Nothing in this post is remotely coherentOh you got the extremely subtle irony in this very seeerious thread about the frontrunner of the dem frontrunner that is absolutely not a irrelevant nobody in terms of the GE being a Russian asset. I mean Hilary Clinton said it, the person who would blade too soggy cornflakes on Russia.
furthermore the "Hillary lost because she didn't campaign in WI/MI" complaint, while rooted in some truth, is a bit of a fallacy. If she'd flipped just those two states, it wouldn't have made the difference.Again, Russia was one part of the problem. Let's stop discounting their impact on the election because Hillary's campaign didn't do everything right.
I'm ignorant for saying he's more of a lapdog to Israel and Saudi Arabia based off of his foreign policy?
I'm ignorant for saying he's more of a lapdog to Israel and Saudi Arabia based off of his foreign policy?
Yea, this makes no sense to me either.How is Tulsi even the representative in one of the most liberal districts in the country? I hope someone primaries her out of there.
You say this as if 95% of the party isn't a corporate Democrat and it's ok for Dems to publicly out members who aren't to the center enough. Meanwhile, you have Dem leadership (Biden) being caught red handed actually dealing and taking money from foreign governments but not publicizing any of itOh yeah, god forbid a "corporate dem" alienate Jill Stein from the Democratic party (a... person who isn't even a Democrat) ...
His foreign policy is pretty much self-explanatory, judging my thoughts on his actions in regards to that does not make me ignorant. I'd welcome anyone arguing different if they want to talk about his foreign policy. You just want to call me names since something in my post hurt your feelings. That's sad.You're clearly ignorant based on your posts in this thread. You're also bad at the bit of disingenuous framing you just attempted. Pathetically bad.
So lets say Tulsi is an asset, which okay I can believe it (I'd like any evidence, though):
That's true both suck, but also, overstating the power of Russia is also serving Putin's bidding.At some point, you have to call people who do Putin's bidding (wittingly or not) what they are. Trump and Tulsi both suck ass and don't deserve to hold office.
I threw some $$ to her primary opponent, Kai Kahele.
If being anti-war means doing Putin's bidding by ceding interests to him, can we ever be anti-war then? or do we have to keep supporting militarily fighting for those interests until there is nothing left to fight for? This is the literal trade-off.At some point, you have to call people who do Putin's bidding (wittingly or not) what they are. Trump and Tulsi both suck ass and don't deserve to hold office.
Except that Hillary is almost if not always proven right when say calls out things. She was right about everything regarding Trump and some people still don't wan to admit it.
It's the most extreme case of bitch crackers in the history of bitch crackers.Except that Hillary is almost if not always proven right when say calls out things. She was right about everything regarding Trump and some people still don't wan to admit it.
His foreign policy is pretty much self-explanatory, judging my thoughts on his actions in regards to that does not make me ignorant. I'd welcome anyone arguing different if they want to talk about his foreign policy. You just want to call me names since something in my post hurt your feelings. That's sad.
And I could list pages on pages of Trump doing more for countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel. Trump has also hurt Russia economically through sanctions, diplomatically through attempts to one-up on them with the Nordstream pipeline and energy deals with EU, militarily with attacks against the Assad government.Trump's moves in Ukraine and Syria have a common denominator: Both help Russia
Putin says Trump not to blame for lack of improvement in Russia-U.S. ties
White House severely restricted access to Trump calls with Putin and Saudis
Trump Dings Democrats, Praises Putin in News Conference
Trump sides with Putin on Russian election meddling
Trump: 'Russia Should Be in' G7 Meeting
Trump told reporters it's 'none of your business' what he and Putin speak about at the G20 summit
Why Putin won't be mad about Trump pulling out of the INF Treaty
Trump reportedly left staffers 'genuinely horrified' in his phone calls with Putin, Saudi Arabia
Donald Trump's NATO Attacks Are 'Dangerous' and Could Tempt Putin to Test the Alliance, Former Secretary General Warns
Russia's nuclear weapons tests were linked to a radioactive explosion. Trump's friendliness with Putin makes it hard for NATO to do anything about it.
Trump's Defense Cuts in Europe Will Backfire
Donald Trump's Trade Wars Are Bringing Russia and China Together, Making It Easier for Them To Challenge U.S.
Trump campaign guts GOP's anti-Russia stance on Ukraine
Trump told Theresa May he doubted Russia was behind Skripal poisoning
His foreign policy is pretty much self-explanatory, judging my thoughts on his actions in regards to that does not make me ignorant. I'd welcome anyone arguing different if they want to talk about his foreign policy. You just want to call me names since something in my post hurt your feelings. That's sad.
You're just rambling about nonsense since your feelings got hurt. At least posters like Wraith posted links that would attempt to show otherwise (which I welcome).You're obviously ignorant given your expressed understanding of the Russian influence issue and Donald Trump. No one is being fooled by your attempt to move the goalposts here and making this about who the admin's foreign policy benefits more.
You don't even know enough to be properly embarrassed.
Tulsi is *not* anti-war, nor is she an isolationist. She's for drone bombing campaigns and the so-called war on terror. You can even find an instance where she refers to herself as a war hawk.If being anti-war means doing Putin's bidding by ceding interests to him, can we ever be anti-war then? or do we have to keep supporting militarily fighting for those interests until there is nothing left to fight for? This is the literal trade-off.
This is the story of the 20th Century. People thought it would end with the Cold War.If being anti-war means doing Putin's bidding by ceding interests to him, can we ever be anti-war then? or do we have to keep supporting militarily fighting for those interests until there is nothing left to fight for? This is the literal trade-off.
... Okay? Care to point out one person saying the US/Israel/Saudi relationship is normal and totally cool?And I could list pages on pages of Trump doing more for countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel.
I mean, the whole thing here is Tulsi pretty explicitly isn't anti-war based on her congressional record and shit like the statement her office gave on 9/11If being anti-war means doing Putin's bidding by ceding interests to him, can we ever be anti-war then? or do we have to keep supporting militarily fighting for those interests until there is nothing left to fight for? This is the literal trade-off.
You're just rambling about nonsense since your feelings got hurt. At least posters like Wraith posted links that would attempt to show otherwise (which I welcome).
If you have nothing else to say then stop quoting me.
Sanctions that Trump is looking to take back and these new 7.5 billion EU tariffs also help Russia.And I could list pages on pages of Trump doing more for countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel. Trump has also hurt Russia economically through sanctions, diplomatically through attempts to one-up on them with the Nordstream pipeline and energy deals with EU, militarily with attacks against the Assad government.
By definition that wouldn't make you a lapdog or in cahoot with anyone.
You mean carryovers from the previous administration and Congress? Trump has eased/lifted sanctions on Russia multiple timesAnd I could list pages on pages of Trump doing more for countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel. Trump has also hurt Russia economically through sanctions, diplomatically through attempts to one-up on them with the Nordstream pipeline and energy deals with EU, militarily with attacks against the Assad government.
Relatively anti-war/isolationist. Compared to the current administration or even Hillary for that matter. I should have been more clear.I mean, the whole thing here is Tulsi pretty explicitly isn't anti-war based on her congressional record and shit like the statement her office gave on 9/11
Well unless your blind can't you see that multiple users are quoting me? I'm trying to respond as fast and honest as I can.so are you just ignoring the stacks of receipts people are posting or are you trying to double your total post count in ten minutes or less?
and is your commitment here that the entire US and European intelligence apparatus has it all wrong but you know better?
One thing does not simply wipe away the other. And Trump blatantly favoring KSA or Israel's agenda doesn't mean he doesn't do the same for Russia. And about those sanctions:And I could list pages on pages of Trump doing more for countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel. Trump has also hurt Russia economically through sanctions, diplomatically through attempts to one-up on them with the Nordstream pipeline and energy deals with EU, militarily with attacks against the Assad government.
By definition that wouldn't make you a lapdog or in cahoot with anyone.
Clinton does sound like Richard Nixon ranting to his aides, only this time, Clinton knows this will be heard by the general public.
Everyone who opposes her is a Russian asset. Anyone who opposes or criticizes the wars and conflicts she spearheaded is an enemy of the state. Anyone who publishes criticisms of her is either a Russian asset or a propagandist for the GOP.
At some point, you have to accept responsibility for losing.
Tulsi completely sucks, but Hillary really seems to want to continue the false narrative that Russia cost her the election. It should have never even come close when you're running against Donald fucking Trump, but here we are.
This has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read.
Why should anyone listen to Hillary, who is emblematic of the problems involved when big money and politics come together - the epitome of a corporate neoliberal dem?
Makes sense that she would try and oust Tulsi, who really has ran her campaign on a foreign policy anathema to the majority of both Dems and Reps.
Hell, I'm a Sanders supporter and even I can see that this is pure political maneuvering - why actually make a cogent political argument when the Russia boogeyman will do it for you?
Look at America's foreign policy towards Russia, that doesn't indicate that he's Putin's lapdog, but rather Israel and Saudi Arabia's lapdog.
You've setup a strawman; of course you can be anti-war. There's way more going on with Tulsi and Trump than that, and you surely know that. It's the totality of their alignment with Putin's interests that makes them stoogey. Tulsi's stooging is particularly dangerous because she's much smarter and far more finessed than TrumpIf being anti-war means doing Putin's bidding by ceding interests to him, can we ever be anti-war then? or do we have to keep military fighting for those interests until there is nothing left to fight for? This is the literal trade-off.
Fair enough. I'll definitely look more into your links but I'll try to leave it hear since I cluttered the thread with posts, which would have been avoidable if I was more clear with my point.One thing does not simply wipe away the other. And Trump blatantly favoring KSA or Israel's agenda doesn't mean he doesn't do the same for Russia. And about those sanctions:
Trump lifts sanctions on firms linked to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska
Trump administration moves to return Russian compounds in Maryland and New York
Sure, sometimes he does things that are against Russia's interests, sometimes those things were forced on him by Congress, in retaliation for the very clear Russian interference in our elections, and their poisoning of Putin's enemies, yet Trump keeps on denying or prevaricating on these issues.
How can you be anti-war without ceding interests or aligning interests with Putin in this situation though? Do you believe it can be done via sheer diplomacy?You've setup a strawman; of course you can be anti-war. There's way more going on with Tulsi and Trump than that, and you surely know that. It's the totality of their alignment with Putin's interests that makes them stoogey. Tulsi's stooging is particularly dangerous because she's much smarter and far more finessed than Trump
Ben Carson, Andrew Yang, Herman Cain, and Rick Perry are just some examples of how running for president, when you have no shot at winning, can be extremely profitable. Whether that's because of speaking engagements, book deals, radio shows, being offered positions in the future administration, or being a CNN contributor. It is a career boosting move.Tulsi Gabbard left her position in the DNC like a martyr in 2016 to support Bernie but in 2020 when Bernie had a better chance to be the front runner and win , she decided to run herself for President. Why is not she supporting Bernie now?
Well if it's a carryover that would still mean something if one didn't "break the cycle"?You mean carryovers from the previous administration and Congress? Trump has eased/lifted sanctions on Russia multiple times
Well unless your blind can't you see that multiple users are quoting me? I'm trying to respond as fast and honest as I can.
I already responded to Wraith he posted a lot of links, unless I missed someone, was literally the only one that did something in that nature instead of personally attacking me or making a drive by post with no substance.
I should have been more clear with my first post, but given what I said by definition he's a lapdog for two other countries, and it isn't in the same fashion as Russia.
I personally believe he's in cahoots with Russia on a business level which I should have included. I just left it as "at least not politically".
But if you work against the interests of someone repeatedly, would that make you a lapdog? That I guess is my main gripe.