-
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.
tulsi gabbard responds to hillary clinton (NYT corrects reporting, Clinton said Republicans and not Russians are grooming her for a 3rd party run)
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Well, the fear is that the Dem nominee could lose Wisconsin by a sliver again and people voted for a relatively strong Green Party nominee Tulsi Gabbard who convinces enough people who would be inclined to vote for the Dem nominee that they're the real issue. Obviously this is more realistic with some candidates (Biden) than others (Warren, Bernie)
However, Tulsi explicitly ruled it out when asked today and at this point she's going to start petitioning for ballot access for the primary and if she's on the Dem primary ballot in any state but NY, CT, or IA, she'll be subject to the state's Sore Loser laws. And she's polling fine enough (like 2% in a crowded race) that I bet she ends up on a ton of state's ballots.
It absolutely is not. Whatabouism isn't a "point" it's a way of deflecting criticism by trying to attack something else and turn the discussion elsewhere. And why the fuck are you talking about Bernie, he has absolutely nothing to do with anything here? Chomsky's a massive piece of shit Russia apologist , even going to bat for them on the Ukraine invasion, and is a gigantic fucking trash person beloved by anyone who likes people who say mean things about the US while pretending fascist authoritarians are being oppressed by it.
I don't even know much of the facts or what Clinton said, but at straight face value these tweets sound like a crazy person.
I agree with most of this but just as a point of clarification most sore-loser laws have carved out an exception for presidential candidates and wouldn't apply to Gabbard.
No lies detected. I mean I don't get voting for Tulsi as she kind of sucks but she's not wrong.
I wonder when she will start attacking Sanders and Warren. Both are a real threat for corporate Democrats.
Because the topic of Russia has been about Russian interference and the specific quote I brought up was highlighting the fact that Israel is very publicly and clearly interfering, of which Chomsky believes they are interfering more than Russia is. When people claim anyone who has ANYTHING that remotely benefits Russia in any way is a "Russian Asset" what do you call all the politicians in the United States who support Israel? Bernie was brought up because he's, as far as I"m aware, the only presidential candidate to be publicly critical of Israel.
If I actually liked Tulsi, you might have a point. I will criticize Tusli all day, funnily enough on another forum I visit I get called a lemming because of how much I criticize her. I was speaking more specifically about these posts where they list off a bunch of names and call them Russian assets, it's ridiculous. I'm more pushing back against this absurd concept of discrediting people by calling anyone who doesn't tow the line a Russian asset.
Calling Chomsky a "piece of shit" is such a disgusting thing to say but I'm not surprised to see you write it. What Chomsky does is shine a light on the corruption that exists within the United States, when so often in this country people try to justify the horrible things we often do.
Someone being a Putin bootlicker when he invades a neighboring country is not a positive character trait. Actually noticing that and reacting accordingly is not "being broken".
Lol what?
What does this even mean or have to do with the topic at all?
This isn't a fair comparison.
This is all so much worse than Watergate.
And yet people like Greenwald are happy to be on the Trump side of it all.
Don't question why though.
The last election came down to tens of thousands of votes in a handful of states, Tulsi taking a tiny fraction of the democratic nominee's votes would be a disaster, just like Jill Stein was/is.
That was definitely interference but it was nowhere as thorough as what the Russian government did to help Trump.
This is hilariously sad.
Can any of the Tulsi "progressive" fanboys here explain what exactly is attractive about her? Like policy-wise, what is there to like over the actually progressive candidates like Sanders and Warren?!
I hope you don't mention "anti-interventionism" because she'd definitely intervene if it means bombing Muslims while propping up murderous dictators.
Or do you agree with her racism, her homophobia, her transphobia, and her islamophobia? Or is that you think she's hot and that's all there is to it?
Can any of the Tulsi "progressive" fanboys here explain what exactly is attractive about her? Like policy-wise, what is there to like over the actually progressive candidates like Sanders and Warren?!
I hope you don't mention "anti-interventionism" because she'd definitely intervene if it means bombing Muslims while propping up murderous dictators.
Or do you agree with her racism, her homophobia, her transphobia, and her islamophobia? Or is that you think she's hot and that's all there is to it?
Murtaza Mohammad Hussain @MazMHussainhttps://twitter.com/MazMHussain/status/1157006607819116552
If you want to know why Tulsi Gabbard is accused of being a supporter of murderous dictators who fit her ideology rather than a simple peacenik reminder she did a solidarity visit to Sisi after he massacred 800 protestors in one day. Don't think Egypt was facing "regime change":
If you want to be genuinely non-interventionist that would probably mean cutting military aid to Egypt which is being used to massacre people there. Doing a solidarity trip with Dana Rohrbacher at such a moment is "intervening" not keeping the U.S. out of it.
If you want to be genuinely non-interventionist that would probably mean cutting military aid to Egypt which is being used to massacre people there. Doing a solidarity trip with Dana Rohrbacher at such a moment is "intervening" not keeping the U.S. out of it.
It actually wouldn't matter that much except that her whole schtick is being the foreign policy candidate. As such it seems worth noting that underneath the slogans her actual foreign policy views are extremely disturbing.
3:22 PM - Aug 1, 2019
Neera is definitely NOT backed by any special interest group but she WILL punch you if you bring up Hillary's vote for the Iraq war.
>
In his recent appearance at a panel on "fake news" in Moscow, the Intercept's Glenn Greenwald described his bold iconoclastic policy of speaking truth to power, and then proceeded to repeat an absurd lie told by the leader of the American government. In Greenwald's telling, the notion that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election came about as a desperate way for media elites to explain why their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, did not prevail.
"The American political system needed an explanation about why something like that could happen, and why they got it so wrong," began Greenwald. "One of the explanations about why it happened was the favorite tactic of governments, which was to say, it wasn't anything wrong with our country, it was this other foreign country over there that was to blame. And that's a major reason why fingers continue to be pointed at the Russian government."
Greenwald was very clear about his belief that the whole theory of Russian involvement was a postelection exercise in blame-shifting: "Excuses were needed, villains were required, people needed to point fingers at someone other than themselves for this very shocking event, and that's why there became this obsession with the Russian government."
This also happens to be President Trump's theory of the case.
I wonder if the resident Tulsi supporters, being the totally informed and independent free thinkers that they are, agree with Greenwald.
She would have been a mild annoyance going forward in the primariesif Hillary had not referenced her, the token "liberal" on fox news. Now she will be the renewed focus of every bot AstroTurf campaign and "anti establishment" left winger. Thanks Hillary
And thanks Bernie for being that desperate to have campaign surrogates you had to elevate her In the first place
And thanks Bernie for being that desperate to have campaign surrogates you had to elevate her In the first place
The irony of using whataboutism (popularized by the russian government) to deflect attention away from criticism of a russian favored candidate.
I'm not disagreeing with Neera. Tulsi is a piece of shit too lol
also Tulsi is polling at sub 1% she's barely a candidate
Tulsi was almost done lol She had a bad/boring debate, no one was talking about her and her campaign was probably about to go away.. And then here.comes.Hillary lol Why did she say this now lol This is going to energize her campaign, make her look like a victim to some and give her enough % in the polls and money to qualify for debates. You just know she's going to fundraise from this. Of course she's not going to win from this, but It'll give her enough support to stay in the race indefinitely. I can't wait to see her on the debate stage next time. She's probably going to call for Hillary to join the race. haha It's going to be crazy
Last edited:
There's a major difference between Trump's smearing and Clinton's. She didn't even mention her by name. Gabbard's response was very maga-like
She won't attack Warren. She'll only grouse about Bernie re 2016. She's not some stalwart defender of banks.
At first I didn't quite know what to make of Gabbard. She just seemed like a typical military-turned-politician who wanted to stop most wars.
Now she literally comes off like a character from Veep.
Now she literally comes off like a character from Veep.
The line "Tulsi is barely a candidate" folks clearly don't have the same fb feed as I do, where Tulsi stans have been popping up like daisies in the last few weeks. Clinton's comments didn't come out of nowhere. Tulsi's being propped up lately. Frankly I think it's due to Warren surging, so the counter programming people like Jimmy Dore can dodge sexism claims.
I think you have it backwards here. Literally the only reason that anyone defends Tulsi is because she backed Bernie in 2016. If she backed Hillary or didn't back anyone, she would have zero fans and her outright appalling record on foreign policy and LGBT issues would not be handwaved away by people who claim to be progressives. It would just be quietly agreed upon by anyone who has actually heard of her that she's to the right of most mainstream Democrats on most issues.
I can't understand why it's so important for Bernie folks to prop up every awful person who ever said anything nice about him.
Absolutely hilarious. This is the most conviction I've seen her show for anything. She overplayed her hand.
Big surprise.
Big surprise.
I just hope more states place sore loser laws so this stooge doesn't have a chance to spoil the election like stein did. I can't wait for her to lose her job.
So her being a racist and homophobe who supports mass genocide for minorities in Middle East countries is less bad because she endorsed Bernie once?
What the actual fuck?
Chomsky's entire schtick is the realpolitik logic used by American imperial managers like Kissinger, Albright, or Pompeo applied universally.
I guarantee he is not more of a bootlicker than you, and I say that with no malice toward you or your position.
User Banned (3 days): trolling, antagonizing other members
You can't make logical arguments with Bernie Stans.
I am glad people are starting to wake up to the fact that Glenn Greenwald is a alt-right pandering piece of shit.
Also if Glenn Greenwald, who enthusiastically supported the Iraq War and then later tried to pretend he didn't, could shut the fuck up forever about any topic relating to Clinton's voting record, that would be great.
lol
fuckin Jill Stein is on CNN right now, being all "Clinton should not throw around such innuendo!"
- proceeds to hurl huge amounts of innuendo
fuckin Jill Stein is on CNN right now, being all "Clinton should not throw around such innuendo!"
- proceeds to hurl huge amounts of innuendo
Democrats and liberals are not going to start voting for Tulsi. She's a zero on the left.
It's only conservatives and Russian bots who care about her, pretending she is the most sane Democratic candidate. She is just a mouthpiece for their usual talking points -- investigating Trump is "divisive", Mueller "found no collusion, no obstruction", yawn.
If she takes votes from anyone as a third party candidate, it would be from Trump.
It's only conservatives and Russian bots who care about her, pretending she is the most sane Democratic candidate. She is just a mouthpiece for their usual talking points -- investigating Trump is "divisive", Mueller "found no collusion, no obstruction", yawn.
If she takes votes from anyone as a third party candidate, it would be from Trump.
i don't know if I'd call him that, at very best he's just a contrarian, but personally I think he's the horshoe theory in real life... went so far left he came around the other end
Gotta love how just a few years ago so many people were touting Glenn Greenwald as some anti-establishment savior who was "speaking the truth", only for everyone to keep repeating "no, he's actually a fucking idiot". Shock, turns out he is indeed an idiot and not a "friend" of progressive ideals.
Tulsi is so clearly an ultra-right wing social conservative, it takes like five minutes of doing some google searching to even find an interview where she admits that all her right wing social views of being anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, Islamophobic have not changed at all
And if you think her views have "changed" and she has done some type of "progressive" progress? She admitted in an interview that her personal views have not changed.
Fittingly for her narrative, though, the explanation for her changed ideology feints us back onto familiar territory — the military. It was, she says, the days in the Middle East that taught her the dangers of a theocratic government "imposing its will" on the people. (She tells me that, no, her personal views haven't changed, but she doesn't figure it's her job to do as the Iraqis did and force her own beliefs on others.)
Keep defending her though, because she is "anti-establishment" and it works towards your narrative. Even while any type of critical thinking lands you in the opinion that "holy shit this cultist is fucking insane and completely trash, maybe we should fucking banish instead of trying to tiptoe around the fact she is a horrible person"
She's a Democrat for the simple reason that being a Republican in Hawaii is non-viable.
Tulsi is so clearly an ultra-right wing social conservative, it takes like five minutes of doing some google searching to even find an interview where she admits that all her right wing social views of being anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, Islamophobic have not changed at all
And if you think her views have "changed" and she has done some type of "progressive" progress? She admitted in an interview that her personal views have not changed.
Fittingly for her narrative, though, the explanation for her changed ideology feints us back onto familiar territory — the military. It was, she says, the days in the Middle East that taught her the dangers of a theocratic government "imposing its will" on the people. (She tells me that, no, her personal views haven't changed, but she doesn't figure it's her job to do as the Iraqis did and force her own beliefs on others.)
Keep defending her though, because she is "anti-establishment" and it works towards your narrative. Even while any type of critical thinking lands you in the opinion that "holy shit this cultist is fucking insane and completely trash, maybe we should fucking banish instead of trying to tiptoe around the fact she is a horrible person"
She's a Democrat for the simple reason that being a Republican in Hawaii is non-viable.
I seriously hope those with that fear trade up for better ones.
Considering that's my state and I hear this line it's a good time to remind people of the following facts related to jill stein.
1. The total amount of votes for her was not the majority of votes lossed from 2012 when obama ran. We are talking about 200-350k vote loss with stein having 30-k-70k votes at best.
2. Voter Suppression had more of an effect than dems bothered to realize
3. HRC totally depressed the vote to point Mitt Romney did better.
People need better and more accurate fears like a shitty establishment that has put up nothing but losing candidates the last two decades.
Contrarians don't constantly pal around with authoritarian regimens who are on a quest to eradicate LGBT people. It's been years at this point, he's made it clear what type of person he is.
He was never left wing. Stop trying to paint him as some "fallen hero", the guy was always shit.
agree – he's definitely no fallen hero but he does has some lefty views. listen I am definitely not a fan, he tries to inject himself into his own news too much
- Status