And here I am old enough to remember when #civility was supposedly the preferred tactic of weak spineless centrist Democrats and not True Progressives.
-
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.
US PoliEra 2019 |OT9| I'm really glad I'm not on Twitter nearly enough to understand all the references
- Thread starter TheHunter
- Start date
- Status
Not really. Because you can call her trash for supporting a certain issue. That's different from my argument.
And who said you couldn't call her out on that? What I'm saying is that to call someone an asset is a dumb criticism. It descends all criticisms to "you're allied with this country on this position, therefore you're bad." It's unnecessary as you guys have proven by calling out her positions. Nobody is saying don't attack her lmao
What about Russian bot signal boosting and hours of coverage on Russian state tv?
How is it a "Cold War" slur when Russia hacked us not even three years ago and has been subverting our and others' democracy, trying to manipulate politicians, and trying to get people sympathetic to its interests elected?
"You can attack her individual stances but you cant put them all together to show that they all align with Russia, thats a bridge too far"
And are you seriously trying to "both Sides' fucking Assad?
1.You don't know what an asset is
2.Kremlin controlled propaganda outlets are supporting her (which makes her an asset)
3.She was asked MULTIPLE TIMES to denounce this type of support, she refused
4.She supports multiple dictators which causes her foreign policies to allign with Russia's
5.She constantly spouts shit about the DNC being corrupt and primary being rigged (classic russian tactics in 2016 to suppress liberal voters)
6.She had a trumpian response to Hillary's (factual) criticisms
7.She's a regular on Tucker Carlsons white power hour
8.She runs ads on Brietbart
9.Hillary told us about Trump and the russians last time and nobody listened, even though everythign she said ended up being true
She's traveled to Syria as a guest of Assad on someone else's dime. Syria is a vassal state of Russia. Transitive properties apply.
You don't need to take money to be an asset. That said I think there's a very high chance she did, I don't trust Tulsi at all.
Also shitty response by Bernie as expected, can't wait till he loses.
It's not on everyone else to watch their tongue for fear of offending lefties interested in relitigating stuff from 3-7 decades ago.
Please go here:
And realize she's still part of this cult. She's well out of "polite disagreement" territory. And she's WELL into useful idiot territory. She's been proped up on Russian state media, pushed by Russian bots, yeah she might not be actively working for Russia, but that doesn't meant they aren't pushing her as an asset to dig a divide and wouldn't be overjoyed if she went third party.
User warned: hostility
your evershifting arguments are also pretty lazy
we went from evidence is needed, to tone policing.
Man, the rose-tinted glasses towards Russia are still happening in twenty-f'ing-nineteen.
User warned: hostility
What on earth are you talking about? Who is doing that? Stop being dishonest.
Yeah sure. I sure shifted my argument lmao
Nice try
Beleaguered socialist nation abused by the mean capitalist countries.
How else will homophobic Hindu-nationalists who selectively support or oppose military action in the Middle East depending on who they are trying to appeal to and obsessively watch Tucker Carlson be represented in government without Tulsi in the White House?
Hillary didn't say that she did, so I don't see how this is relevant.
Not disingenuous at all. Disagree with people's ideas. Criticize them.
The problem wasn't whether or not there actually were people with beliefs in line with Communism during the Red Scare. There were. It was about people using the hysteria to overestimate Russia's actual ability to impact US policy and throw attacks at political opponents and dissidents. Winning elections and pressuring them into positions they would not normally hold.
The tough on Russia, tough man approach got us into Vietnam. Leaving Vietnam means you are weak. Leaving Vietnam means you must be a pinko.
Calling someone a Russian asset without proof is stupid and should be called out. Even if the person you are calling out is completely wrong about everything else.
I am really starting to believe that Sanders really lives inside a bubble and lacks political nuance and foresight. I know people have said this before but it's starting to click with me as well.
Imagine the blowback if it is found out that Tulsi does in fact serve the interests of Russia.. that's campaign ending. This is not a risk worth taking whatsoever.
Imagine the blowback if it is found out that Tulsi does in fact serve the interests of Russia.. that's campaign ending. This is not a risk worth taking whatsoever.
Where did I do that? Please point that out. I didn't defend her on certain issues at all. Again with the dishonesty on here. Figures.
That wouldn't have made any difference.
People would've still been like "How dare you!"
She'll be lucky if that fire gets her to 2% in the polls.
It's about keeping her from running third-party.
Something existing does not mean the threshold to call someone out without evidence is lower.
If she is taking money from Russian oligarchs to give speeches or access you may have a point and I would concede.
dont be ridiculous, no matter how artful she worded it, the same people here would be concern trolling for Gabbard still.
they still are
It would to me. And to cnn. Because Facts Matter.
but mostly to me.
People have been posting the specifics. And yet here you are whining that nobody is doing that.
I mean, if you want to deflect, you need to get better at it.
What's so bad about Russia? Who doesn't enjoy vodka with a bowl of borscht?
Actually yes it is disingenuous.
Gabbard's ideas have gotten plenty of criticism as as her support of drone strikes, her coziness with Assad, her anti-gay cult activity, her extremely frequent appearances on Tucker Carlson, her receiving money from infamous pro-Putin donors, etc.
Tulsi is literally an asset and it's very, very bizarre to watch folks try to bend the meaning of that word in order to somehow defend that tool.
"I don't like her, but..." seems to have become a very common refrain in the past few days.
Oh so you couldn't point out where I shifted my argument. And there are still people in here being dishonest.
Concern trolling. Holy shit. No, I just thought the attacks of someone being an asset is inherently dumb. Attacking the issues which almost everyone here does already, is better.
It depends on why it's stopped, but yes, they can stay any ruling or lift any stay if they decide to look at a case.
Treating a statement of fact as a standard-issue political attack is a big issue with how you're framing this.
- Status