Tulsi Gabbard sues Hillary Clinton for defamation over Russia remarks

Poor Tulsi.

Leftists hate her and conservatives disagree with her but value and acknowledge her service to her country.

She should just change her stance on a few things and become a Libertarian.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Through and through, she’s proven to be a problem for Democrats. During the Obama administration, aside from her frequent visits on Fox News, she consistently criticized his foreign policy, the administration’s tactics of toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and ramped up the trash talk in 2015 going towards the elections, much to the Democratic party’s distress. And, to make matters worse, Gabbard’s voting history has often fallen more in line with Republicans rather than Democrats in key areas like immigration.

Was she wrong on calling our Obama for his foreign policy? Hell, he was against his own campaigning position on that.

In all reality, the democrats are their own worse enemy at this point. Obama and Clinton had Bush style foreign policy which the left and right are both tired of. The fact the left can't handle people pointing out that fact is the reason people don't want them... They've lost touch.

If them nominating Clinton who lost to in their opinion "the worst candidate", I can't think of a clearer wake up call.

If the democrats can't have serious introspection and meaningful reform on their platform and how they sell it.... You guys are gonna be in for a rude awakening when Trump wins again.

I'd take Trump over Biden or Warren... But he's not my dog in this fight. I often criticize him, so I say this as an independent who sees glaring problems with the left.

a reply to: Waterglass

It wasn't Hillary's fault. Her TDS is in it's final stages of...well... lets just say that... to Hilary ...'everything is Russia now'.

a reply to: Ahabstar
Don't trivialize Hillary Clinton's firsts by grouping her with women "who also ran".
None of those woman won their party's nomination for President of United States.

Hillary won the DNC nomination and the popular vote. That's 2 firsts for one woman, and for women in US history.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Was she wrong on calling our Obama for his foreign policy?

It's not about right or wrong. It's about supporting one's party and its platform. Republicans that don't support Trump and the Republican platform are demonized, ousted or resign.

You can support Gabbard all you want. Democrats don't like her.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hillary failed as a presidential candidate twice and probably can't even make a good sandwich.

a reply to: DBCowboy

She should just change her stance on a few things and become a Libertarian.

Or change nothing and just become a Republican. In Hawaii, Republicans get elected sometimes.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Gabbard one of only 12 House Dems to "fully Embrace" Progressive "game changing" Bills

Warren and Sanders were both vocal critics of Obama's Syria strategy and both openly called for the US to not involve ourselves in that civil war.

Not to mention her stance on Democratic strategy on Trump's impeachment.

Say no more... Orwell wrote something about that happening. Pity the ally who fails to display the highest levels of furor against Goldstien, ya?

Thanks for the reply, it was educational, but I can't say it improves my views on Gabbard as I am a Republican and can assure you she'd give you almost everything you want policy-wise as a progressive if she was elected. It would be the party's handlers and overlords who wouldn't get what they were after, and maybe for the common Democrat voter that's more important, I dunno.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hillary failed as a presidential candidate twice and probably can't even make a good sandwich.

Her sandwiches are probably really dry.

But, Democrats still hold her as a beloved hero, even though none of them/us want her to run again.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hillary won the DNC nomination and the popular vote. That's 2 firsts for one woman, and for women in US history.

But she lost by a lot in electoral, which was what the system both players were aiming to win, and campaigns were strategized around. If there wasn't electoral, they would have campaigned differently, and who knows how it would have turned out.

She got the candidacy by playing dirty. America already said hell nah when she ran against Obama.

She was more moderate than a lot of the far left, but she took the worse of both parties like the rights foreign policy (which the left seems to have adopted, so it's hard to say the right owns it now), and she wanted to increase spending on social programs while keeping an aggressive stance on projection. She would have been horrible, and very few people were passionate about her. She had to play dirty to get that spot and most know that.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hillary failed as a presidential candidate twice and probably can't even make a good sandwich.

Her sandwiches are probably really dry.

But, Democrats still hold her as a beloved hero, even though none of them/us want her to run again.

Democrats hold Hillary as a beloved hero?

lolz

"Hail Hydra!"

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Was she wrong on calling our Obama for his foreign policy?

It's not about right or wrong. It's about supporting one's party and its platform. Republicans that don't support Trump and the Republican platform are demonized, ousted or resign.

You can support Gabbard all you want. Democrats don't like her.

I don't support her.

But I'd defend her when people call a vet a foreign asset...or even say her just being different is bad for diversity in politics.

We need more politicians calling out their parties... On both sides.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

True, Clinton simply said "one of the candidates is being groomed by Russia to be a third party candidate and she is a favorite of the Russians." With only 5 females in the race at that time, Tulsi assumed she was who Clinton

Exactly. Now, I'm not saying Clinton wasn't implying it's Gabbard, because I do think that was her implication, but for the fact Clinton never said it, the lawsuit is BS.

Funny thing that, if I'm Vladimir Putin, I'd far prefer a socialist like Warren or Harris or a political airhead like Williamson to be running

There I disagree. Gabbard is, even though a veteran, pretty much a non-interventionist. Putin would much rather have the US pull out of the ME so that it can exert its own influence in the region (or its proxies), at the detriment of the US, which we kinda saw with Syria.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DBCowboy

She should just change her stance on a few things and become a Libertarian.

Or change nothing and just become a Republican. In Hawaii, Republicans get elected sometimes.

I promise you she couldn't run as a Republican without changing most of her positions. We don't do pro-abortion, pro-tax, pro-welfare, anti-gun (to any degree), AGW driven policy changes, carbon neutrality goals, anti border security increasing, pro-special protection laws, pro-health care handout candidates. Checking one box creates a PR disaster that would have to be heavily worked against... checking them all is a non-starter right out of the gate. So no, she'd fail to receive party support as a Republican short of a 180-degree platform shift away from everything she's supported to date.

Hillary did not win her party's nomination.
Donna Brazaile stole CNN debate questions, Debbie WasserSchult, super delegates..it was stolen from Bernie, remember?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Ahabstar
Don't trivialize Hillary Clinton's firsts by grouping her with women "who also ran".
None of those woman won their party's nomination for President of United States.

Hillary won the DNC nomination and the popular vote. That's 2 firsts for one woman, and for women in US history.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hillary failed as a presidential candidate twice and probably can't even make a good sandwich.

Her sandwiches are probably really dry.

But, Democrats still hold her as a beloved hero, even though none of them/us want her to run again.

I'll give Tulsi a nod on that one. No way her sandwiches are dry. They probably have cocobutter tanning oil drenching them based on her Hawaiian situation.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

But she lost by a lot in electoral

She is still the first woman to win her party's presidential nomination and the popular vote. That's something, as far a Democratic women are concerned.

She got the candidacy by playing dirty.

So? Are you against gender equality? Only men can play dirty?

She would have been horrible, and very few people were passionate about her.

Really? Is that why Trump supporters have been so mercilessly ridiculing Hillary supports for the past 3 years?

BTW, She would have been better than Trump is.

originally posted by: Liquesence
There I disagree. Gabbard is, even though a veteran, pretty much a non-interventionist. Putin would much rather have the US pull out of the ME so that it can exert its own influence in the region (or its proxies), at the detriment of the US, which we kinda saw with Syria.

I think Williamson is also non-interventionist, though it is tough to say as wishy-washy and off topic as many of her answers to direct questions have been. I'm fairly sure if Russia got out of hand under her watch, her answer would have involved, and I quote: "meeting with Putin, wrapping him up in a hug, washing him in kisses and passion, and rocking the Kremlin suite beds until Vlad can't think about anything but love and the heavens." or something of that nature.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
Hillary did not win her party's nomination.
Donna Brazaile stole CNN debate questions, Debbie WasserSchult, super delegates..it was stolen from Bernie, remember?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Ahabstar
Don't trivialize Hillary Clinton's firsts by grouping her with women "who also ran".
None of those woman won their party's nomination for President of United States.

Hillary won the DNC nomination and the popular vote. That's 2 firsts for one woman, and for women in US history.

Right....LOL

And George Bush didn't win his party's nomination either. He stole it from Ron Paul.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
Hillary did not win her party's nomination.

She garnered 3,700,000 more votes, from registered Democrats, than Bernie won. I know it's fun to say she stole the nomination or brokered the convention, but she flat out won the numbers game against him and won the off-numbers game with the Super Delegates and by all measures the party has ever used won the nomination.