-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Future Fox News Correspondant, Tulsi Gabbard, Regurgitates Trump's Impeachment Talking Points In Interview With White Nationalist, Sean Hannity
- Thread starter DrForester
- Start date
I like my progressives virulently homophobic and pro-dictator thank you very much.
Now now, we shouldn't Russian to judgment. Let the ChesMan defend himself!
Sorry, didn't mean Tulsi. Again, not going to defend her record.
I'm talking about all the other people smeared with this paranoia.
I mean:
Do we really need this in every thread?
Are leftists inherently incorruptible or something. Like if Tulsi was a real progressive (she's not, she was a member of the centrist Problem Solver's Caucus until she secretly joined the Progressive Caucus in late 2017), that would be a guarantee that she couldn't be a Russian asset? Jill Stein is a progressive, right, so she's beyond reproach? After the success the Russians had in 2016, why would they not boost or even groom, certain politicians if it suited their agenda, just because of where they fall on the political spectrum?
Also:
Tulsi is cool pushing the agenda of another right wing proto-fascist political leader in exchange for financial backing for her political career, but her doing something similar for Putin is unimaginable?
What kind of people are you talking about being "smeared" in the way you're describing?
There's no game. You're creating an imaginary problem of false unsubstantiated allegations in order to claim there's a witch hunt when in reality, the witches put on trial...all end up being actual witches.
Bernie was literally smeared in this very thread for probably being too stupid to realize he's an asset.
It's not a smear to call him out for doing something terrible.
By.. calling him an asset to dismiss him. Do you think he is? A useful idiot, even?
I'd rather we have innocent low hanging fruit jokes than people who intentionally misrepresent the definition of asset to defend Tulsi while claiming not to defend her.
She is a Russian asset, period. Stop pretending that means I am accusing her of being some undercover spy from a movie.
Russian is propping up her campaign. We know this. They don't do that for no reason. They do it because she is beneficial to them. Aka, she is an asset. She parrots Assad/Putin talking points in ads, interviews, and national debate stages. They like that. They also like the idea of her helping to keep Trump in office. And thus far shes continued to go along with it and do everything that we would expect her to do.
All this is so predictable and the only issue here is people like you continuing to rationalize the scam happening right before your eyes.
Saying Bernie got played is not calling him stupid.
He got played. Plain and simple. It was a bad move to defend Tulsi and this is why.
I mean, given how he's propped up Tulsi, useful idiot sure seems like an appropriate phrase here simply in reference to how he got played by her hard.
User Banned (2 Days): Trolling Over Multiple Posts
Damn that's a broad definition. Guess who else fits it? Hillary Clinton. Boosting that national embarrassment, whose politics specifically gave us Trump and who has a lower approval rating than him without any interference to excuse it, specifically undermines the direction of the Democratic party and risks keeping Trump in office. Asset!
No, no. I am literally pointing out an example in this very thread, at the direct request of Kirblar to point out when and where this smear was used against a left/progressive type.
Either it's a witch hunt or you think Bernie actually is an asset.
User Banned (5 Days): Trolling and Admitting to Trolling
My point there was Bernie exhibited poor judgment of character. Which is a fact. I loosely characterized him as "an asset" because it would trigger someone like you to flip out and go on a tirade in defense of the great Bernie. Fact is, he was a useful idiot for the Russians four years ago as well. You can be an asset to a foreign adversary without necessarily being on the take for it.
This is the distinction between being willfully complicit (Gabbard) and being a useful tool to depress progressive turnout against Clinton (Sanders)... both of which serve to the ultimate end of putting a wholly compromised puppet like Trump in a position of power and influence and keeping him there. It's not my fault if you can't understand the difference between the two.
FYI, I look forward to your endorsement of Gabbard for president next year after Bernie loses his bid for the Dem nomination once again.
Last edited:
Then any number of perfectly good, reasonable things were an asset to Putin. Left and progressive activists, doing perfectly justified and necessary work holding the Democrats/Clinton to account MUST have played into Putin's hands because they worked against his opponent. You just can't use this logic. It doesn't hold up. It doesn't work. You will always have another excuse, another target. It's shitty, shitty politics and it needs to stop so we can have better conversations about our disagreements on the left.
They're truly off with the pixies here.
Using the same logic, Clinton's campaign did 'Putin's bidding' then with "We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously,". I guess they were all Russian assets.
Last edited:
Glad you agree with me?
Anyway, Tulsi sucks and needs to go AND Bernie was right to defend her from Clinton's smear. So were Beto and Buttigieg. And the meme candidate, I guess. Night, thread!
Last edited:
Yes I am completely agreeing with you.
But I can see you may have thought I was saying you were off with the pixies, when I meant the person you responded to who claimed defending her was the same as defending a serial rapist. Which I cannot believe they said with a straight face.
The amount of lefties (or anyone) who actually support Tulsi is tiny. The people on here "defending her" are shitting on a ridiculous acquisition thrown out by someone who represents a failing campaign that constantly blames everyone (Russians, Bernie supports etc) but themselves for that failure. An acquisition that made headlines and resulted in multiple threads and people posting brain dead shit like "Hillary never lies", "she told us and we didn't listen", among other trash. This isn't an enemy of the enemy is my friend situation. It's very simply a "what the fuck are you people doing?" expression of exasperation on our part.
She's just trying to spare herself the embarassment of being primaried.
It's not that we're focusing on it, it's that a specific subset of lefties goes completely off the rails when it comes up because they self-insert their own insecurities about the history of the USSR and American socialists/communists from 3+ decades ago into the place of the very real issues with Gabbard and fly off the chain as a result as they feel victimized by people going after a right winger who is in no way socialist, communist, or anything other than a gigantic asshole.
Can you post a longer video....there isn't enough context for me to understand what the issue is. I mean she says she supports the inquiry and that because it is behind closed doors it is not transparent. What am I missing?
Also, what does it matter if she doesn't run for the democrats? If anything the US needs more options. It is such a trash democracy with two pretty shit parties - don't get me wrong, the Dems are less shit and have some good people. But super glad I have got better options in my country.
Also, what does it matter if she doesn't run for the democrats? If anything the US needs more options. It is such a trash democracy with two pretty shit parties - don't get me wrong, the Dems are less shit and have some good people. But super glad I have got better options in my country.
You have to remove the electoral college before you consider having more than 2 parties
Well that needs to be removed then. The US system is significantly corrupted by campaign spend and lobbying. It is such a mess...
Which is idiotic on your part because Tulsi's shit was obvious a long fucking time ago.
If you people were logically consistent, you would be getting frustrated on behalf of plenty of other conservatives, but this particular conservative endorsed Bernie, so of course the accusations are ridiculous to you.
This "third" party would need a power base otherwise it's just siphoning off votes from whichever party it's most closely aligned with, so a kook like Ross Perot was pulling votes from the Republicans helping Democrats in that election while a hypothetical Gabbard run would mainly pull votes from the Democrats helping Trump in a 2020 hypothetical. In no conceivable situation right now does a third party candidate stand a chance. Even with our Green party there's no sustained powerbase that they've been building in any region of the country that they bring to the table so it's not like they're some guaranteed lock for certain States or anything that can be built out from, there's no real Congressional third party representation, so even if a third party candidate won the Presidency he or she would be dealing with exclusively Republicans or Democrats.
I do think a third party would be great but it seems like it'd actually need to take something, somewhere first, start winning Local and State elections and slowly build outwards so that they have down ticket candidates and stuff to vote for, as it is the whole things just a wild moonshot for millionaires to try and snatch the Presidency(which is extremely unlikely), candidates to build names for themselves for their career or probably personally torpedo another party's chances.
Dude continues to showcase the worst political instincts when foreign countries are involved.
So ask yourself this: are you 'supporting' or 'attacking' someone based on actual merit, or simply based on whether you stan/hate them or their opponents? There are plenty of Bernie supporters who loathe Tulsi and feel no need to reflexively defend her simply because someone they didn't like were pointing out some very true things. HRC didn't even say Tulsi was a Russian asset (see the NYT's very belated correction), and even if she did... She wouldn't be wrong and she didn't use the wrong terminology. So, what's the problem here?
As showcased in this matter, a foreign policy agenda centered around underestimating evil actors is definitely not the best foreign policy.
I don't even know where you are fucking going with this. The Democrat Party has supported a great deal of 'evil' actors throughout its history - a prominent one . Under Dems and Repuplicans, US companies have continued to sell arms to pretty much all the worst dictators in the world. And of course, the US at the moment has one of the worst regimes in the world, who is exposing how all those supposedly fantastic checks and balances in your written constitution, are of course not adequate in themselves to stop an absolutely raging lunatic from taking office.
Bernie is far better than say Obama on foreign policy issues - certainly much better than any of the current crop of democratic candidates.
