Hillary Clinton says Tulsi Gabbard is a 'Russian asset' groomed to ensure Trump reelection

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
Do you have some kind of reading comprehension issue? Read the last post that I directed at you.
Oh jeez.

Disinformation will be corrected. Don’t like it? Stop entering political threads to post nonsense or put me on block.
 
Last edited:

One Brow

Well-Known Member
So a string of Russian talking points implies that she’s a Russian agent. I would argue then that Hillary is an asset to Wall Street, the Military-Industrial Complex, Big Pharma, CNN and The New York Times.
Well, duh.
 

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
Well, duh.
He probably thought he was being creative when he made that argument.

He doesn't know it, but he's using the exact same tactic Putin has used to great success. Putin doesn't try and claim he's perfect either. He accuses everyone else of being corrupt. "She's corrupt, he's corrupt, I'm corrupt, you're corrupt, we're all corrupt so everything is equal and nothing actually matters!"

It's a perverse form of whataboutism that makes anything justifiable. And for what? Why is Trump the hill so many want to die on? What legislation is being passed right now (or even prior to the whistleblower)? What's the vision for the next 5 years?
 

Gameface

Fight Voter Suppression!
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
That's too bad

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
It really isn't. She'd take votes from the eventual Democratic nominee and do a lot to help re-elect Trump if she did that.

She has been solid in claiming she wouldn't do that. I'm like 80% convinced she's actually going to do that.
 

rare144

Well-Known Member
Running 3rd party just isn't feasible because she'd spend all time and money just trying to get on all the ballots - learned that from my Ron Paul days.. Perot afforded an army of attorneys
 

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
Running 3rd party just isn't feasible because she'd spend all time and money just trying to get on all the ballots - learned that from my Ron Paul days.. Perot afforded an army of attorneys
she doesn’t need to get on all the ballots. She just needs to get on the ballots of a handful of swing states and continue to lob grenades at the DNC on TV. Really, any third party run would potentially hurt the Democratic candidate and help Trump win re-election... while securing lucrative contracts with Fox News for the next decade.
 

infection

Well-Known Member
Staff member
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
she doesn’t need to get on all the ballots. She just needs to get on the ballots of a handful of swing states and continue to lob grenades at the DNC on TV. Really, any third party run would potentially hurt the Democratic candidate and help Trump win re-election... while securing lucrative contracts with Fox News for the next decade.
I honestly believe she would hurt Trump more than any democrat. I mean, take yourself, for instance. You don’t care for her. You feel she’s pandering to Fox and righties. Who do you think is likely to vote for her?
 

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
I honestly believe she would hurt Trump more than any democrat. I mean, take yourself, for instance. You don’t care for her. You feel she’s pandering to Fox and righties. Who do you think is likely to vote for her?
people who don’t like Trump but refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee. Just look at this website and see who her supporters are. None of them are Trumpers, however, all of them seem to have some gripe against the Democratic Party. Tulsi gives them an easy out if they decide to vote.

The fear I have in 2020 isn’t that Trump will over perform. I think his ceiling is low. The problem I foresee is the coalition of “others” being too divided.

My fear is:

  • Never Trumpers voting for some Never Trumper candidate or sitting home.
  • Democrats getting butt hurt for one reason or another and throwing their vote away for a 3rd party candidate (I wanted a woke candidate, I wanted a black candidate, I wanted a woman candidate, I wanted to feel the bern, I wanted a moderate, I’m tired of endless wars...).
Tulsi gives an easy out for both these groups, especially Democrats whose coalition will have some angry segment no matter who the candidate is. People like her supporters here, will vote for her 3rd party candidacy because because they can justify it by not voting for trump. In some weird way, they may even feel good about it because they’d be “sticking it” to the party. Especially since Clinton has injected herself into this whole thing.

Meanwhile, the Trumper coalition, although small, is extremely well funded, has Fox News, and by far the most united and loyal base.
 

One Brow

Well-Known Member
people who don’t like Trump but refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee. Just look at this website and see who her supporters are. None of them are Trumpers, however, all of them seem to have some gripe against the Democratic Party. Tulsi gives them an easy out if they decide to vote.
My amateur understanding of history is that strong third-party presences have always hurt the incumbent party as opposed to the challenging party.
 

Archie Moses

Well-Known Member
This doesn't really go here, but I highly recommend reading up on Katie Hill and her two love affairs. There's some great pics you can see of her that some speculate, show a Nazi tattoo.

She cheated on her husband with both a chick and a dude who were working as subordinates for her.


Gotta love politics.
 

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
My amateur understanding of history is that strong third-party presences have always hurt the incumbent party as opposed to the challenging party.
Historically I think you are correct. I think there’s some room for nuance here. Haven’t third party candidates been a branch from the incumbent party? Perot was primarily a republican prior to becoming independent and hurting incumbent Bush in 1992, right? Wallace was primarily a Democratic prior to the 1968 campaign. So he hurt the incumbent Democratic Party (not candidate) in 1968. However, due to changing political platforms, Nixon was scared stiff that Wallace would run again in 1972 and hurt him, the incumbent. Strom was also a Democrat in 1948 and hurt incumbent Truman. Roosevelt, who was a republican for most of his life sunk Incumbent Taft.

So it would be interesting to see how Tulsi (Democrat) might hurt/help incumbent (Republican) Trump. Perhaps third party candidates hurt the party/platform they come from (which coincidentally have primarily been the incumbent party)? It’s certainly going to be interesting to analyze this in 2021 if Tulsi does indeed make a third party run.

However, historically don’t presidents try to play to the general population? Instead, we’ve seen Trump become more and more radicalized and extreme both in rhetoric and deeds since the day he stepped on the escalator. Historically, throwing such racist and extremist bombs would’ve alienated him from the general populace and spelled an end to his campaign. Instead, it’s what propelled him forward.

Do the laws of political gravity still apply to our politics? With the way our country is segregated and polarized, I believe it’s certainly debatable. Which means I think one could debate whether Tulsi’s third party run would hurt the incumbent or hurt the challenging party more.
 
Last edited:
Top