Hillary Clinton Claims Russians ‘Grooming’ Tulsi Gabbard as Third-Party Candidate

a reply to: Gryphon66

Three now or we wouldn't have this thread. Oh right she didn't call them by name. *rolls eyes*

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Gryphon66

Three now or we wouldn't have this thread. Oh right she didn't call them by name. *rolls eyes*

Okay, we'll use your number.

Is three "everybody"?

Nah.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It's enough, especially without evidence, and obviously everybody was an expression not literal.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's enough, especially without evidence, and obviously everybody was an expression not literal.

Okay, so expressions exaggerations are okay to make a point? It doesn't matter what people actually say anymore because we all know what they mean?

Enough. I agree with you regarding providing actual evidence. I don't disagree with you regarding your general feelings about HRC for that matter. On another thread today I stated my opinion outright that if I were Tulsi or Dr. Stein I'd be hiring a lawyer and suing the crap out of some folks, but let it be brought to a court of law with rules of evidence.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh please, it's just McCarthyism 2.0. Russians Russians everywhere.

She's literally pulling exactly what McCarthy did. Calling anyone and anything she doesn't like a damn Russian asset and/or spy.

Another talking point.

Really, how many folks has HRC called a Russian asset? Would that number be 1? Yes, yes it would. Get back to me when you aren't hyped up with Hillary hate that you speak in ridiculous exaggerations.

wow you forget fast, it's 3 Gabbard, Stein and Trump

also YOU brought it up, saying Russia Did interfere in 2016, which oddly enough, no one said, but YOU.

2018 was won by the meuller report, not the Democrats, with out the investigation, they would not have won as much as they did, as it was it was sub par win when compared to other off year elections.

Of course you wont show it was only 20 K the russians spent, it would make your point seem moot.

20k against a billion dollars, the most spent in any election to date, and not only lost but lost to 20k spent by russia

and that is what you are trying to say

Hmmmmm ...

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not willing to go back to the McCarthy era type paranoia, and I'm not going to apologize for calling Hillary of all people out for trying to start that # up again.

Yeah Russians meddle, and if we looked for it we can find proof of others meddling as well. You know this and I know this. If we desired we can use that meddling to point fingers at whoever we want whenever we want, any country can do this with almost any other country. It's like how every country has, and always has had spies and likely always will so long as there are borders. They are ignored, or kept track of and used by all sides as is convenient. Most times they are dealt with when found, quietly, off the public radar. The only time we hear about them is when there's some kind of political motivation or narrative that requires it... Well unless you think our agencies meant to protect against this kind of crap are useless at their jobs. Which I won't deny as plausible...

I won't deny Russian meddling, it would be as stupid as denying the grass is green. Thing is, there's so much meddling it's pretty much irrelevant. It's just one bit of chaos tossed in with all the rest and stirred into some kind of weird twisted special interest soup. You can show all the proof of it you want, doesn't change it doesn't amount to # once it's tossed into the pot with everything else. Is like cryptology and Alien stuff, so much mixed together, hoaxes, legitimate cases, misidentifications, misinformation, in the end there's no really sorting it out.

I'm not jumping at Russian shadows, and I will not condone such McCarthy style nonsense as being espoused by Hillary.

a reply to: thedigirati

Does Trump really count? How many in the Trump campaign have been indicted or convicted in relation to Russia?

FIne, then. Three. Three folks. I haven't bothered to look up what HRC said about Stein, but as I recall it was that her candidacy was used to peel off more votes against Trump.

ETA: I looked it up. She did call Stein a Russian asset straight out. Maybe Trump isn't the only one in a stage of dementia.

No *I* didn't bring it up, any number of sycophants in every thread blabber the nonsense that Russia didn't intervene or that it's only a leftist delusion that they did so; I just stated the known facts again.

Democrats didn't really win the House? Sure, why not? Since your posts are mostly opinion-based, you can say whatever you want no matter how baseless or absurd it is. Bully for you.

Care to give us your source for "20K spent by Russia" just for fun? Or should we just take it on faith too?

a reply to: Puppylove

Not many posters that I have seen are anything approaching "paranoia" about Russians in reality. Some feel like we should have done something to address it, or make our elections safer and more secure. Most of us have accepted that Russia intervened and have moved on. If there is any obsession or paranoia, it's from those who repeat variations on "muh russia" incessantly.

We're in accord on one thing: if Clinton has evidence that Gabbard, Stein or anyone else is "a Russian asset" she needs to turn it over to the FBI. Period, done, end of story.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: thedigirati

Does Trump really count? How many in the Trump campaign have been indicted or convicted in relation to Russia?

FIne, then. Three. Three folks. I haven't bothered to look up what HRC said about Stein, but as I recall it was that her candidacy was used to peel off more votes against Trump.

ETA: I looked it up. She did call Stein a Russian asset straight out. Maybe Trump isn't the only one in a stage of dementia.

No *I* didn't bring it up, any number of sycophants in every thread blabber the nonsense that Russia didn't intervene or that it's only a leftist delusion that they did so; I just stated the known facts again.

Democrats didn't really win the House? Sure, why not? Since your posts are mostly opinion-based, you can say whatever you want no matter how baseless or absurd it is. Bully for you.

Care to give us your source for "20K spent by Russia" just for fun? Or should we just take it on faith too?

to quote YOU, "why, can't you look it up yourself?

yiyu can you know, but it's ok I would embed it but I'm on an xbox it's not easy but I will when I get up tomorrow.
'

a reply to: thedigirati

No need. I got it. HRC did say it. She's starting to sound like she's off her rocker too.

Thanks for the offer though.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It is beyond well-known fact that Russian forces intervened in our electoral process in various ways.

Denying this fact is simply absurd.

Yeah, and you used that false RUSSIAN disinfo to go after the duly elected POTUS, and to this day you keep using that RUSSIAN disinfo to try to depose the POTUS... It is called "The Steele dossier" and the FISA warrants to spy on Presidential candidate Trump, and everyone close to him without any evidence of wrongdoing...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It is beyond well-known fact that Russian forces intervened in our electoral process in various ways.

Denying this fact is simply absurd.

Yeah, and you used that false RUSSIAN disinfo to go after the duly elected POTUS, and to this day you keep using that RUSSIAN disinfo to try to depose the POTUS... It is called "The Steele dossier" and the FISA warrants to spy on Presidential candidate Trump, and everyone close to him without any evidence of wrongdoing...

I did? Wow, that rhubarb pie was stronger than I thought.

The POTUS as you like to phrase it, is an elected offical with limited Constitutional powers. If he is removed (and that is unlikely while Republicans control the Senate) it will be by a Constitutional process. I have posted here in support of the idea that the Clinton Campaign, thru proxies, broke the same laws that the Trump Campaign desperately tried to do.

You like to ignore, however, that there were multiple corroborations of some material in the dossier from ally nations and our own IC resulting in credible bases to justify FISA warrants. You like to ignore that it is not spying when the FBI performs its legal function to prevent foreign interests from illicitly intervening in our Electoral process.

Fundamentally, your argument collapses to it's not illegal if your favored POTUS does it.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

OMG..!!

Honestly this woman is seeing Russians everywhere she turns..!!

Is she having a mental breakdown or something..?

Either that or she needs to lay off the sauce..!!

What ever the reason, she really shouldn't be running for POTUS. Someone that wound up about Russians in power can't be good for the world..!!

So, let's look at the real source of these comments directed at Tulsi Gabbard: the New York Times

Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist, is impressed with her political talent. Richard B. Spencer, the white nationalist leader, says he could vote for her. Former Representative Ron Paul praises her “libertarian instincts,” while Franklin Graham, the influential evangelist, finds her “refreshing.”

Are those claims true or false?

Then there is 4chan, the notoriously toxic online message board, where some right-wing trolls and anti-Semites fawn over Ms. Gabbard, calling her “Mommy” and praising her willingness to criticize Israel. In April, the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website, took credit for Ms. Gabbard’s qualification for the first two Democratic primary debates.

How about those claims? True or false?

“She’s taken a series of policy steps which signal to the right that she has deep areas of alignment,” said Neera Tanden, a longtime policy adviser to Hillary Clinton who now leads the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

Now, THERE is a direct evidential tie-in between a critic of Gabbard and HRC. SO while the Times has given nothing but circumstantial evidence for its claims thus far ... there is a straight-line connection between the comments in the NYT and Mrs. Clinton's recent outing.

But it’s also an argument that reminds some Democrats of the narrative pushed by Russian actors during the 2016 presidential contest, when an operation by internet trolls worked to manipulate American public opinion: that the electoral system is broken and cannot be trusted.

... AND there's the connection to Russia. Bingo bango.

I'd say that Ms. Gabbard has a right to demand evidence for these claims at least. At the same time, many of Gabbard's positions are in line with those generally voiced by some Trump supporters, alt-righters, etc., but not exclusively. Many libertarian-minded folks agree with her positions as well.

I guess we'll all have to stay aware and use our critical thinking caps going forward, eh? Or, we can just believe whole-cloth what our preferred modes of corporate media feed us.

What to do, what to do.

lol
nice try using "rushia" to attempt to smear the one candidate that has cross party appeal
"rushia" everywhere nothing else can be used
its "rushia"
this like the trump smears will be exposed
then the dnc will just look like aholes picking on the brown girl for no reason


its like the dems actually don't want to win

Anyone who is interested should actually look into what Tulsi's actual positions are:

From her campaign website which presents her policy views as "Her Vision" of a new century ...

In this new century, everyone has clean water to drink, clean air to breathe and access to nourishing food; everyone receives the medical care they need, has a roof over their head, receives the education they need and is able to find good paying, fulfilling work. People have financial security and don’t have to worry about making ends meet in their old age.

Our children, and children for generations to come, never worry again about nuclear war and no parent has to wonder where they will hide their children when the missiles strike. Our economy is not dependent on war, but is driven instead by innovation, green technology and renewable industries.

Our schools, parks and streets are safe so that our children can learn and play without fear; our first responders act as servants and protectors of the people, the community respects their service and sacrifice and we truly have justice for all.

How could anyone take issue with that?

In this new century, everyone has clean water to drink, clean air to breathe and access to nourishing food; everyone receives the medical care they need, has a roof over their head, receives the education they need and is able to find good paying, fulfilling work. People have financial security and don’t have to worry about making ends meet in their old age. Our children, and children for generations to come, never worry again about nuclear war and no parent has to wonder where they will hide their children when the missiles strike. Our economy is not dependent on war, but is driven instead by innovation, green technology and renewable industries. Our schools, parks and streets are safe so that our children can learn and play without fear; our first responders act as servants and protectors of the people, the community respects their service and sacrifice and we truly have justice for all.

sounds pretty good
just a difference of opinion on how to get there

this is the woman they want to crush

Believing that every polititian is to a greater or lesser degree psychopathic, I'm aware that Tulsi is being marketed.

I'd love to see any real evidence that anyone has that she's a Russian asset either wittingly or unwittingly.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

So Mrs. Clinton. Put up or shut up.

could we just get her to go away?
is it that hard?
couldn't she just go back to the forest where she ran away to when trump beat her like a cherokee drum after the election?

a reply to: shooterbrody

One might hope that Gabbard's retort found here www.abovetopsecret.com... could be the first real shovel from the Democrat camp in digging a hole for her.