-
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.
Hillary Clinton thinks Russia is grooming a current Democratic primary candidate to become a third-party candidate.
- Thread starter GrapeApes
- Start date
- Status
do you think she's right here? of accusing a presidential candidate of being a groomed Russian operative??? or is it like: "she's wrong, but you shouldn't care about it?" I'm also not super sure what Bernie has to do with any of this?
I'd agree he was in cahoots with them before his presidency, but on a business level with the Russian oligarchs. He's a corrupted businessman and he's without a doubt a criminal.
No on disproved anything, I personally believe that given what I've posted and what others have posted he hasn't done anything that by definition can label him as a "lapdog".
But then again, I wasn't clear with my first post because I didn't expect a lot of responses (no bait I really didn't lol).
I don't think anything is being overstated? Acknowledging and being aware of the threat of election meddling is just stating the facts. They got the result they wanted in 2016 and they will try again; and if that means propping up a 'preferred' Democratic candidate like Tulsi, they will do so. American intelligence community has confirmed these facts. Also Hillary isn't running 2020, this isn't about her like your original post aspersed. I don't like the comparison to McCarthyism. Hillary didn't mention Tulsi; we're assuming Tulsi because Tulsi's fucking wack and everyone knows it. Hillary is also smarter about this stuff than any of us likely ever will be, so while I appreciate the history lesson and all, I'm pretty sure she doesn't need it.
So far Trump has done more in the interest of himself and Russia than the interest of the country. That should tell you all you need to know about where Trump is at foreign policy wise.
Almost all of the previous citations given were about politics not business related.
Because a lot of people get really tilted that bernie continues to exist.
yes
yup
although technically she didn't call Gabbard a Russian operative, she said "she" was their favorite candidate. And in fact there's already proof of this
nope
commenting on the people in this thread who would rather scream about how she didn't campaign in Michigan than refute any of her points
Is this about the unsubstantiated Derkach claim that's being spread around?
How would someone refute her points? You would literally need to proof a negative.
yes. I rephrased her comments. Also Im not a fan of Tulsi anyway; so I have no stake in defending her besides thinking that it's probably not appropriate to have said it (lol like we all know she meant Tulsi).
Yea I'm ignorant because I expressed my opinions in relation to his foreign policy, all which is public information not something I cooked up like those MAGA weirdos.
I'm sooo ignorant that I accepted other viewpoints and have said I was wrong in the way I worded my first comment.
Oh look Mr.Clean is going to make it his duty to "clean up my BS" by personally attacking me instead of, you know, posting links/evidence to support your argument?
You don't rattle me Mr.Clean.
And it's not like if a Gabbard third-party run happened that Russia would be putting all their eggs in the Tusli basket. They're going to push on every division they can, they're going to push misinformation, they're going to attack the winning candidate, they're going to feed right-wing media.
It's very clearly Tulsi -- if she's not an op ala Jill Stein (to her voters: congrats on the dupage), Tulsi is clearly their favourite candidate. Doesn't have a snowball's chance in winning but can play enough of a spoiler/dampener in important states for some "anyone but the establishment/primary winner" camp.
All you need is a Guccifer-style dump for this idiocy to repeat itself.
All you need is a Guccifer-style dump for this idiocy to repeat itself.
Alex Jones level conspiracy theories from Hillary. And 2/3rds of people here agree with her lol.
I don't know what I expected.
I don't know what I expected.
I'm already aware of the things he has done for Russia but I'm trying to say that has has also a lot of things that work against them as well. I already agreed that the 2016 collusion was fact not fiction. But I guess what I'm saying doesn't even matter since he's willing to compromise the US so easily and readily.
You don't know what you're talking about and you're trying hard to make it seem like you just misspoke or communicated poorly. No one believes you.
Yep, a factual post that doesn't align with your viewpoint has to be an alt account.
Ok, but it's not like she said "Tulsi's an alien, you can't prove otherwise!" There are enough legitimate concerns people have raised about Gabbard either in her words or actions that point to someone who is being (willingly or otherwise) used by Russian disinformation campaigns to stir up trouble in the primary.
Same for Stein, really. It's in the Mueller Report itself that those same campaigns encouraged people to vote third party (Stein, specifically) instead of Clinton. The only debatable aspect of that, like Gabbard, is how involved Stein was in that effort or if she was just a useful idiot, neither of which is a good look for her.
She brought up Hillary by name a few times during the debate, and I thought it was weird. I'm now wondering if she didn't do it to trigger a certain type of person
Well when someone keeps shit posting the same garbo and has their account on hide with such a low post count, logical assumptions are made.
User Banned (2 Weeks): Trolling and Antagonizing Other Users Over Multiple Posts in this Thread
I don't care what you believe Mr. Clean. The man that posted no substance is calling me out for not "knowing what I'm talking about". Do you want to state any other grievances Mr.Clean?
But isn't this 99% on Clinton for being shit (in the minds of those voters) instead of Stein being good. Russia didn't make HRC the most disliked candidate, unless...
Yes, we think shes right about Tulsi, are you reading the thread or just the title (let me guess).
Its super obvious too if you have followed Tulsi.
Have you followed Tulsi at all?
Its also helpful that it was pointed out this way. Because it all will blow hugely if Tulsi tries this shit too.
This is coming from someone who literally just made a shit post and looked all up and down my profile instead of giving me an actual counter argument
Spend the effort and read up on the situation. Start with the Mueller Report. At the very least, read articles and analysis by serious people (and not "serious" people). Anyone saying Trump wasn't or isn't influenced by Russia or that it's no big deal should be ignored for the sake of time. Reevaluate them after studying so you can more fully understand why those takes are garbage.
A counter argument to what exactly? That Biden is the real corruption in Washington?
Literally none of this contradicts Clinton's point that Russian operatives boosted Stein's candidacy.
It doesn't matter how much of an influence it ultimately had on the election, the point is that they still did it. That is irrefutable.
Even so, Clinton's favorability ratings were barely underwater in June 2015, when she first announced her run for president and when Russian troll farms started attacking her on social media. Within months she settled into the 40-55 trend she was at for most of the election. Are you sure that isn't a coincidence?
User banned (1 week): Inflammatory community generalizations
lmao 2/3 of this forum are fucking morons
Hillary stans aren't required to believe every ridiculous thing she says. Just a tip!
Hillary stans aren't required to believe every ridiculous thing she says. Just a tip!
She doesn't need it, because she was supporting Red-baiting candidates back in the 60s.
Also, the intelligence community provided no proof to make these kinds of accusations against Tulsi Gabbard. Also, part of growing up in the United States is understanding un-substantiated Intelligence reports or anonymous intelligence sources are not something to hold up. The Intelligence Community as they like to be called uses the America press to pass along information all the time they know is not true. They denied and lied about their surveillance apparatus, South American coups, and will say and do anything to further America's global powers.
I 100% believe Russia used bots to prop up candidates against Hillary Clinton. The internet can be used in this way by any person, sovereign government, or NGO to further a cause or impugn a world leader. Adversarial powers will use these means to project soft power.
Tulsi is bad and she shouldn't be running, but implying she is working directly with Russia and is disloyal to the United States is a bridge too far without actual proof.
Tulsi Gabbard isn't a Russian asset, she's just shit all on her own. I'm sure the Russian bot network would love to promote her but she's such a non-factor that it's basically meaningless.
Bernie ain't running as a third party.
1. He still has an outside shot at the nom
2. For all his fractiousness he has committed to endorsing the eventual Dem
3. Bernie doesn't have any love for Putin and the only demonstrable Russian influence on his campaign was trollfarms and bots attacking Hillary on his behalf - which they're going to do with all the 2020 candidates.
4. He has no love for the DNC but he legitimately cares about the country and his base is so attached to him that he can do a lot of good supporting the candidate who wins if it's not him - and hopefully learned a bit more about that phenomenon from 2016 when he lost control of a few of his more ardent supporters. As long as it's not Biden I think even the most aggressive Bernie Bro would vote for the dem - and if it's Warren then they shouldn't even be that mad.
He literally defended her recent sensitivity to transphobia, so this is nothing.
- Status