Hillary is saying Tulsi is being groomed by the Russians
- Thread starter BrunoMars420
- Start date
I don't know what's funnier, to hear you of all people bitching about politicians playing dirty, or for you to expect people who lack integrity to all of a sudden operate with it during an election cycle.
Is she regurgitating Kremlin talking points or saying what she believes?
Based on her history, I think she's saying what she believes.
Most - not all but most - of her positions are good to very good progressive positions.
Just about any anti-war American could be accused of being a Russian asset or regurgitating Kremlin talking points with this sort of reasoning.
The narrative du jour of most lefties is that Trump deserves to be impeached.
Calling something a talking point or a narrative du jour is only a good attack if the talking point is wrong. That one isn't.
We are in complete agreement (I think) that foreign and corporate and PAC bots should be stopped in their tracks if our democracy is to survive.
But meantime, reasonable people can disagree on whether specific talking points - regardless of origin - have merit or not.
Lol, no anyone who's read 10% of your posts knows you only care about honesty and integrity when it suits your positions. Is that really that hard to admit?
Hell I recall the first thread I started on here years ago regarding Obama leaving a prayer at the wailing wall and asking how that made his atheist supporters feel. And you justified it based on him needing to sell the lie of his faith to get elected. So spare us please.
Well, it wouldn't be hard to admit if it were true, but it's actually a pretty shameful lie.
The fact that you don't realize this says a lot about you.
I ruffle my share of feathers here and express strong, occasionally unpopular views, but even those who disagree forcefully with me usually credit my honesty and integrity.
Huh?
Assuming for the moment that you haven't made that up or misrepresented my point more than is obvious, what exactly is dishonest or lacking in integrity in what you say I said?
I mean that act was purely symbolic. Nice photo op. Plays well with religious folk back home. Doesn't hurt for a guy under attack as a secret Muslim to be seen doing that. I could easily have said something like that.
That's just opining on the obvious, not "justifying." I don't see and wouldn't have seen any need to "justify" that behavior. And as an atheist it doesn't please me, but I don't really care.
Last edited:
If you can even read your justification and not think its lacking in integrity then well... it actually explains my original point pretty clearly. It's just who you are... You justified Obama lying about being a believer, and leaving a prayer at an extremely holy place in the minds of Christians, as a way of appeasing his religious followers.
I don't understand the concept of a site explaining to the public what their opinion is. Who are these arbiters of the public square? I can judge for myself. I don't need anyone keeping me between the guardrails of "allowable" opinion.
Oh puhleeeaze! Those are Kremlin talking points. Only a Putin puppet would whisper such heresy.
How are you qualified to make that statement if you admittedly won't visit that site? All because some site told you not to. What do you know about THAT site? Hell...you wouldn't even open up The Nation (lefty site) link provided because your mind was made up already. You're incredibly narrow minded.
Of course, I'm just going by what I have HEARD, or read, or whatever, about what the CIA has done over the last century. I can't prove any of it. But, the CIA is hardly any institution that I, as an average American citizen, would trust. They're more likely to take me out than protect me!Oh puhleeeaze! Those are Kremlin talking points. Only a Putin puppet would whisper such heresy.
You don't present "facts". You link conspiracy sites littered with innuendo and opinions.
As noted many times, I debunked Lew Rockwell's "measles" article a couple years ago. I have yet to see you admit he lied to you on that one.
Kewl. But there are dozens of "non ex-CIA agents" who provide the same info.
Who ever said I "love" Jeff Sessions. I think he's a racist asshole.
He's just a racist asshole who happens to still have respect for Rule of Law.
No. Because most of what you post is utter nonsense and I really don't see reading more conspiracy theory sites as prudent use of my time.
BS. Now you're expressing how little you know about the site. He most likely didn't write it. In fact, he writes very little. There are many contributors. The site allows for differing opinions, even with those he disagrees. It's a freedom of the press thing. You wouldn't understand.
This is a good time for you to make broad assertions about "facts". Because every time I get into a discussion regarding your defense of authoritarianism, I lay the fact boom on you via LR. Example, your support position on mandatory vaxxing ala Joseph Mengele. Your sites never mention the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Protection Program. Lew's site alerted the public on the $4.2 Billion in damages paid out to date. Crickets from your sites that ardently defend fascist healthcare.
But, you'd prefer to talk in circles for 3 days. That's a better use? People conspire, Sport. Like corporations and government.
Where is your venom towards the MSM that knowingly lies us into war? Or the venom towards the MSM that snockered you on Ukraine? It's ok. No one likes to admit they've been PT Barnumed. But, for God's sake. Quit making a habit of it.
The value of a site like that is that they scrutinize lots of media that most of us won't have very much experience with. And they do so with a consistent set of criteria to measure their factual foundations, reliance on distortion, and so on.
Like the various fact-checkers, they aren't necessarily perfect, but can be quite useful.
If, for example, someone cites a source about something that sounds dubious, checking the Media Bias rating of that group can be a big help.
At the moment, I don't know of another group doing this - certainly not on this scale. Do you? I mean we could end up with good and bad media-raters, just like we now have good and bad fact-checkers. But I don't think that's where we are now.
Glad you asked. Here are a few articles to read.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/?s=newsguard
It has always been the case for the moneyed elite to control information.
Why TF is a prospective Presidential candidate running ads on a former Secretary of State who hasn't been in office in >5 years?
This doesn't seem "odd" to anyone?
If she encounters and then punches Hillary right in her stupid face she gets my write in vote!
Would vote for and smash on Tulsi over and over.
no. It’s a good way to increase popularity by picking on one of the least popular politicians of the last 40 years who went out of her way to attack a candidate
No offense, but why is that at all hard to understand?
Hillary Clinton isn't running against her.
Why didn't she attack Mitt Romney, Al Gore or Jimmy Carter?
Because they aren’t nearly as hated as Hillary and thus are less likely to raise Gabbard’s popularity?
Again. Clinton isn't running. And Gabbard is supposedly trying for a Dem nomination. Sure, 50% of Dems hate Clinton. Another 50% do not. Why alienate half the base you're trying to get a nomination from?
Makes zero sense to do that as part of a nomination. Makes more sense AFTER YOU'RE THE NOMINEE to get GOP votes.
If said former bitch wasn't accusing said prospective candidate of being a Russian asset, maybe said prospective candidate wouldn't need to address said former bitch
EDIT: Stop defending Hillary. We know you dislike Gabbard and love you some Clinton.
Last edited:
Similar threads
