Announcement

**Unregistered** · 10-22-2019, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

Is Tulsi Gabbard running as a third party candidate?

She claims she won't but can you ever trust any politician? So still TBD on that. Other Dems are praising her for her service etc and say she's not knowingly cooperating with Russia. Yet they're also not disagreeing that Russia may be using her. There are a lot of candidates like her who are polling <5%, but she's the only one with some questionable positions on Russia and other issues. She's seemingly the only one Russia is paying attention to internally. Willing asset? Probably not. Useful asset? There's definitely red flags.

**Unregistered** · 10-22-2019, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

It is a huge frustration with our election process that we basically are a two party system. We would be much better served with more parties (within a reasonable number). It forces compromises and alignments to get things done. More voters would feel like there are candidates for them instead of having to chose between the lesser of two evils.

But the other massive issue we face is the insane amount of money in the process. It was bad enough before Citizen's United, but that terrible ruling opened the cash floodgates. I'm not sure we'll ever get campaign finance reform when both sides don't want to give up their sugar daddies.

Amen!

**Unregistered** · 10-22-2019, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

No, the Democratic party does not consider Clinton an idiot. If you want to uphold that claim, please link to the press release from the DNC stating as such.

Politically, HRC took one for the team, and it was brilliantly done. She's effectively neutralized TG from ever splitting off and running as a third-party independent with any integrity or credibility. And yes, there were rumblings that might happen.

She also raised the issue of Russian interference, which cannot be highlighted often enough.

Gabbard was one of the few representatives to vote against the Magnitsky Act and she hired Chris Cooper. If that name doesn't ring a bell, he's the guy who headed the campaign to smear Bill Browder and attempt to repeal the Magnitsky Act. Cooper was paid by Natalia Veselnitskaya whose name should ring a bell. The Magnitsky Act is a massive stick in Putin's craw. He desperately wants it repealed and here we have a member of congress appearing to support that effort.

Willing agent or unwitting asset, Gabbard is useful to the Russians and appears to be favoring their positions. There's just no other way to interpret these facts. She has adopted some very questionable stances that deserve serious scrutiny and answers.

Well said, thank you my friend.

My personal opinion is that HRC overstepped by calling TG a Russian agent, but the strategic objective was achieved. She called attention to some facts that are very troubling. Facts that are even harder to ignore now, because of the messenger.

**Unregistered** · 10-22-2019, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

Well said, thank you my friend.

My personal opinion is that HRC overstepped by calling TG a Russian agent, but the strategic objective was achieved. She called attention to some facts that are very troubling. Facts that are even harder to ignore now, because of the messenger.

You're welcome.

We also have to pay attention to who is controlling the narrative. HRC did not call Gabbard a Russian agent, she said Gabbard was a "favorite of the Russians" and implied Gabbard was a Russian asset. The distinctions may not matter to some, but they are extremely important.

It was media and critic reaction to the comment that changed an implication to an accusation and the word asset to agent. There is a huge difference between agency and being an asset. People who ignorantly shared Russian planted stories on Facebook were being utilized as assets by the Russians while no one would dream of describing them as Russian agents - nor should they be.

There is clearly enough in the public domain to establish with a fair degree of probability that she, and her campaign, are being utilized as a Russian asset. I don't know if what we know warrants investigation into her potential to be an agent, but I wouldn't be surprised if our intelligence agencies have at least a preliminary inquiry in the works. She's best off getting in front of this and addressing the troubling connections now rather than later.

**Unregistered** · 10-22-2019, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

You're welcome.

We also have to pay attention to who is controlling the narrative. HRC did not call Gabbard a Russian agent, she said Gabbard was a "favorite of the Russians" and implied Gabbard was a Russian asset. The distinctions may not matter to some, but they are extremely important.

It was media and critic reaction to the comment that changed an implication to an accusation and the word asset to agent. There is a huge difference between agency and being an asset. People who ignorantly shared Russian planted stories on Facebook were being utilized as assets by the Russians while no one would dream of describing them as Russian agents - nor should they be.

There is clearly enough in the public domain to establish with a fair degree of probability that she, and her campaign, are being utilized as a Russian asset. I don't know if what we know warrants investigation into her potential to be an agent, but I wouldn't be surprised if our intelligence agencies have at least a preliminary inquiry in the works. She's best off getting in front of this and addressing the troubling connections now rather than later.

If she is truly innocent, all she would have to say is:
1. The Russians are doing this without her consent
2. She disavows all Russian support for her campaign and their help is not welcome
3. She will not accept any money, directly or indirectly, from Russian sources

That of course, assumes she's truly innocent. Every day she doesn't say these things make me wonder all the more . . .

**Unregistered** · 10-22-2019, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

If she is truly innocent, all she would have to say is:
1. The Russians are doing this without her consent
2. She disavows all Russian support for her campaign and their help is not welcome
3. She will not accept any money, directly or indirectly, from Russian sources

That of course, assumes she's truly innocent. Every day she doesn't say these things make me wonder all the more . . .

She also has some other troubling stances on some issues. It's no wonder she hasn't gained any traction amongst dem voters

**Unregistered** · 10-22-2019, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

She also has some other troubling stances on some issues. It's no wonder she hasn't gained any traction amongst dem voters

Some conservative upthread said he liked what she had to say. That pretty much sums up her odds in a Democratic primary right there.

**Unregistered** · 10-22-2019, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

If she is truly innocent, all she would have to say is:
1. The Russians are doing this without her consent
2. She disavows all Russian support for her campaign and their help is not welcome
3. She will not accept any money, directly or indirectly, from Russian sources

That of course, assumes she's truly innocent. Every day she doesn't say these things make me wonder all the more . . .

Let me address this disavow thing that you and the gals from The View keep regurgitating.
1. How would you respond If I said that out of every poster on here, you are by far the biggest moron? You wouldn�t come out and say �no I am not the biggest moron on here�. Nobody does that! You would respond with the typical whataboutisms and argue that I am a bigger moron. Even if you did, me and the rest of the conservatives wouldn�t believe you and would still think you were a complete moron. When people�s minds are already made up, nothing will change it. What would Tulsi disavowing any really do? Left wing nut jobs like you have their minds made up already. So spare all the righteous liberal garbage. HRC took this into the gutter now she�s gotta own it and not cancel events and run!

I�ll give you an example. How many times did Trump disavow and deny collusion? Any guesses? What did that get him? I never heard one of you libtards say �Oh man Trump just disavowed any Russia collusion, guess it�s time to move on�. Seriously? See how this works. It wouldn�t change a thing. Tulsi knows the game. It�s up to HRC to prove it. She called Clinton out to put up or shut up. What did Clinton? Yep cancel the next event that Tulsi would be out. Cowardly move there, HRC! Everyone from Bernie Sanders to Van Jones is saying the same thing.