Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Libs Cannot Outsmart Trump

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    For a guy who pretends to be smarter than the average bear, riddle me this. If the Russian machine is so well oiled and precise in the measure in which it works, why did they pick a candidate that has and continues to poll < 2%? Why would they choose a candidate that struggles to make it to the debate stage and has no chance of winning the DNC nomination? Why would they pick a candidate that has disavowed Clinton’s conspiracy theory by publicly stating she will not run as a third party candidate?

    The answer is simple. This is just a conspiracy theory concocted by a crybaby who still can’t get over the fact she lost to the Trumpster. She is still pissed that a fellow democrat didn’t support her in the last election. She Is still pissed TG threw her support behind Sanders and has repeatedly called HRC out for her policy decisions. Make no mistake about it. Gabbard is just feeling the wrath of a scorned 2 time loser. How dare TG not support her! Please tell me what Russia has to gain since TG won’t be the nominee and won’t run as a third party candidate. I’m guessing you’re just regurgitating liberal talking points while doing your puppet dance.
    Stein and Johnson didn't register either but their draw in a few key states gave Trump the win by taking enough votes from HRC. What kind of #s do you think a candidate in a field of 20 will generate anyway?

    Americans really don't understand how smart Putin is. He doesn't need willing participants or even big numbers of participants to sew discord and get results. Also, just because she says she won't run as a 3rd party candidate now doesn't mean she won't change her mind.

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      ...and titling the thread "Libs Cannot Outsmart Trump" .... a somewhat puerile attempt to goad Real Americans (as opposed to Constitution shredding Cons) into a defensive posture. The first couple of pages of this provide eloquent testimony to the bankruptcy of that approach....

      There is simply nothing to outsmart .... Dopey Donald is conning the Cons again... obviously does not take much effort or intellect... the elevators don't go to the top floor at Trump Tower... (ps ....let us know if you need that explaining)
      For a guy who pretends to be smarter than the average bear, riddle me this. If the Russian machine is so well oiled and precise in the measure in which it works, why did they pick a candidate that has and continues to poll < 2%? Why would they choose a candidate that struggles to make it to the debate stage and has no chance of winning the DNC nomination? Why would they pick a candidate that has disavowed Clinton’s conspiracy theory by publicly stating she will not run as a third party candidate?

      The answer is simple. This is just a conspiracy theory concocted by a crybaby who still can’t get over the fact she lost to the Trumpster. She is still pissed that a fellow democrat didn’t support her in the last election. She Is still pissed TG threw her support behind Sanders and has repeatedly called HRC out for her policy decisions. Make no mistake about it. Gabbard is just feeling the wrath of a scorned 2 time loser. How dare TG not support her! Please tell me what Russia has to gain since TG won’t be the nominee and won’t run as a third party candidate. I’m guessing you’re just regurgitating liberal talking points while doing your puppet dance.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        Stein and Johnson didn't register either but their draw in a few key states gave Trump the win by taking enough votes from HRC. What kind of #s do you think a candidate in a field of 20 will generate anyway?

        Americans really don't understand how smart Putin is. He doesn't need willing participants or even big numbers of participants to sew discord and get results. Also, just because she says she won't run as a 3rd party candidate now doesn't mean she won't change her mind.
        That’s a pretty lame answer. Your argument is based on “doesn’t mean she won’t change her mind”? Really? I’m starting to think the average bear might be smarter! She is a sitting US congresswoman and active US service member. She has shown integrity by the ways she has served this country. If this is about believing Hilary or Gabbard, I think I’ll go with Tulsi!!!

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          For a guy who pretends to be smarter than the average bear, riddle me this. If the Russian machine is so well oiled and precise in the measure in which it works, why did they pick a candidate that has and continues to poll < 2%? Why would they choose a candidate that struggles to make it to the debate stage and has no chance of winning the DNC nomination? Why would they pick a candidate that has disavowed Clinton’s conspiracy theory by publicly stating she will not run as a third party candidate?

          The answer is simple. This is just a conspiracy theory concocted by a crybaby who still can’t get over the fact she lost to the Trumpster. She is still pissed that a fellow democrat didn’t support her in the last election. She Is still pissed TG threw her support behind Sanders and has repeatedly called HRC out for her policy decisions. Make no mistake about it. Gabbard is just feeling the wrath of a scorned 2 time loser. How dare TG not support her! Please tell me what Russia has to gain since TG won’t be the nominee and won’t run as a third party candidate. I’m guessing you’re just regurgitating liberal talking points while doing your puppet dance.
          Not the poster you are responding to, but your line of questioning is flawed. This isn't a conspiracy theory concocted by HRC. Russian support for Gabbard is a matter of record. The only question is how complicit she is.

          Why her? Maybe she's the only one they have kompromat on.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            Not the poster you are responding to, but your line of questioning is flawed. This isn't a conspiracy theory concocted by HRC. Russian support for Gabbard is a matter of record. The only question is how complicit she is.

            Why her? Maybe she's the only one they have kompromat on.
            All I read from libs is “maybe this” or “maybe that” but it’s all true. Say what? HRC called out Gabbard so the burden of proof is on Hilary. Pretty big deal to call a US congresswomen a Russian asset. Put up or shut up. If you don’t have the goods then it’s just another conspiracy theory. You all know this was just a Clinton temper tantrum to try and keep herself relevant. It’s actually sad to watch someone fall so far!

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              All I read from libs is “maybe this” or “maybe that” but it’s all true. Say what? HRC called out Gabbard so the burden of proof is on Hilary. Pretty big deal to call a US congresswomen a Russian asset. Put up or shut up. If you don’t have the goods then it’s just another conspiracy theory. You all know this was just a Clinton temper tantrum to try and keep herself relevant. It’s actually sad to watch someone fall so far!
              A reminder below. I guarantee you won't find this much coverage about Mayor Pete, or Booker or just about any other US candidate at this point in the race in Russia. You truly have no grasp of how much Putin controls the media - print, TV and internet. TG may not be complicit, but she's definitely a target.



              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              I only have so much time to expose your bullsh!t, so I'll only cover #1 for now.

              Did you actually watch that youtube clip? If so, please tell me where in that clip she denied what HRC is accusing her of. I watched all 5 minutes, and all I heard was her re-stating what HRC said and dodging the question of whether she was concerned about Russian meddling in the 2020 election. There is no denial.

              I have an open mind, but it's hard to ignore this:
              https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...abbard-n964261

              "Since Gabbard announced her intention to run on Jan. 11, there have been at least 20 Gabbard stories on three major Moscow-based English-language websites affiliated with or supportive of the Russian government: RT, the Russian-owned TV outlet; Sputnik News, a radio outlet; and Russia Insider, a blog that experts say closely follows the Kremlin line. The CIA has called RT and Sputnik part of "Russia's state-run propaganda machine."

              "All three sites celebrated Gabbard's announcement, defended her positions on Russia and her 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, and attacked those who have suggested she is a pawn for Moscow. The coverage devoted to Gabbard, both in news and commentary, exceeds that afforded to any of the declared or rumored Democratic candidates despite Gabbard's lack of voter recognition."

              If HRC's accusations are false, you have to come up with an innocent explanation for this. Let's hear your innocent explanation.

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                Different poster - ^ I'm not convinced she's s willing Russian asset but I have no doubt the Russians are trying to prop her up. She doesn't even register in US polling yet a foreign country giving one candidate so much attention in a very early and very crowded field just is not normal. You find the BBC doing multiple pieces on her. Putin knows a 3rd party candidate can shave valuable votes off in a tight race. Stein and Johnson did better than average in the three states Trump won to give him the EC victory. There also was higher than average FB traffic in those states and multiple attempts to infiltrate voting systems there. I also don't think they knew what was going on, even though we know Stein met Putin. Useful idiots don't have to know they're being used.
                This is spot on.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  As a conservative, I like the things she has to say.
                  Take a moment to think about what you said here. Maybe you'll begin to understand why she's having difficulty gaining momentum in a Democratic primary field.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    I only have so much time to expose your bullsh!t, so I'll only cover #1 for now.

                    Did you actually watch that youtube clip? If so, please tell me where in that clip she denied what HRC is accusing her of. I watched all 5 minutes, and all I heard was her re-stating what HRC said and dodging the question of whether she was concerned about Russian meddling in the 2020 election. There is no denial.

                    I have an open mind, but it's hard to ignore this:
                    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...abbard-n964261

                    "Since Gabbard announced her intention to run on Jan. 11, there have been at least 20 Gabbard stories on three major Moscow-based English-language websites affiliated with or supportive of the Russian government: RT, the Russian-owned TV outlet; Sputnik News, a radio outlet; and Russia Insider, a blog that experts say closely follows the Kremlin line. The CIA has called RT and Sputnik part of "Russia's state-run propaganda machine."

                    "All three sites celebrated Gabbard's announcement, defended her positions on Russia and her 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, and attacked those who have suggested she is a pawn for Moscow. The coverage devoted to Gabbard, both in news and commentary, exceeds that afforded to any of the declared or rumored Democratic candidates despite Gabbard's lack of voter recognition."

                    If HRC's accusations are false, you have to come up with an innocent explanation for this. Let's hear your innocent explanation.
                    The most innocent explanation is that the Russians targeted someone who supports their position on Syria and a few other issues. It may be happening without her consent.

                    Darker explanations may include some sort of leverage (komporomat or other) that the Russians can use to force her to adopt certain positions or to run as a third-party candidate. Or maybe there's a quid pro quo to provide campaign contributions and "helpful interference" in exchange for a Russia-friendly campaign platform (sound familiar?).

                    We may never know if the truth lies in one of those extremes or somewhere in between. HRC may have overstepped by calling her a Russian asset. But clearly there is something very unusual going on here.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      For a guy who pretends to be smarter than the average bear, riddle me this. If the Russian machine is so well oiled and precise in the measure in which it works, why did they pick a candidate that has and continues to poll < 2%? Why would they choose a candidate that struggles to make it to the debate stage and has no chance of winning the DNC nomination? Why would they pick a candidate that has disavowed Clinton’s conspiracy theory by publicly stating she will not run as a third party candidate?

                      The answer is simple. ....
                      The answer is actually even simpler. They don't care who the Democratic nominee is when it comes down to it. That's not their point with this early nudging of TG. They are sowing discord, plain and simple. And look. It's working. If she changes her mind (and we all know politicians do that!) and mounts a third-party campaign, it's just gravy for them as it trims a few percentage points away from the Dem candidate in the general election.

                      Putin wants a destabilized United States socially and politically. He's intelligence apparatus is utilizing a number of strategies to do that. The TG bot campaign is only one.

                      Bottom line, we should be keeping an eagle eye on Putin and stop with the internal dysfunction here at home.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        A reminder below. I guarantee you won't find this much coverage about Mayor Pete, or Booker or just about any other US candidate at this point in the race in Russia. You truly have no grasp of how much Putin controls the media - print, TV and internet. TG may not be complicit, but she's definitely a target.
                        HRC just tripled her coverage! You still haven’t been able to give us a “logical” answer as to why Putin would pick a candidate polling < 2% with no change of winning the DNC nomination and who publicly stated would not run as a third party candidate. What is there to gain? How does it affect the election. HRC has interjected for more political influence over the next election. She is controlling the narrative in this country far more than Putin. You can worry all you want about Sputnik News but I’m more concerned about the damage our own 2 time loser is doing. She is an outsider trying to stay relevant by attacking another Democrat that didn’t support her. The burden of proof is now in HRC. If she doesn’t put up the goods, she’ll just solidify her legacy as a sore loser.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          The most innocent explanation is that the Russians targeted someone who supports their position on Syria and a few other issues. It may be happening without her consent.

                          Darker explanations may include some sort of leverage (komporomat or other) that the Russians can use to force her to adopt certain positions or to run as a third-party candidate. Or maybe there's a quid pro quo to provide campaign contributions and "helpful interference" in exchange for a Russia-friendly campaign platform (sound familiar?).

                          We may never know if the truth lies in one of those extremes or somewhere in between. HRC may have overstepped by calling her a Russian asset. But clearly there is something very unusual going on here.
                          Obviously Ms. Gabbard should promote the innocent explanation and not the illegal ones. So why hasn't she acknowledged and disavowed the Russian support?

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                            The answer is actually even simpler. They don't care who the Democratic nominee is when it comes down to it. That's not their point with this early nudging of TG. They are sowing discord, plain and simple. And look. It's working. If she changes her mind (and we all know politicians do that!) and mounts a third-party campaign, it's just gravy for them as it trims a few percentage points away from the Dem candidate in the general election.

                            Putin wants a destabilized United States socially and politically. He's intelligence apparatus is utilizing a number of strategies to do that. The TG bot campaign is only one.

                            Bottom line, we should be keeping an eagle eye on Putin and stop with the internal dysfunction here at home.
                            And think about what it does if voters think she or another candidate(s) are treated unfairly by the DNC? Cons love brining up what HRC did to Bernie (admittedly really shi**y and some voters never got over it). Is creates discord within the party and gives the RNC and Trump ammunition.

                            One of Putin's main goals was to make sure HRC was president. He definitely found a useful idiot with Trump, even better than anticipated. I'm not convinced Trump is a willing participant, but for sure his debt to Russians sets him up to be one. But Putin's other goal, not just with the US but in many other countries, is to destabilize governments and democracies ad build up right-wing quasi dictators. Then he can tell his voters - see, our system is the best. Clearly he's doing it in the UK, but he's had his fingers in multiple European countries and former USSR block nations as well (Poland, Ukraine most notably).

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                              HRC just tripled her coverage! You still haven’t been able to give us a “logical” answer as to why Putin would pick a candidate polling < 2% with no change of winning the DNC nomination and who publicly stated would not run as a third party candidate. What is there to gain? How does it affect the election. HRC has interjected for more political influence over the next election. She is controlling the narrative in this country far more than Putin. You can worry all you want about Sputnik News but I’m more concerned about the damage our own 2 time loser is doing. She is an outsider trying to stay relevant by attacking another Democrat that didn’t support her. The burden of proof is now in HRC. If she doesn’t put up the goods, she’ll just solidify her legacy as a sore loser.
                              The Dems already know she's one. That's why they don't pay attention to her any longer. Maybe you should try that too?

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                                Obviously Ms. Gabbard should promote the innocent explanation and not the illegal ones. So why hasn't she acknowledged and disavowed the Russian support?
                                Why doesn’t HRC prove it? It’s a super simple question. She must have definitive proof to call out a US congresswomen. Like I said the burden of proof is on her. Let me ask you another extremely simple question. Didn’t HRC say the Russians were grooming TG to run as a third party candidate? Here another easy one. Didn’t TG state she was a Democrat running as a Democrat and would not run as a third party candidate? Doesn’t this kinda sink HRC’s conspiracy therapy? I’m mean the whole premise of her concocted story was TG would run a third party candidate taking votes away from the DNC nominee. TG has destroyed that conspiracy and now HRC is left looking ridiculously stupid, again.

                                Comment

                                Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                                Auto-Saved
                                x
                                Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                                x
                                Working...
                                X