Hillary is saying Tulsi is being groomed by the Russians
- Thread starter BrunoMars420
- Start date
That's certainly a danger. But what are you supposed to do when you are being attacked by someone like Hillary?
Might as well go down fighting.
Once again we have Hillary behaving poorly and forcing good libs and Dems to pick sides when they don't want to have to pick sides. Most, sad to say, are siding with Hillary.
This is like forcing libs and Dems to pick sides on transgender bathrooms. It just causes trouble. Which is why the GOP likes to force such issues.
So why the fvck is Hillary doing this? What's her point? This only helps the GOP and maybe the Russians.
Then again, she used to be a Goldwater Girl.
https://www.thenation.com/article/clinton-tulsi-gabbard/
More surprising was the heartening defense offered by Gabbard’s fellow presidential hopefuls. Asked about the accusation that Gabbard was being groomed to be a Russian asset, Pete Buttigieg said, “There is no basis for that.” Beto O’Rourke told reporters, “Tulsi is not being groomed by anyone. She is her own person. Obviously has served this country, continues to serve this country in uniform, in Congress, as a candidate for presidency so I think those facts speak for themselves.”
I dunno whether they're "reliable" or not. I just notice how you act like you've cornered the market on what is, or isn't, legitimate. You never stop and think "well, maybe I'm not as objective as I think I am." You have your system, and you trust it. Believe it or not, Nat has the same process. You have what you trust, and you discredit others based on how much they align with what you've determined as reliable. Nat probably does the same thing. It's just interesting to watch people be so certain that they have it right, and everyone else has it wrong.
It's funny when I hear people use that saying "You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts." That seems infallible, and yet, I see people create, alter, twist, adjust, tweak, interpret, and every other subjective activity, when it comes to collecting, determining, or stating "facts." Two people can see the exact same thing and define it, explain it, describe it, uniquely different.
She needs to be "realistic?" You mean... don't get out of line? Don't show how the system is rigged and corrupt?
The DNC has decided to run another democrat against an incumbent who also happens to be running for the Democratic Nominee for president! That certainly would make sense, wouldn't it? She's a multi-decorated Iraq War vet. She's extremely liberal, progressive and principled to boot. She's got 3 terms behind her. She was hand-picked to chair committee's by the DNC. And, now... she's being challenged by another democrat for her own district while also running for the party's presidential nominee! Makes perfect sense! If you don't tow that party line, you get kicked off the team. It doesn't matter how much integrity, resolve, and qualified you are. If you rock the boat and challenge the system, you're gone.
I regret that I ever voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. I'm disgusted with myself. And, now? After seeing this crap over the last days, weeks and few months? I may have to reevaluate the whole thing. I despise Donald Trump. But... I can definitely say that I despise Hillary Clinton just as much. She should have kept her mouth shut.
Hillary Clinton is one of the MOST corrupt, bought-off candidates and political figures in the history of the country. She's a Goldman-Sachs flunkie. She's in-the-tank for war industry corporations https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/defense-industry-hillary-clinton-227336 Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics.
I'm sick of myself for having cast a vote for her. I'll never vote against my conscience again... ever. Of course, I don't elect the president when I vote anyway. That's the electoral college's job.
This whole episode has helped me to identify the partisan die-hards on this board. The Hillary Lover Club! I had no idea she had such a cult of personality like Trump, but she does.
I think many of the Hillary lovers here are Hillary lovers as a defense mechanism because of their blind hatred for Trump and all things Trump. Hillary wouldn't be in the conversation if she hadn't lost to Trump. People haven't gotten over that, and have to rationalize.
Or, perhaps, they simply believe in Rule of Law, and they recognize when Jeff Sessions said "there is no crime here", there REALLY WAS NO CRIME THERE....
Kewl. You get 1% of your "news" from normal sites. That means you spout 99% bullshit.
I generally look them up. What Nat has listed are primarily "conspiracy" sites; the "best" sources he has are "mixed", which means they do not monitor the factual accuracy of many of their contributors and Op Eds. In layman's terms, that means "buyer beware".
FUNFACT: You can figure it out, if they parrot conspiracy theories like "the DNC server is hidden in Ukraine".
There are three candidates currently considering running against her in the primary. The DNC knows, full well, she's not getting the nomination.
But we agree on one thing... HRC needs to disappear.
FUNFACT: Everyone doesn't believe what you believe. As frustrating as this is for you to understand, it's true.
Joe always has a tough time understanding this.
And, she's messing with the system that they've invested a lot of time and effort to reward them first. Its built into the system to divide the people and benefit the people in power. We can't have that. Not to mention, there are a lot of the people who trust them and refuse to believe that they're being betrayed and duped in spite of being made aware of the scam.
Cool. But the point here was getting your news from unreliable sources. That parrot Kremlin talking points.
Seems like complex sentences confuse and confound the MAGAs. I like to split it up more like a See Dick, See Jane book that is simpler for them....
When you say "Kremlin talking points", have you heard from the Kremlin to know what the talking points are, exactly? I don't watch the news, or news channels, but, I'm also not aware of direct access to The Kremlin. What is your source for that?
The funny thing is you have to look at Media Bias/Fact Check to be told how to think and view news sources. You can't determine on your own? It's like a Prop or Not (with anonymous sources) or Newsguard (backed by huge corporations) who want a monopoly on Establishment narrative to feed Boobus Americanus. Those who rebel will be tarred with a broadbrush as extreme. It's like Joseph Goebbels, only 74 years later.
The CIA has a troll farm with a budget of $40 million. What is your cut? I ask this because the very term "Conspiracy Theorist" that you like to throw around, was coined by Allen Dulles in 1967 to counter the groundswell of Americans who refused to believe the Warren Commission BS after Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement came out. You use this broad swipe to smear sources. Guess what, Chief...people, governments, corporations CONSPIRE all the time. Cui bono has been around since Cicero. To pursue who stands to benefit is taught in law school. When a crime is committed, say a wealthy socialite being murdered, the 1st thing an insurance company will insist on is an investigation of the insurance beneficiary. Who benefits? So, you may wish to brand sites as conspiratorial in a derisive way...I say that's great reporting, which is so sorely lacking from our oligarch owned media who train dolts to look the other way. So, great work Lew Rockwell and all the PhD contributors on your site who dare challenge the swamp.
Tulsi is smeared in the same way by the MIC as she craves peace. She has done this knowing she will take shrapnel from the MIC and stooges in her own party who have to go to Media Bias/Fact Check to be told how to think like tiny lemmings. My question to you is, why do you always support war and destruction? You claim to be a liberal and and demand solutions to climate change while the military is the greatest threat to our planet and climate change. Riddle me that, Batman.
Bot monitoring on Twitter is one main resource.
Career civil servants point out many others. When both "left" and "right" career folks are telling you the same thing, it's kinda smart to listen.
You might wanna look up who Evan McMullin is, too. Because he's not a "liberal Dem", and he's calling out Tulsi as regurgitating Kremlin talking points.
Avoid Lew Rockwell, and basically any source you Bud Nat posts, because although a few of them might be reliable, most are not.
I don't "have to". It is one source. It's not telling me "how to think", it informs me on whether a source typically provides reliable information, or not.
Okay... you're still not answering my question. You, personally, have no idea what "The Kremlin" is saying, wants, doesn't want, or anything else. You hear what other people say, based on what they claim they hear, or made-up for all you or I know.
"When both 'left' and 'right' career folks are telling you the same thing, it's kinda smart to listen."... Not to me, it isn't. These people's livelihood is dependent upon the illusion that 1) they're different and 2) that people believe that they're one or the other, all the time. That way, they can fleece them to the skin. Bill Kristol, for example... that dude is more dangerous than the Ebola virus. Unless you're Glenn Greenwald, or Matt Taibbi, I probably will be suspect. But, see, there ya go. I have my sources that I trust and you have yours.
I did answer your question.
Bot trackers have identified thousands of Troll Farm accounts. All you have to do is see what their "Narrative du Jour" is.
Alternatively, you can find good and honest sources of information from the Left and Right and see they are in agreement. Evan McMullin is a good source. Lew Rockwell is not.
See. EASY
But, sadly, you do. You can't debate the FACTS presented to you...so smear is your next option.
Try to forgive me for not trusting a former CIA agent. I mean, really, dude... their job description is literally "Deceive." The CIA has been involved in more upheaval and black-op, and deposing democratically-elected leaders in favor of despots that will accommodate western corporate bidding, than I care to list. If you trust the CIA, that's fine. I don't.
This feels like what happened in 2016.
At some point the Hillary folks started lying and attacking to fend off a surging Bernie. It worked. But the price was huge. Real hostility between natural allies. Friends and family members unfriending each other and never talking again. Bernie supporters refusing to vote for Hillary - notwithstanding that Bernie was campaigning hard for her.
That hostility wasn't happening in this race. Yet.
And then Hillary jumps in with this bullshit - and tears away the stitches on the not-quite-healed wounds.
This will cost the Dems some votes. Maybe not enough to matter. But folks like Amy and Pete are already going dirty against Lizzie and Bernie. They are appealing to the Hillary supporters who are still mad at Bernie, and who are willing to accept milquetoast solutions to existential problems.
This is not good for the nation, much less the Dem party.
When you say Kremlin talking points, shake it up a little bit and use its synonym...PEACE. Her policy is a threat to the MIC.
Similar threads
