Hillary Clinton says Republicans are grooming Tulsi Gabbard for a 3rd party run (edit: not Russians)

[Tony D'Amato]

Nothing to see here. Just a democrat going on the dem propaganda network to repeat dem talking points about impeachment to the democratic base

honestly, who are the democrats supporting this b1tch

@Rhakim smack, who is dis n1gga

 

[88m3]

I've gotta say Tulsi didn't come out of this smelling like roses

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Mrs Clinton has first hand knowledge of Russia due to her time in the Obama administration. I believe everything she saying because she fukking knows

One thing I don’t understand is this presumption from a lot of progressives that Hillary has to be acting in bad faith by speaking about this...that somehow it has to be vanity, narcissism, clout-chasing or some other insecurity or power grab.

Is it that much a stretch that she might actually be genuinely concerned with Tulsi running as a 3rd party spoiler or being a Russian tool?

It seems some on the left have adopted the same caricatured narrative of her being of purely malicious intent at all times that the right successfully crafted.

I can understand calling her evil...in the same sense that George HW Bush, Reagan, Bill Clinton, etc. are evil; an imperialist war criminal who truly believes that war crimes carried out by the US are justifiable based on a paternalistic ideology about the greater good.

But I do think that she legitimately cares about further Russian interference in the elections, as do many in the State department which she headed, as well as the electoral success of the Democratic party candidate in 2020.

I don’t think she woke up one day and said she’s gonna start beef with Tulsi fukking Gabbard because she got bored or some shyt.

 

[Pressure]

All Democrats are about unity until a progressive gets far and then it's like .

This has never happened.

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

Greenwald famously claimed for years that there was no evidence that Putin hacked the democrats or the election, and you're relying on him to tell you who is reliable when it comes to evidence of Russians and hacking.

And everyone else screamed Trump with Russia.
So who do we trust then?

Also, AT THE TIME when Greewwald said that was there proof AT THAT TIME?
(Caps are for emphasis not screaming)

Also he never said there was no Russian interference, he said they may very well have done something but theres no proof yet.
This was a long while ago

And you didn't answer my leading question. When did I side with war-mongerers? You claimed that I keep doing it. Put up or shut up.

Bro we are in a Hillary vs Tulsi debate.

If you are against the one who wants to end perpetual wars then where do you think you stand???

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

Who are the Democrats that support her? Bish is basically a republican.

Rather Dems that support war are not only repubs but Neocons

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

I do not agree with everything Tulsi says, but I may agree with her at perhaps a whopping 90% of the time when it comes to foreign policy.

With that I will say..... looks like she is planning something.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

One thing I don’t understand is this presumption from a lot of progressives that Hillary has to be acting in bad faith by speaking about this...that somehow it has to be vanity, narcissism, clout-chasing or some other insecurity or power grab.

Is it that much a stretch that she might actually be genuinely concerned with Tulsi running as a 3rd party spoiler or being a Russian tool?

It seems some on the left have adopted the same caricatured narrative of her being of purely malicious intent at all times that the right successfully crafted.

I can understand calling her evil...in the same sense that George HW Bush, Reagan, Bill Clinton, etc. are evil; an imperialist war criminal who truly believes that war crimes carried out by the US are justifiable based on a paternalistic ideology about the greater good.

But I do think that she legitimately cares about further Russian interference in the elections, as do many in the State department which she headed, as well as the electoral success of the Democratic party candidate in 2020.

I don’t think she woke up one day and said she’s gonna start beef with Tulsi fukking Gabbard because she got bored or some shyt.

So you don't think Tulsi after being a Vice Chair in the DNC, quitting claiming, there was some shenanigans, and then endorsing Bernie has anything to do with this attack? They been had beef.
If you gonna accuse her if something present some real evidence. Otherwise, you are mudding the waters and giving Tulsi free publicity. Unless that's what she wants.

 

[Tony D'Amato]

This dude is another one

 

[Adeptus Astartes]

This dude is another one

Unholy alliance of Trumpset and Berniecrats? This is too good.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Bro we are in a Hillary vs Tulsi debate.

If you are against the one who wants to end perpetual wars then where do you think you stand???

What the hell is a Hilary vs. Tulsi debate?

They're both trash. There is zero reason why opposing one would mean you have to support the other. They're both trash and I ain't never voted for or gonna vote for either one.


By your logic, that means that every time Tulsi goes on Fox News and talks bad about Dems then she's Trumpset.

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

What the hell is a Hilary vs. Tulsi debate?

They're both trash. There is zero reason why opposing one would mean you have to support the other. They're both trash and I ain't never voted for or gonna vote for either one.


By your logic, that means that every time Tulsi goes on Fox News and talks bad about Dems then she's Trumpset.

You are in a tulsi vs hillary thread.
And MORE importantly more than anything want to end wars

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You are in a tulsi vs hillary thread.

So when Tulsi goes on Fox News and they're debating impeachment and Trump versus the Democrats, and Tulsi attacks the Democrats, then she's Trumpset, right?

That's the exact logic you're using right now, so it applies to Tulsi, right?

And MORE importantly more than anything want to end wars

But she doesn't want to end wars. She only wants to end certain wars. She's perfectly happy with the War on Terror and in fact she wants to make it even more explicitly anti-Islam. She doesn't want to do shyt to keep tyrants like Modi and Assad and al-Sisi from warring against their own populations - in fact she'll stan for them in the right circumstances because they can be our allies in the "war on terror". She hasn't shown any desire to actually reduce the power of the American military and American military funding. She was perfectly happy joining up with the American military and "fighting" the war in Iraq (as an active legislator she of course was tightly protected the whole time and wasn't really fighting, but it was a great plug for the military effort in Iraq and her riding that for publicity), and she continues to ride her military involvement continuously for her own gain.

Hilary is a warmonger and that's a big reason that there wasn't even going to be a hell of a chance I was voting for her in 2016. But Tulsi is a great friend to warmongers and there ain't no chance I'm going to support her either.

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

So when Tulsi goes on Fox News and they're debating impeachment and Trump versus the Democrats, and Tulsi attacks the Democrats, then she's Trumpset, right?

Yes & No
Not because of what you said.
But you can make the argument that she said it should be bipartisan when it already is, certain lawmakers are members of relevant committees, they are there.

But she doesn't want to end wars. She only wants to end certain wars. She's perfectly happy with the War on Terror and in fact she wants to make it even more explicitly anti-Islam. She doesn't want to do shyt to keep tyrants like Modi and Assad and al-Sisi from warring against their own populations - in fact she'll stan for them in the right circumstances because they can be our allies in the "war on terror". She hasn't shown any desire to actually reduce the power of the American military and American military funding. She was perfectly happy joining up with the American military and "fighting" the war in Iraq (as an active legislator she of course was tightly protected the whole time and wasn't really fighting, but it was a great plug for the military effort in Iraq and her riding that for publicity), and she continues to ride her military involvement continuously for her own gain.

Hilary is a warmonger and that's a big reason that there wasn't even going to be a hell of a chance I was voting for her in 2016. But Tulsi is a great friend to warmongers and there ain't no chance I'm going to support her either.

I will agree that the line between bekng a hawk & a dove is blurred to many americans, so if I advised her I would tell her to make a youtube video comprehensively explaining the line.

But her stance is if we have to respond to war then it has to pass first, a debate with Congress & a vote is needed first.
If we vote for a strike then you go in & you get out.
So she is very anti-occupation.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

So when Tulsi goes on Fox News and they're debating impeachment and Trump versus the Democrats, and Tulsi attacks the Democrats, then she's Trumpset, right?

That's the exact logic you're using right now, so it applies to Tulsi, right?





But she doesn't want to end wars. She only wants to end certain wars. She's perfectly happy with the War on Terror and in fact she wants to make it even more explicitly anti-Islam. She doesn't want to do shyt to keep tyrants like Modi and Assad and al-Sisi from warring against their own populations - in fact she'll stan for them in the right circumstances because they can be our allies in the "war on terror". She hasn't shown any desire to actually reduce the power of the American military and American military funding. She was perfectly happy joining up with the American military and "fighting" the war in Iraq (as an active legislator she of course was tightly protected the whole time and wasn't really fighting, but it was a great plug for the military effort in Iraq and her riding that for publicity), and she continues to ride her military involvement continuously for her own gain.

Hilary is a warmonger and that's a big reason that there wasn't even going to be a hell of a chance I was voting for her in 2016. But Tulsi is a great friend to warmongers and there ain't no chance I'm going to support her either.

She has explicitly said she wants to use money wasted on regime change wars and spend it fixing problems at home. So she is for reducing military budgets and increasing domestic programming.
And what you described is what Americans want. They want the destruction and end to the terrorists groups who attacked us, not arming them in some proxy war against Russia in Syria and other countries. It's not peace but a big improvement over our current foreign policy.