Tulsi Gabbard Russian asset!

[GMDino]

For the record here is what Clinton said:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard/index.html

Quote:"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said, speaking on a podcast with former Obama adviser David Plouffe. "She's the favorite of the Russians."


Clinton never names Gabbard, but there are only five women running for President -- Gabbard, California Sen. Kamala Harris, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and author Marianne Williamson -- and none of the other woman have been accused of being boosted by Russia.

Clinton did not provide proof about how Russia is "grooming" Gabbard. She and her team pointed to allegations that Russian news and propaganda sites often report on Gabbard's campaign and that moments in Gabbard's campaign have been reportedly amplified by trolls and bots on Twitter with ties to Russia. Gabbard has denied those allegations.


"They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far," Clinton said.


Clinton's team also noted that some of Gabbard's foreign policy views align closely with Russian interests.

So she didn't call her an "asset" and in fact never said her name and she jumped up to defend herself...as did a bunch of Russian bots.  

So, was she wrong? 

But I get that there are still a few of you here who deny that Russia interfered in 2016 and is trying again for 2020.

[BmorePat87]

(10-22-2019, 08:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: But was it wrong?  

All seriousness aside Clinton was 100% right about Trump in 2016 too.  Maybe speaking the truth isn't popular and causes the crazies to jump to the other side but Gabbard, since then, has gotten support from FOX News, Tucker Carlson and David Duke.  Yay?

It's wrong to use the word "asset" and to suggest she is being groomed without evidence.

There's nothing wrong with saying that her rhetoric is rhetoric that Russia will try to capitalize on and that her candidacy may be used by Russia in their interference campaign because it absolutely will be. Anyone suggesting conspiracies at the DNC will be someone Russia wants to promote in their efforts to prop up a Trump candidacy. 

[GMDino]

(10-22-2019, 10:54 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's wrong to use the word "asset" and to suggest she is being groomed without evidence.

There's nothing wrong with saying that her rhetoric is rhetoric that Russia will try to capitalize on and that her candidacy may be used by Russia in their interference campaign because it absolutely will be. Anyone suggesting conspiracies at the DNC will be someone Russia wants to promote in their efforts to prop up a Trump candidacy. 

Did she say "asset"?  I shared the link above that didn't say that.  Maybe I missed it.

But as long we can talk about Clinton suggesting Russia wants to interfere in our elections again rather than the actual interference it's all good I suppose.  

[BmorePat87]

(10-22-2019, 10:18 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Your irrational hatred of Gabbard only makes me like her even more. 




In b4: "BUt ShE iS HoMoPHoBiC". You were fine with Obama changing his views on the matter, but Tulsi can't apparently.

It's not irrational. She also was active in attacking the LGBT community and made pathetic claims like saying LGBT advocates were radical and that LGBT youth did not face increased discrimination. Comparing her stances to someone like Obama is just dumb. She continues to refuse to state whether or not she sees being gay as a sin and attacked Kamala when she questioned if a very anti-LBGT judicial nominee could be unbiased if an LGBT related case came his way.

Her views on Assad are equally bad. 

Pro tip: if you're going to accuse someone else of being irrational, try to maintain some composure and ditch really bad emotional outbursts. 

[BmorePat87]

(10-22-2019, 10:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: Did she say "asset"?  I shared the link above that didn't say that.  Maybe I missed it.

But as long we can talk about Clinton suggesting Russia wants to interfere in our elections again rather than the actual interference it's all good I suppose.  

She did say "Russian asset" during the interview to describe Jill Stein, and it was used in a way to imply that Gabbard was one too. 

It's also ok to criticize her language. That doesn't change the fact that many candidates are discussing the role Russia is trying to play through interference. 

[BmorePat87]

(10-22-2019, 10:54 AM)GMDino Wrote: For the record here is what Clinton said:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard/index.html




So she didn't call her an "asset" and in fact never said her name and she jumped up to defend herself...as did a bunch of Russian bots.  

So, was she wrong? 

But I get that there are still a few of you here who deny that Russia interfered in 2016 and is trying again for 2020.

Just to be clear, because this is what Trump defenders do here constantly, you aren't providing the full context. In addition to using the word later by saying Jill Stein's "also a Russian asset", Gabbard had just commented on the claim that she was "an asset of Russia" during the debate, a claim a figure in the media made. 

[GMDino]

(10-22-2019, 11:05 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: She did say "Russian asset" during the interview to describe Jill Stein, and it was used in a way to imply that Gabbard was one too. 

It's also ok to criticize her language. That doesn't change the fact that many candidates are discussing the role Russia is trying to play through interference. 

Ok I said I didn't see her call Gabbard an asset.  I wasn't playing word games I honestly did not see the interview or care that much about this distraction.

I still don't care.  Clinton isn't running for office.

[*bfine32*]

(10-22-2019, 10:56 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's not irrational. She also was active in attacking the LGBT community and made pathetic claims like saying LGBT advocates were radical and that LGBT youth did not face increased discrimination. Comparing her stances to someone like Obama is just dumb. She continues to refuse to state whether or not she sees being gay as a sin and attacked Kamala when she questioned if a very anti-LBGT judicial nominee could be unbiased if an LGBT related case came his way.

Her views on Assad are equally bad. 

Pro tip: if you're going to accuse someone else of being irrational, try to maintain some composure and ditch really bad emotional outbursts. 

I agree with the assertion that your dislike for TG is irrational it's just one I disagree with. Of course she advocated against LBGT and 20 years ago; as it was her father's business. But she has since changed her stance (just as Obama did) and has signed legislature supporting the LBGT community and SSM.
As to her considering SSM a sin; you cannot be a Christian and consider it anything other. Just as you cannot consider drinking, wishing you had your neighbor's new boat, sex outside of marriage, and working on Sunday as anything other than sin. But also as a Christian we know our sins are forgiven. I applaud her for having the courage of maintaining her Christian convictions while still demonstrating we can be accepting. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I am enjoying the defense of Clinton by stating she didn't directly state that Gabbard was a Russian asset. She only insinuated it as heavily as possible without doing so directly. Like I said, Clinton has really become a bitter, awful person.

[GMDino]

(10-22-2019, 11:43 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I am enjoying the defense of Clinton by stating she didn't directly state that Gabbard was a Russian asset.  She only insinuated it as heavily as possible without doing so directly.  Like I said, Clinton has really become a bitter, awful person.

Personally I said I didn't know if she called her an asset...I'm told she implied it.  So be it.  Tomato, tomahto.

What I enjoy is all the Trump supporters still worrying about what Clinton has to say...while saying SHE can't get over the 2016 election. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-22-2019, 11:45 AM)GMDino Wrote: Personally I said I didn't know if she called her an asset...I'm told she implied it.  So be it.  Tomato, tomahto.

What I enjoy is all the Trump supporters still worrying about what Clinton has to say...while saying SHE can't get over the 2016 election. 

A confusing statement as I don't know that any Trump supporters have posted in this thread.

[*bfine32*]

(10-22-2019, 11:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A confusing statement as I don't know that any Trump supporters have posted in this thread.

Perhaps he thinks Balls of Baker is a Trump Supporter as he started the thread. 

[GMDino]

(10-22-2019, 11:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A confusing statement as I don't know that any Trump supporters have posted in this thread.

Sure thing dude. 

All seriousness aside the world extends beyond "this thread".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-22-2019, 11:55 AM)GMDino Wrote: Sure thing dude.   

You could clear this right up and name them then.

Quote:All seriousness aside the world extends beyond "this thread".

Indeed.  However, I stick to addressing things people actually say.  You were specific to this thread, so I was as well.  Besides, addressing people who don't ever post here seems to be a rather pointless exercise. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-22-2019, 11:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps he thinks Balls of Baker is a Trump Supporter as he started the thread. 

You forgot his other alter as well.  But, yeah, I think he was confused from the start.

[Belsnickel]

(10-22-2019, 10:54 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's wrong to use the word "asset" and to suggest she is being groomed without evidence.

There's nothing wrong with saying that her rhetoric is rhetoric that Russia will try to capitalize on and that her candidacy may be used by Russia in their interference campaign because it absolutely will be. Anyone suggesting conspiracies at the DNC will be someone Russia wants to promote in their efforts to prop up a Trump candidacy. 

Is it wrong to call her an asset? Assets can be used unwittingly. If Russia makes efforts to use Gabbard to split the Democratic vote, even without her knowing it, she was an asset.

I really don't have a dog in this fight, it was just something I thought of while reading your post.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-22-2019, 01:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Is it wrong to call her an asset? Assets can be used unwittingly. If Russia makes efforts to use Gabbard to split the Democratic vote, even without her knowing it, she was an asset.


I really don't have a dog in this fight, it was just something I thought of while reading your post.

Is it wrong factually, no possibly not.  Is it monstrously irresponsible to label her that way when the vast, vast majority of people will not apply a rational and logical interpretation of the statement?  Hell yes.  It's the equivalent of calling her Putin's puppet, an accusation that we've heard before directed towards others, and an attempt to draw a parallel between the two.

[Dill]

(10-22-2019, 01:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Is it wrong to call her an asset? Assets can be used unwittingly. If Russia makes efforts to use Gabbard to split the Democratic vote, even without her knowing it, she was an asset.

I really don't have a dog in this fight, it was just something I thought of while reading your post.

Yes, assets can be unwitting.   Asset =/= Spy.

I don't have a problem calling Trump a "Russian asset," for example. I think he responds to cues from Putin, is played by him. But I've seen no evidence he is a witting spy. He lacks focus and judgement needed to pull that off. If the Russians elicit information from him through flattery, Trump would not understand that as collusion, but helping a friend, or doing a favor to get a favor.  Other damage he does, dividing the nation, etc. is just icing the cake for the Russians. Valued but not the result of direction.

In Gabbard's case though, the charge is a bit premature.  She says things Russians, Syrians and Trump supporters like (though those are not same things in every case). Russian intel certainly picks up on that, and may even be working their "bots" in her favor as Hillary suggests.  But we don't know for sure if anything yet has effect.  And nothing Gabbard has said (that I've read) suggests she would, could, go 3rd party.

Gabbard seems to me one of the least knowledgeable and least mentally agile of the Dem candidates, so she won't be going far in any case. Hillary's attack may have boosted interest in her more that the impending bots.  Will Gabbard have the poor judgement to lay out her Hillary grievance on Tucker Carlson?

[BmorePat87]

(10-22-2019, 01:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Is it wrong to call her an asset? Assets can be used unwittingly. If Russia makes efforts to use Gabbard to split the Democratic vote, even without her knowing it, she was an asset.

I really don't have a dog in this fight, it was just something I thought of while reading your post.

I think it implies that the person is willfully working to promote the Russian government. While SOME assets are woefully ignorant of their role, the implication with “grooming” is that this is an “asset” in the traditional counter intelligence use of the term.

[*bfine32*]

(10-22-2019, 01:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Is it wrong to call her an asset? Assets can be used unwittingly. If Russia makes efforts to use Gabbard to split the Democratic vote, even without her knowing it, she was an asset.

I really don't have a dog in this fight, it was just something I thought of while reading your post.

Yes