van jones is a clout chasing fool
Hillary Clinton says Republicans are grooming Tulsi Gabbard for a 3rd party run (edit: not Russians)
- Thread starter Dusty Bake Activate
- Start date
van jones is a clout chasing fool
Mindfield333
Superstar
People still believe the clintons?
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
@Mephistopheles it's odd she doesn't distance herself from white nationalists and libertarians as well right?
I mean one would think if she's the hardcore progressive leftist that would be a no go? Right?
I mean one would think if she's the hardcore progressive leftist that would be a no go? Right?
Crimson_Dynamo
All Star
Retarded baby boomers.
Backing a 2% candidate isn't going to get him any clout
It's reckless and wild as fukk for a former nominee to accuse a current candidate who is a current member of the US Military as being a fukking Russian agent/asset without offering any proof. This is so irregular that it's potential for chaos is more than anything Putin himself could do.
Tulsi out here juelzing on a 1000
AnonymityX1000
Veteran
If the same MSM who smeared you as a Russian then asks you to disavow said smear would you be obliging or defiant?
It's not possible she just hired him as a competent media strategist and doesn't give a shyt about Russiagate. There are people who don't you know that have no links to Russia.
Al Qaeda attacked us not Syria. Should we now be arming them in Syria? If you ask most Americans they would agree with Tulsi's assessment.
You actually think you are making sense when you are just spinning a conspiracy theory.
AnonymityX1000
Veteran
newworldafro
DeeperThanRapBiggerThanHH
No.
It's Cult Member 20, 30, and 40 year olds too.
That's the worst part, cause you would think they could see through the bullshiit.
Old folk always used to say when you're name is not mentioned and you get offended, it means something. The ugly people know who they are, don't they? Also, if the shoe fits wear it. Just saying. There are at least four other candidates she could be referring to but only one spoke up. Tulsi being vague about Russia shyt does not give me a lot of confidence. I like her general stance on wars but she looks shaky here. Only blind Trump like sycophants don't see this. The ad hominem on Clinton rubs me wrong because it's a common tactic used by the guilty. shyt, Trump's whole career is founded in it.
She's not trying to win though, just to turn people against the Democratic Party in general. So far she's been pretty successful.
That said it's mostly Hillary's fault for enabling her, especially since Hillary is already incredibly unpopular as it is and is political poison for Dems. For the record I doubt Tulsi is literally a Russian operative or anything like that, seems more likely given her history that she's just acting in the GOP's interests for whatever reason (ideological or otherwise).
newworldafro
DeeperThanRapBiggerThanHH
Is there that much of a difference? Even if she’s just a useful idiot how do you explain her consistentfor Russia and them doing propaganda for her, which she tacitly accepts knowing about their election meddling efforts?
Having an opinion that another country agrees with doesn't make you an asset of that country. That is the most assinine kindergarten level reasoning
.I don't like burning down rainforest in Brazil. The current American and Brazilian admistrations really don't care. However, the current administrations of Germany, France and EU threatened sanctions against Brazil.
Am I as an American, a European Union asset, just because my personal belief is in line with those governments?
She's explained her position on Syria and its not contingent on Russia's opinion. We created 12 million refugees and displaced people in Syria, destroyed their infrastructure, aided "moderates" that beheaded civilians and launched chem attacks, and spent billions of taxpaying dollars doing it. That's her position.
Is 12 million people without a home a good thing? Is that a Russian taking point? Do you see how dumb that sounds?
Yall should read this, seriously: Syrian War For Dummies - Three Versions
P.S. Here are some links to read if you would like to gain a Ph.D. version of the Syrian conflict:
- a. 1956: CIA plot to overthrow the Syrian government
- b. 1983: CIA document on plans to obliterate Syria to enable an oil pipeline
- c. 1986: CIA document on how to use Muslim Brotherhood to fuel a sectarian (Sunni v. Shiite) civil war in Syria
- d. 2001: Wesley Clark told that USA will take out 7 countries in 5 years (Libya, Syria etc.)
- e. 2005: CNN Interview. Christiane Amanpour tells Assad that the western governments are plotting a regime change in Syria
- f. 2006: State Dept cable: Detailed discussion of various strategies to enable regime change in Syria
- g. 2009: State Dept Email: Saudi Arabia is worried that a Shiite crescent is turning into a full moon (referring to a possible Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon coalition)
- h. 2009: State Dept Cable: Saudi Arabia is the #1 source of funding of terrorism worldwide
- i. 2012 State Dept Email: Conquest of Syria means a weakened Iran and this is important for Israel
- j. 2012: State Dept Email: Use Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to arm/train rebels
- k. 2014: Hillary Clinton admits in an email that Saudi Arabia and Qatar fund ISIS
- l. 2015: Joe Biden says Saudi Arabia and Qatar arming/funding Al Qaeda in Syria
- m. 2016: John Kerry in a leaked audio recording explains how the US trained/armed the opposition and was hoping to use ISIS to force Assad into negotiation
- n. Israel's Mossad chief admits helping Al Qaeda and says that it's because Al Qaeda never attacks Israel
Last edited:
AnonymityX1000
Veteran
The only problem is there were articles naming Tulsi as such beforehand. It wasn't an out of the blue attack, like she said at the debate before Hillary said anything her staffer got on CNN and said the same thing and the New York Times wrote an article saying that as well. There were no articles written about Any Klobuchar, Liz Warren or Marianne Williamson saying they were Russian assets, just Tulsi.
AnonymityX1000
Veteran
They been watching too much Rachel Maddow where making circumstantial connections about things is as good as facts. lolHaving an opinion that another country agrees with doesn't make you an asset of that country. That is the most assinine kindergarten level reasoning
I don't like burning down rainforest in Brazil. The current American and Brazilian admistrations really don't care. However, the current administrations of Germany, France and EU threatened sanctions.
Am I as an American, a European Union asset, just because my personal belief is in line with those governmemts.
She's explained her position on Syria and its not contingent on Russia's opinion. We created 12 million refugees and displaced people in Syria, destroyed their infrastructure, aided "moderates" that beheaded civiliand and launched chem attacks, and spent billions of taxpsuing dollars doing it. That's her position.
Is 12 million people without a home a good thing? Is that a Russian taking point? Do you see how dumb that sounds?
Yall should read this
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
Wtf are you you talking about with this MSM smear bullshyt? A reporter asked her a simple fair and reasonable question that she refuses to answer. She refused to condemn Russian hacking...repeatedly. You don’t have to think Russiagate is this biggest scandal in modern memory to simply say you don’t think Russia hacking is a good thing. You sound just like a Trumptard.If the same MSM who smeared you as a Russian then asks you to disavow said smear would you be obliging or defiant?
It's not possible she just hired him as a competent media strategist and doesn't give a shyt about Russiagate. There are people who don't you know that have no links to Russia.
Al Qaeda attacked us not Syria. Should we now be arming them in Syria? If you ask most Americans they would agree with Tulsi's assessment.
You actually think you are making sense when you are just spinning a conspiracy theory.
So for the record, your position is even though Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election by hacking the DNC, tried to hack voting machines, the current administration has had its former National Security Director, campaign manager, 2 campaign aides, his personal lawyer along with 20 something Russians pled guilty, the President himself committed obstruction of justice 10 times in order to stop an inquiry into Russian interference, the whole IC says they’re going to interfere again in 2020, and Putin himself said they will again your position is it’s totally ok for a candidate for President to not “give a shyt” and just be cool with an authoritarian foreign government trying to interfere in American presidential elections and tacitly supporting her own presidential campaign?
Tulcels, ladies and gentlemen.
Last edited: