party challenge in the key states that they most needed(sic).

how about the TYT reporting that Clinton “PRESSURE” is making fake news sites like the NYT issue correction. As Tim pool showed, NYT didn’t even issue a correction. They went in and tried a stealth edit

this is nefarious. And much of mainstream media can’t be called media anymore

NYT corrected a mistake. If Clinton surrogates are partly responsible for pressuring NYT to correct an error, I don't see that as an issue. I think we should be glad the error was corrected regardless of the reason.

OTOH, if we had evidence that Clinton people succeeded in pressuring NYT to re-frame a story in a pro-Clinton direction even if the original frame was valid, that would be inappropriate.