Of the many reasons to dislike Hillary Clinton, this strikes me as the least justified.
-
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
Probably Jamelle Bouie?
Tulsi's going to be bolting the party as soon as she loses both primaries. It's not "conspiratorial" if it's fucking true, which Tulsi all but confirmed with her unhinged Trump-like response. It's perfectly fine to call out a traitorous jackass in a way that pre-empts her trying to undermine your party in the general election after that person has just brought you up a day or two prior.
Tulsi isn't a victim here. She took a swing at Hillary in the debates, Hillary clapped back, and Tulsi went and proved Hillary right.
Imagine telling the person who lost to a Russian agent in the last election not to publicly voice concern about another individual being utilized by Russia in the next one.
i feel like this comparison you have made makes it sound like you agree with clinton's assessment of gabbard? like calling obama dic and that he endorsed trudeau is rooted in the reality of his actions, so it kind of feels like your criticism is that clinton was simply being impolite by voicing an open secret that everyone already knew about?
I see a lot people saying this will increase her profile. In what way? Will this lead to more donations? A rise in polling?
Speaking of loons, you don't get more loony than Anna Khachiyan and Dasha.
Hillary is smart enough to know the power of her words as a high profile public figure. She's talked about this before. This idea that basic ideas and concepts need to be explained to a woman as decorated as Hillary Rodham Clinton is strange to me.
So "why doesn't she know this?" isn't the correct question. The correct question is, "why doesn't she care?" And why should she care? Tulsi Gabbard is not her responsibility. She didn't put her there, and she had nothing to do with Tulsi raising enough money to get back into the debates after not qualifying for the last one. The People did that.
Last edited:
gabbard doesn't care about polls, she actually considers them to be a way for the dnc establishment to rig the primary against voters.
(this is a literal actual thing she said)
It definitely raised at least one person's profile:
Maybe I don't dislike individuals, but an entire class of individuals 🧐
Yes I realized that my response did not really answer your post at all. Though I guess you are right. My main problem is that these comments are needlessly divisive for the sake of it. She's too influential to be causing these types of inter party conflicts. It's not like she expresses disagreement with some specific Tulsi policy (though I'm sure she does), it's the casting doubt on the entire campaign as not legitimate and if you are a Tulsi supporter, it's not just that you're wrong, you're also part of the Russia conspiracy. This is unhelpful, I think, if you want those people to support you in future elections.
You know she went on Tucker Carlson to talk about this immediately after it happened right?
Who do you think Tulsi's supporters are, exactly? There's a reason she pays for Breitbart ads.
I think by and large, they're very
Are we still pushing this narrative 3 years after the fact? Even if every Jill voter in the country voted for Hillary instead (implying it was a choice between the two for them and that Hillary wasn't a non-factor for most of them), she still would've lost the Electoral vote, albeit by less.
If you think this Russia garbage in any way reaches the levels of Israeli influence in US politics, you're insane. Russians impacted at most a handful of elections in the past few years and do so only at the federal level. AIPAC's influence exists down at even local levels and has existed for decades.
As an outsider, Tulsi Gabbard has been a fastinating public figure to read about.
She's been suspect for years now. It's incredible that many decide to turn a blind eye over her history.
She's been suspect for years now. It's incredible that many decide to turn a blind eye over her history.
Stein got 1.4 million votes. Clinton lost by less than 80,000 votes total across three states.
I would say so. They're part of it, but the audience she's courting is the Michael Tracey-type "Leftie" audience who are pretty much just isolationist social conservatives carrying water for authoritarians like Trump. (they're not actually lefties although some will keep up the act far longer than others.)
Divisive how exactly?
If anyone is a Tulsi supporter, then they are ok with supporting an anti-LGBT bigot who is in a fucking cult, supporting someone who regularly goes on Fox News to attack Democrats at large and only exists in the Democratic party because the GOP is dead in Hawaii.
She's a Republican. The people who support her are either "ok" with her views because they are "anti-establishment", in which case fuck them because they perfectly fine demonizing entire portions of the marginalized community for the sake of their stupid fucking political narratives, or they are supportive of her views.
Agreed. They're fucking hilarious.
And it raises her public profile, amplifying her voice. Further than just Fox News.
i mean we're literally posting in a 17 page thread about a candidate polling at dogashitta percent
I can't read the minds of Tulsi supporters. When they say they are anti-interventionist and supportive of LGBT rights, I can only assume that they really mean it - and that they're seriously mistaken about Tulsi's actual views.
Exactly.
It's not just on Tulsi's opponents to not be divisive. If she were a serious person, she'd bear some of that responsibility too by not constantly parroting Breitbart/RT talking points against her opponents, or attacking her opponents and the DNC at large on Tucker Carlson of all places.
But Tulsi's not a serious person.
Last edited:
Have you actually met a Tulsi supporter?
Cause, she's polling at like, 1% max on most polls. So statistically, depending on who you hang out with, I'm guessing no.
So what exactly is the fear of division when nobody who represents the Democratic Primary voter actually likes her?
(secretly I'm starting to think that Tulsi isn't a plant. I think she's "fucking stupid")
Well that's an interesting stance. Maybe it's not harmful because there just aren't enough Tulsi supporters. I think this is probably true, actually.
I just double checked and will admit I was wrong. In every state where there was less than a 1% margin for Trump, Jill's votes would've gotten Hillary the win... by 5 electoral votes. So it would still have been extremely close, and that still ignores the Johnson voters that would've backed Trump over Hill and won him New Hampshire in the same case, thus winning him the presidency anyway.
In any regard, it's really hard to blame 4th place for 2nd when 3rd place would've just helped 1st more.
Johnson is completely irrelevant to the point being made regarding Stein and Tulsi.
That's pretty much everyone's read, hence the plethora of reaction gifs on twitter from other politicians.
Wrong. The point being made was that Russians backing Stein (a comical claim in the first place) cost Hillary the election, which is false because it makes a number of assumptions that could only come true in a fantasy world and even then STILL would've ended with Hill losing.
Anyway, I'm not continuing this discussion, it's hardly relevant to the greater thread and everybody else should've gotten over it 3 years ago.
pretty sure there was contemporaneous polling showing Johnson pulling roughly equally from both major-party candidates though, like some weird new-age version of Perot 92
Huh? The claim was Stein mattered in 2016, not that she alone cost anyone anything. The point was that's why we care about Gabbard going third party in 2020. Johnson is irrelevant to that conversation.
Run along.
I sometimes wonder if HRC might have been the only democratic candidate Trump could have beat going back to at least Dukakis. I mention that because it seems like maybe she should take a step back. This might be true, if so it is even more of a reason she should allow someone else to be the messenger.
One of the lessons of 2000/2016 is that until we get some sort of EC reform in place, Dems are going to be the underdogs going into elections after 8 years in the White House because of complacency.
What blows my mind about all this is that 1. We all know Trump is compromised and got help from the Russians 2. We know Hillary warned us during the 2016 election 3. But Hillary is just saying conspiratorial nonsense about Gabbard!!! /s
And I don't just mean this thread, I'm seeing it elsewhere too.
And I don't just mean this thread, I'm seeing it elsewhere too.
I mean that's always been true. But yes.
I'm glad for the boost this will give her primary challenger.
Hopefully it will be enough for him to manage a win. Would be amazing to see.
Huh? No, it's just bouncing off of that to say that the Dems are going to be dealing with a second structural issue compounding the known structural issues hurting Democrats with the Electoral College structure. A party controlling the White House leads to the out-of-power party becoming energized and gaining ground in downballot elections while the in-power party becomes complacent and loses ground in downballot elections. You can see that IP/OOP effect in the massive swings you've seen in the House in 2010 and 2018- they're not an accident, they were entirely predictable. The structure hurts Dems, but the complacency aspect amplifies the problem in a way that's worse than the sum of the parts because of the overrepresentation of white voters in swing states.
The idea that "any candidate but Hillary would have won" is probably wrong, unfortunately, because of this. We really need to get some sort of EC reform ASAP because the combination of those two structural factors is going to be getting even worse over time, and as we saw in the popular vote totals, reducing the warped nature of the system would significantly reduce the effect the enthusiasm gap has in Presidential elections.
Felt like Clinton struck a nerve. To respond that strong makes it suspicious.
If it wasn't for her name I would have told you somebody who supports Trump wrote that.
edit: apparently I've confused my Hawaiian politicians. ignore
Last edited:
Messenger? It wasn't like this was a campaign stop. Hillary isn't on the stump. This whole controversy started because Hillary said something non-controversial (because Tulsi being a stooge for Putin has been obvious and talked about all year) on a podcast. A podcast.
It's only blowing up because Tulsi is being the hit dog who hollered, and too many people, too many people, are stuck in this idea that Hillary Clinton should no longer be allowed to have opinions.
- Status