Tulsi Gabbard

There is always going to be someone trying to screw with our elections. Yes, they will pick a candidate they hate to try and defeat or one they like to try and prop up...or maybe both! Conflating that fact into an accusation of being a "Russian asset" is childish, no matter who does it.

We don't elect people based on whether or not the Russians, or anyone else, likes them. We elect them after a long and sometimes brutal (mentally; you hardly ever see one get beaten physically...) campaign. The voters go into the balloting area alone, but they carry a lot of things with them--all those things they have heard or seen over the years about the candidates.

Do the Russians have input? It seems so. They run campaigns to provide information or disinformation, as necessary. Heck, we do it ourselves...how many people share memes that they don't bother to find any proof to support? All that stuff gets into people's heads and makes a difference.

With all that, that does not make anyone a "Russian Asset" in the way that is normally described. Perhaps Russia does put force behind them, but that is not the candidate's fault.

Instead of her rant against Stein and Gabbard, perhaps Secretary Clinton, President Obama, President Trump, our Congress, our intelligence apparatus, law enforcement, etc. ALL should get off, or should have gotten off, their collective asses and do something about China, Russia, etc. interfering in our election in any way.

Clinton lost. She'd readily blames the Russians or whoever else she can for that rather than accept her inability to close an election that was hers to win.

I figure all nations have a duty to keep foreign nations out of their elections.

Of course if you base everything on what our intelligence agencies do, you can throw up your hands and say, "well everybody interferes".

So what. Maybe we're shooting someone else in the foot, doesn't mean we have to allow others to shoot us in the foot.

Quote: rxwine

I figure all nations have a duty to keep foreign nations out of their elections.

Of course if you base everything on what our intelligence agencies do, you can throw up your hands and say, "well everybody interferes".

So what. Maybe we're shooting someone else in the foot, doesn't mean we have to allow others to shoot us in the foot.

We should fight them a lot harder than we do...and have done...but they will try every time. There will always be someone they like better than another for whatever reason.

...and we should try to do what we do in other places as necessary.

Reminds me.

I watched quite a bit of Joe Rogan interviewing Edward Snowden. I found it pretty interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efs3QRr8LWw&t

Tulsi went on Hannity to trash Dems
Is this woman serious about winning the Dem nomination or is she trolling the Dem Party
She strikes me as wanting the win the republican nomination
Come on, she went on Hannity to agree with Hannity. No Dem voters watch Hannity. This is the absurd candidate.
She needs Dem votes to win the nomination yet goes on Hannity to trash Dems on a show Dems don't watch
Her chances are less then zero now.

Quote: terapined

Tulsi went on Hannity to trash Dems
Is this woman serious about winning the Dem nomination or is she trolling the Dem Party
She strikes me as wanting the win the republican nomination
Come on, she went on Hannity to agree with Hannity. No Dem voters watch Hannity. This is the absurd candidate.
She needs Dem votes to win the nomination yet goes on Hannity to trash Dems on a show Dems don't watch
Her chances are less then zero now.

You mean make legitimate criticism?

Yang has been on Tucker's show, who cares....

Tulsi has also been on Stossel, and he was probably the most fair to her despite having huge disagreements....

Quote: terapined

Tulsi went on Hannity to trash Dems
Is this woman serious about winning the Dem nomination or is she trolling the Dem Party
She strikes me as wanting the win the republican nomination
Come on, she went on Hannity to agree with Hannity. No Dem voters watch Hannity. This is the absurd candidate.
She needs Dem votes to win the nomination yet goes on Hannity to trash Dems on a show Dems don't watch
Her chances are less then zero now.

Today I watched the Hannity interview of Tulsi that occurred yesterday.

It is 100% obvious by your comments that you are "blowing smoke" and did not watch a single second of the interview.

Quote: Gandler

You mean make legitimate criticism?

Yang has been on Tucker's show, who cares....

Tulsi has also been on Stossel, and he was probably the most fair to her despite having huge disagreements....

Explain to me the political strategy of going Hannity to help her win the Democratic nomination for President
Looking to me like she is trolling Dems
Russian asset. Probably. No doubt Putin approves. No doubt David Duke approves, he endorsed her
Bottom line, less then zero chance.

Don't get me started on Stossel. He is totally against my right to vote. He is totally against Headcount. We register voters at concerts. He hates us. Done negative stories on his going in concert parking lots looking for drunks and announcing no way he wants concert goers getting the right to vote. I got news for you stossel, even though I hate the KKK, I absolutely support their members the right to vote. This is America, we have the right to vote even if we go to rock concerts or are a member of the KKK

Quote: terapined

Explain to me the political strategy of going Hannity to help her win the Democratic nomination for President
Looking to me like she is trolling Dems
Russian asset. Probably. No doubt Putin approves. No doubt David Duke approves, he endorsed her
Bottom line, less then zero chance.

Don't get me started on Stossel. He is totally against my right to vote. He is totally against Headcount. We register voters at concerts. He hates us. Done negative stories on his going in concert parking lots looking for drunks and announcing no way he wants concert goers getting the right to vote. I got news for you stossel, even though I hate the KKK, I absolutely support their members the right to vote. This is America, we have the right to vote even if we go to rock concerts or are a member of the KKK

This is turning into the high point of absurdity.

David Duke supports her because she does not want to send Americans to die in foriegn wars according to his words. I agree with this statement.

As for Stossel stuff, I don't care, he did a fine interview with her.

"She is doing this becuae I am the one that she cannot manipulate into regime change wars" -Tulsi .

She is right, and the she is proudly standing against the pro-war Clinton fans. All slander, no substance. Tell me a policy you disagree with her on and we can talk. You don't like her because the machine is telling you to not like her, that is why you use words like treason and asset with no evidence and no logical reasoning (in fact you later say you don't care about her foriegn policy.... so she is an asset because of being anti-war, but you don't care about foriegn policy?)

This is turning into Alice and Wonderland where we must accept at least two impossible things before breakfast....

Quote: terapined

Russian asset. Probably.

Why? Simply because Hillary Clinton said so? An "Asset" is something controlled by someone. She may be wrong and have a different point of view than you or I, but that does not make her an "asset" that they control in the context of the word as used in this kind of discussion. We both know the meaning implied is "under control of"...

The contention that she is one is a smear, not even close to a fact.

Quote: terapined

No doubt Putin approves.

She has no control over Putin. She hasn't taken as much money from Russia or Russians as the Clinton's.

Quote: terapined

No doubt David Duke approves, he endorsed her.

Again, you can say something that makes sense and a horrible person can approve it. That doesn't mean you approve that person.

Quote: terapined

Bottom line, less then zero chance.

I agree. The Democrat machine is less concerned with letting their candidates run and being fair to them than about getting certain candidates to the front of the race. They did it to Bernie in 2016; they are doing it again.