-
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
User Banned (5 days): trolling
healthy dialogue here on resetera
Well if it makes you feel better it is more about defending Bernie and hating Clinton. It shouldn't make you feel better though.
Meaning that their influence is more substantial and effective. This russia shit is a blip on the radar compared to that, which is why I get so frustrated at all this. Of course russia interfered and continues to interfere in elections. Of course russia will do their best to prop up politicians whose goals allign with them. But the root cause of all this is the power of capitol over our politicians. We shouldn't be fighting russian influence, we should have a broad agenda of drastically reducing the power of capitol over the election and governing processes of our country. This russia stuff is mostly being used as a scapegoat for the more pervasive influences that have been guiding our country for so long.
User Banned (3 days): hostility
I'm not making an effort to engage in a healthy dialogue with you following the idiotic comment in question. There's nothing there worthwhile to engage with.
Asset, not agent.
And it's not "neo-Mcarthyism" to note that Russia likes to boost people who are willing to spout their propaganda, vote against Russians sanctions, and sow discord.
As far as paragraph one, Tulsi's not a leftist or even an anti-interventionist, so why does she adopt their talking points? (For the record, I'm not a fan of tankies, which is more than a to intervention)
Because she either wants to shit on everything, or because she's actually sympathetic to Russian interests.
I think it's the first one, but if we found out it were the second I would not be surprised.
But is anyone really asking those questions, outside of Twitter lunatics that no one will pay attention to?
Was it so hard to just ignore the conversation and keep doing what he's doing?
What's the point of YET AGAIN alienating the Clinton voters bloc?
Does Bernie want to win? Does he realize that being able to give political power to the movement behind is the priority, and he should do what's necessary to achieve that?
It is baffling and selfish tbh.
Oh Israel and Saudi Arabia have a much more substantial impact on the US. It's just that's baked into the cake that is maintaining US strategic and economic interests.
Saudi Arabia in particular is just a goddamn nightmare. Somehow an even more homophobic, authoritarian and misogynistic country than Russia that is carrying out a genocide in Yemen, and are at the vanguard of the fossil fuel industry which is escalating the climate crisis.
But they offer something in return, so they are let off more lightly.
When you keep reading "asset" as "agent" then it's hard to make discussion move forward.
Or because all politicians spin their policy through rhetoric? For better or worse she does want to pull troops just like she says. The difference between her and a genuine anti-imperialist is that she'd just replace them with a shit ton more drone strikes.
And yeah, again there you go with the 'maybe she is sympathetic to russian interests'. Who is served by us saying this shit? You're doing the same thing you're claiming isn't being said.
I don't disagree, but what make Russian influence particularly appalling is that it's new. We can't even improve our governance without them fucking shit up, and now it's demonstrably worse. We've gone from the usual amount of corruption and atrocity to new highs.
oh no you can definitely blame Bernie, he went full tone deaf on someone who refuses to condemn her russian not trolls on twitter
When all the 2020 Dem candidates except Warren and Biden are dunking on trash-ass Hillary Clinton but they are doing so in defense of trash-ass Tulsi Gabbard.
I want someone to press warren on this because we have now seen how much chickenshit these politicians are when pressed on sensitive matters. Not one has shown guts. Let's see what warren says. If she goes in with Hillary she has my support . This is now a litmus test for me
Castro/Harris had the sense to say nothing. Biden/Warren don't need to say a thing, the whole point of someone like Hillary doing this for them is so they don't have to. (If anyone remembers when that one candidate in Texas for House got nuked by the DCCC, this is a similar dynamic.)
It'd be stupid as hell to side with anyone on this. The correct answer was the one Booker gave both in his reaction gif and in his interview.
All I said is that I wouldn't be surprised. Our President is compromised, why would it be surprising to find out some random Representative is too?
But no, I think she's a useful idiot who wants to burn shit down. I think she's an authoritarian who is too socially conservative and anti-Muslim and anti-LGBTQ to really fit in with the DNC so she decided to tear it down. I think she backed Bernie as a shot at the mainstream, and I think she's liked the merit-free benefits she got from it and is doing more of that.
Booker already responded on cnn saying Hillary shouldn't have said it
Or not all progressives think along the exact same lines.
I consider myself progressive and I've donated to the Gabbard campaign. I'm also a supporter of Sanders and Warren. To me, they all have something to offer.
What drew you to Gabbard, was it the homophobia, dictator stanning, or being a regular guest on a show hosted by a white supremacist?
The clip I saw was a dodge that sided with no one.
May I direct you to this thread for your viewing pleasure.
TL;DR: She worships an anti-lgbt bigot cult leader. She was raised and groomed in the cult and still says she's close with the cult leader. She's a piece of shit, end of.
"killer spin" aka a rather common opinion
Russia and Iran both export a lot of crude oil, Russia likes seeing the US isolated on the world stage, and the US tearing apart the deal and punishing Iran economically takes some of the pressure off Russia as it tries maintain a positive relationship with Iran while maintaining/creating a positive relationship with Saudi Arabia. . .just do the math
no one thinks Russia made Trump tear up the deal, but Trump tearing up the deal doesn't indicate a level of independence in tension with the idea (which is 1000% true) that Russia groomed him
And honestly if you wanna say tulsi is an asset of anyone, you gotta bring up her affinity for modi in india. Thats the most appalling thing about her imo.
I mean, if homophobia, blaming war crimes on the victims, and all the other crap aren't deal-breakers for you.... what is?
That has, in fact, been brought up multiple times in the thread. I'd say the most appalling thing about her is the cult.
Homophobia is putting it a bit too lightly given her cult ties.
Maybe it was her saying that Democrats need to stop talking about Russian collusion and how she still thinks Trump did nothing wrong enough to open this impeachment investigation.
High qualities. But she spends her time bitching about Democrats, both sidesing on Tucker. Maybe that's the real appeal.
I'm not surprised at Bernie's comments here. He seems to value loyalty more than anything. I mean, look at some of his campaign staff. Of course he was going to defend her.
Her anti-war message is a differentiator. It's a little Libertarian nugget that I can enjoy. And, like Sanders in 2016, it's nice to have someone that keeps these issues at the forefront when the other candidates all have their own focuses as well.
The skeletons in the closet stuff doesn't really register. I'm a simple man. I just want to see the policies.
The skeletons in the closet stuff doesn't really register. I'm a simple man. I just want to see the policies.
First off, she's not anti-war. She'd regularly go on Fox News and bash Obama for not using the phrase "extremist islamic terrorism."
Second, how does the homophobia not register? Does that not matter at all?
she not anti war. She is anti American war but pro Russian and Assad war. She is pro war when modi does it for Kashmir. She is an anti Muslim and excused modi for not stopping the cleansing of muslims. She doesn't see the Syrian conflict as that of stopping isis she sees it as anti Assad and is ok with Assad going about its business like gasing it's people. She is ok with isis running things in one half of Syria or turkey going after Kurds or Russians controlling Middle East policy
First, Tulsi's not actually anti-war, she's pro war on terror but anti-regime change. Second, I'm glad that her being a part of an anti-lgbt cult doesn't register for you because of your simplicity. I'm so glad that so long as a candidate pays lip service to an issue you like, it doesn't matter that she's in a cult that would sooner see people like me hanging from a short rope.
Hell, American troops were simply protecting the Kurds, not actively engaging daily, she is thus by proxy pro Kurd cleansing by Erdogan
tulsi must be angry that Kurds took out the group which was the most homophobic in the Middle East
She isn't anti war she's pro war except on Assad and Putin's terms
Exactly. So she appeals to that ONE Libertarian sentiment I have. Anti- American war. That has value to me.
As for the homophobia, I can't say it doesn't matter. I'm pro LGBTQ+ and I believe in equal rights and treatment of all honest and good members of society. But until Gabbard comes out with an anti-gay policy, then I have no reason to hate her.
She's an effective tool for keeping the discussions going.
Also, why are we hating on her for appearing on Tucker Carlson? I mean, yeah, he's a douchebag but I loved it when Bernie went on Fox News so I'm going to feel the same way about Tulsi.
Already linked him to that. Apparently he doesn't care. It's fine.
He's a White supremacist, not just a douche. Tulsi is there for only one reason and it's not to try and to get people to vote Democrat, not when she spends her time on the show both sidesing and bitching about the things her own party does making Democrats seem unreasonable. She is there because Tucker gives her a platform, and there is only one reason he does it so often, he likes what she says.
It's not that I don't care. I just need a moment to dig into the material.
I'd lose my shit (in a good way) if I saw Andrew Yang on Tucker talking about UBI and decriminalizing all drugs. That's my angle here. I don't mean to put anybody off.
OP
OP
if he's on tucker the message should be clear that he only wants those things for white people though
- Status