Okay... maybe it's my inability to understand what you wrote. I've tried about five times and it's just confusing. But, I did try. Sorry if I couldn't get your point.
Hillary is saying Tulsi is being groomed by the Russians
- Thread starter BrunoMars420
- Start date
@What Would Jesus Do? can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think he is saying Clinton was saying the republicans are grooming Gabbard for a third party run; not the Russians. If you read her quote that way, what part is wrong?
Yeah, she was talking about Republican strategies for 2020 at that point. I went back in the podcast to make sure.
Doesn't change the comments about Tulsi and Jill being Russian assets.
Of course, if pressed on that, Hillary could always say she didn't mean they were "willing" assets, but that they were - at a minimum and perhaps unwittingly - of value to what the Russians were (and will be) trying to accomplish. Or she could have meant they are willingly complicit with and even taking instructions from Russians.
"Asset" covers a lot of territory.
But listening to Hillary, I have almost no doubt that she meant Tulsi and Jill were willing, knowing, cooperating agents of Russia.
That's terribly offensive. And almost certainly wrong.
If I were Jill (and maybe if I were Tulsi) I might sue. I mean public figures have to roll with most criticisms, even pretty nasty ones. But this might cross the line.
At the moment, Jill is not running for the Green Party nomination. Unclear if she will. If anything, this might prompt her to do so. Perhaps worse, Hillary's comments might incline some Greens and lefties who were ready to vote D this time to reconsider.
I'll have to listen to it later. Agreed that it's a pretty big accusation to say she's a willing asset, but like you said, asset can cover a lot.
I don't believe she intends to run as a 3rd party candidate, if that helps.
ETA: Hillary did more to undermine the Democratic push to beat Trump by her decision to add her 2 cents.
Last edited:
The phrasing of the "grooming" was ambiguous enough that she could have meant the Republicans or the Russians. She had just been talking about the Republicans, but then immediately shifted to the Russians - perhaps to illustrate the grooming point.
I'm inclined to think Hillary meant Tulsi was being groomed by the Russians. But I see no proof that Tulsi is, in fact, being groomed by either the Republicans or the Russians.
I definitely see some media on the right - who we know fostered or permitted Russian memes and gaming to be repeated and go unchallenged - now saying favorable things to their conservative audiences about Tulsi. And we've seen some of those pro-Tulsi views repeated here by our cons.
But does that mean that Tulsi is being "groomed" by the Russians? Or the Republicans?
It seems she's being"promoted" as the most desirable of the Dems by the right wing, pro-Republican press. Fair enough. And maybe some of that right wing media is Russian or Russian-influenced. We certainly saw plenty of that in 2016, whether or not people believe it had much impact.
But I think "groomed" implies cooperation on the part of the groomee. And I see absolutely no evidence of that.
There's nothing wrong with foreign actors having preferences among our candidates. As long as they don't interfere in our elections.
So whether Russia or the UK or Canada agrees more with some Dem primary candidates than others is really not a problem.
If people choose to be offended that Justin Trudeau likes Trump because he wants to exploit Canada's dirty oil and figures Trump will aid that aim, so be it. It may be a good criticism or not.
Ditto if the Russians like Tulsi's aim to end all regime-change wars. Because, sure, that helps them in Syria. But it's also the long-time position of pretty much everyone on the left, many liberals, and most real libertarians.
Again, I see no justification in calling Tulsi a Russian asset or saying she's being groomed by Russia or the Republicans.
I don't think there's any interest from the Green Party. Her views are greenish, but not green enough. Of course she could shift to align with the GP platform. It wouldn't be a huge turnaround. But I don't see any reason to think that's in the card.
Nor does she seem to be a great fit for the Libertarians. But, there again, I suppose she could shift on a few things and fit in. Not all LP candidates have been zealots. Possibly none of them.
Yes, I agree that Hillary simply opened old wounds with this attack. And why? Seriously - why did she do it? What was she thinking?
If she's trying to say "Hey, if you are having a hard time picking a candidate, I'm available," I'm not sure that's an approach that will make Dems feel warm and fuzzy about her revival.
Hillary is working for the Russians.
The right promoted Ralph Nader, too. Doesn't mean Ralph did anything wrong. They just wanted Ralph to take away some lefty votes.
Dem's attacked Ralph, rather than embracing or defending a long-time ally and arguably the best defender of the FDR tradition.
Those bits of history and the current embrace of Tulsi by some cons and con media are examples of hardball partisan politics. They have nothing to do with the character of the candidate being promoted or attacked by the rival factions.
You’re not easily manipulated like some in here. Kudos to you sir for having a sensible head on your shoulders
Grooming is probably the wrong word. I do think republicans are pushing her forward for some reason. Whether it's for a 3rd party run or they think she can cause division amongst democrats. But I don't think grooming is the right word.
I does seem like Russia likes Tulsi (which nothing inherently wrong with that), but there's been speculation russian trolss/bots are supporting her.
Don't know why Hilary thought she needed to get into this.
So, now you're in support of oligarchs of Communist ancestry (father Earl) that have lied us ever closer to WW3. Browder is a POS. Watch the film by Putin critic, Neksarov. Yes, the same film Browder had banned in this country...lover of freedom and all.
just go away like a little baby, shocking based on your posts.
Does anyone have a common starting point with lunatic left posters like yourself?
At this point, the lunatic left, which is shown in this thread, is basically completely unhinged. Everyone is against them
Well, you can shove that "Lunatic Left" brush that you're trying to use to make your point. I don't believe in this left/right bullshit either. Binary is for simple minds. I can handle having polarities as points of reference for any issue. But, people who think and speak in binary terms are too simple-minded for me.
I disown them. As an anarcho-capitalist, I don't bow to the state. The people should have the power.
Yet you continually defend them.
The US ain't perfect, but we do have Rule of Law, and work to maintain no one being above the law, along with preserving many core rights "to the people" and limiting our governments power or influence over those rights.
It is astonishing that you would defend regimes like Russia, where none of those rights are preserved for the people, and Putin and his thugs outright assassinate reporters who attempt to uncover their corruption.
Challenging the lies coming out of Washington is NOT a defense of Putin and Moscow. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? When you can't defend your position, you scream Putin apologist and Comrade. That's a surrender.
You know I read Lew Rockwell daily. What does it state on their front page as their motto..."Anti-State, Anti-War and Pro-Market". I firmly espouse those views. This is the derivation of your angst against me. You are Pro-state (an authoritarian). I believe power should go to the people. You are obviously a pro-war neocon. And you think business should be directed from government. You didn't complain while Yeltsin was openly giving away the country of Russia to oligarchs friendly to Clinton for pennies on the dollar. It was robbery. FDR had a man crush on Uncle Joe Stalin. But, you spread vitriolic hate towards Putin who is anti-Communist. You are conditioned to hate by our government's psy-op war on Russia...much like they taught us to hate all things Vietnamese in the 60'-70's. I don't subscribe to that BS. The "yellow man or gooks", as we were taught to use derisively, never did anything to me. I have no problem with them.
We meddled in Russian affairs long before 1917 and even bragged about Clinton getting Yeltsin elected on the cover of TIME MAG and a movie was made about our meddling called Spinning Boris. Can you imagine the outrage if the shoe was on the other foot. What hypocrisy!
If you knew your history, you would know that it has been the goal of the West to conquer Russia since 1904. You say I defend Putin and Russia. To that I say emphatically BS. You spread lies and propaganda on here because you hear it from our government and you never question it. It was the mantra of all progressives during Nam to question authority. You never question it. I always question it because I don't trust anyone in power.
Russian expert, Stephen Cohen, says there isn't one assassination you can lay blame to Putin. A few that were charged to Putin by the West he knew for a fact was not the case. But, you'll listen to that Commie CIA Dir., John Brennan and James the perjurer, James Clapper and Mike "We lied, we stole, we cheated, Pompeo.
At what point will you stop cheering for all these wars. Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the state." It makes the state stronger, but, rights are lost in war. Guess what, Chief? Since 9/11, The Patriot Act was passed in a rush and rights were lost. The NDAA was passed. We are constantly surveilled. I'm tired of war and the destruction of our economy because of it. $8 TRILLION spent on this and we are no closer to ending this crap. In fact, more terrorists are created. I want that money spent here in the USA on infrastructure, schools and healthcare etc. That $8 Trillion is making some people rich, OUR OLIGARCHS. But, not our people. Their standard of living is not better.
How do you know what their propaganda is? You don't read or listen to RT. You mock people for it. Maybe you're parroting our propaganda. You've become Joe McCarthy because Hillary told you to do so. She's your Svengoolie.
And, based upon the volumes of disinformation on topics like vaccines there, I find it inconceivable you'd prefer them as a "news source".
FUNFACT: Anti-vaccine narratives are also pushed by Russian trolls.
I read the feeds of people who debunk those Russian narratives. And who also track the troll feeds so you know what particular "Disinformation of the Day" they are going after.
I am on point. Lew Rockwell is an unreliable source of information.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/lew-rockwell/
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
- Overall, we rate Lew Rockwell Questionable based on Extreme Right Bias, promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories and pseudoscience.
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, PseudoscienceCountry: USAWorld Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
You know history is written by the victors. If I want to learn about the American Revolution, I need to also learn what the Brits have to say. I might necessarily agree, but, I need to know the other side's view. . Not CIA spoon fed articles to journalists.
Do I read RT? Yes. Especially when my government makes them register as foreign agents and cable companies take them off the air. You know, freedom of the press and all. Washington can't tolerate dissenting opinion. Do I agree with them all the time...NO. But, I'm informed. I also read Military Times, FT and 8 other sites. Many are ex-CIA who have gone straight.
There you go with disinformation again, Bill Casey. You need someone to tell you how to think. Since when is that site the end all be all. What's next, Newsguard?I am on point. Lew Rockwell is an unreliable source of information.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/lew-rockwell/
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Detailed Report
- Overall, we rate Lew Rockwell Questionable based on Extreme Right Bias, promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories and pseudoscience.
Reasoning: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, PseudoscienceCountry: USAWorld Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
Similar threads
