10-22-2019, 01:40 PM
(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.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
