Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hillary Clinton Appears to Claim Russians ‘Grooming’ Tulsi Gabbard

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
    Not even a minute in, she categorizes reasonable criticism as smear tactics. No, it's reasonable criticism.
    "Not even a minute in" isn't long enough to get her side of the story.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by User Name View Post
      "Not even a minute in" isn't long enough to get her side of the story.
      That doesn't mean I didn't keep watching. I watched the entire ten minutes. Took some notes.

      Now, is there any criticism of her that you think has merit?

      Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
        Now, is there any criticism of her that you think has merit?
        Present the worst and I'll consider it.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by User Name View Post
          Present the worst and I'll consider it.
          That comes across as evasive.

          Mine is a reasonable question, I hope you'll answer it.

          Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
            That comes across as evasive.
            Is there any criticism of her that I think has merit? I think she should be more critical of Putin. But give me the worst criticism you can find about Gabbard and I'll let you know what I think of it.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by User Name View Post
              Is there any criticism of her that I think has merit? I think she should be more critical of Putin. But give me the worst criticism you can find about Gabbard and I'll let you know what I think of it.
              I can think of a half dozen things without even looking just based on what I know about her to this point, but I have commitments that will carry through this afternoon into late evening and a specific list will have to wait until tomorrow.

              Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

              Comment


              • #37
                "Van Jones blasts Clinton over Gabbard claims'

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                  Since the Justice Department says that a sitting president can't be indicted, that's not a surprise. However...

                  President Donald Trump has, for the first time, become an unindicted co-conspirator, analysts said following the release of a sentencing memo on Friday.
                  Why are you changing the subject from the Mueller report to something else? Trump was NOT an unindicted co-conspirator in that investigation. In fact:

                  Volume I of the report concludes that the investigation did not find sufficient evidence that the campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.

                  Once again you are living proof that the Russian collusion Delusion remains alive in the thoughts of those who refuse to use their brains.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Barbarian observes:
                    Since the Justice Department says that a sitting president can't be indicted, that's not a surprise. However...

                    President Donald Trump has, for the first time, become an unindicted co-conspirator, analysts said following the release of a sentencing memo on Friday.

                    Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                    Why are you changing the subject from the Mueller report to something else?
                    You probably shouldn't have changed the subject to indictments, then. No only did the Mueller report document several attempts by Trump to obstruct the investigation (which will have to wait until he leaves office), he is also an unindicted co-conspirator.

                    Volume I of the report concludes that the investigation did not find sufficient evidence that the campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.
                    However, Mueller did document Trump's several attempts to obstruct the investigation. So those indictments will have to wait until he leaves office.

                    Once again you are living proof that the Russian collusion Delusion remains alive in the thoughts of those who refuse to admit that Trump has committed crimes in office.
                    This message is hidden because ...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                      No only did the Mueller report document several attempts by Trump to obstruct the investigation (which will have to wait until he leaves office), he is also an unindicted co-conspirator.
                      Where did you hear that from, Adam Schiff?

                      You must be ignorant of the fact that Mueller's report didn't determine whether Trump had committed obstruction of justice. So it is certain that Trump was not named as an unindicted co-conspirator.

                      I challenge you to prove that Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in regard to obstruction in the Mueller investigation.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by drbrumley View Post
                        just the thought of Hillary as president should scare the hell out of us.....

                        she is bad news....leaving those souls in Libya to die....her economic plans etc...bad, bad bad
                        I'm no Hillary fan, but honesty would call for you to admit that it was a republican congress who cut security for our embassies over Clinton's objections, making Benghazi possible.

                        Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

                        “Absolutely,” Chaffetz said. “Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

                        For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration’s request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 — cutting back on the department’s request by $331 million.

                        Consulate personnel stationed in Benghazi had allegedly expressed concerns over their safety in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks that killed four Americans, including Amb. Chris Stevens. Chaffetz and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, claim those concerns were ignored
                        .
                        https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jason...assy_n_1954912

                        Among the "priorities" more important to Chaffetz than protecting our embassies and diplomats? Redecorating a National Guard meeting area in Alabama.
                        This message is hidden because ...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                          I'm no Hillary fan.
                          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                          E≈mc2
                          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                          -Bob B.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Not only did the Mueller report document several attempts by Trump to obstruct the investigation (which will have to wait until he leaves office), he is also an unindicted co-conspirator.

                            Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                            Where did you hear that from, Adam Schiff?
                            Mueller report...
                            Barr lied: Mueller found that Trump tried to obstruct justice — a lot
                            https://shareblue.com/william-barr-l...justice-a-lot/

                            You must be ignorant of the fact that Mueller's report didn't determine whether Trump had committed obstruction of justice.
                            Mueller, merely noted that since the Justice Department said that he could not indict the president, he did not do so. He merely documented several cases of Trump attempting to obstruct the investigation. Would you like me to show you again?

                            So it is certain that Trump was not named as an unindicted co-conspirator.
                            President Donald Trump has, for the first time, become an unindicted co-conspirator, analysts said following the release of a sentencing memo on Friday.

                            Among the details in the memo, which track with reporting on the Stormy Daniels hush-money payoff, is a description of criminal behavior that includes the president, identified as Individual-1 throughout.

                            “During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories – each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 – so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. As a result of Cohen’s actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election,” the memo reads.

                            https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/don...memo-analysis/

                            I challenge you to prove that Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in regard to obstruction in the Mueller investigation.
                            You've got the right president, but the wrong crime. He's a very versatile criminal.
                            This message is hidden because ...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by User Name View Post
                              Is there any criticism of her that I think has merit? I think she should be more critical of Putin.
                              Well, that's a start... but I get the impression you're team Tulsi and that's as far as you'll go, and that's fine. The fact that you didn't address the sponsors of her trip to Syria or the implications of it certainly give me pause. Whether Van Jones thinks Hillary shouldn't have said what she said has absolutely no impact on me, I think Hillary is dead to rights and I also think she's been somewhat misquoted and I'll explain why in a minute - but Tulsi's response to Hillary said a lot more about Tulsi than perhaps Tulsi realized. Being a female version of Trump is going to look attractive to the alt-right but it gives me the creeps. Tulsi doesn't stand a chance in 2020 at being anything but a wedge to split Democratic votes but she's young so who knows? I may have to give a lot more thought to this in another 4 or 8 years than I'm willing to give it now.

                              But give me the worst criticism you can find about Gabbard and I'll let you know what I think of it.
                              Worst: her meeting with Assad. Secretive. Poor timing. Questionable judgment. Questionable sponsorship. Questionable intent. And here's the thing. A lot of people from varying political vantage points of experience, ideology, both sides of the aisle, had problems with her trip but in the Joe Rogan clip (I noticed she likes to use the word "smear" a lot) she dismisses it all as the "usual tactic of trying to smear" her. They had rational problems with what she did, and trying to reduce it to nothing more than smear tactics won't change the fact that she had an secret, unauthorized meeting with a dictator with whom the U.S. has no diplomatic relationship with. She told Rogan that she asked him "tough questions" but we don't know what those question were, do we? She said Assad gave her "his perspective," and we don't know how aligned she is with his perspective, do we?

                              Okay that's to start. I'm writing this off the top of my head and had to go back and listen to parts of the Rogan video again to check the exact words. I actually spent the previous hour listening to the podcast that recent Hillary quote came from so I could get it in context and I want to say something about that next, but regarding Tulsi, I haven't read anything yet that's changed my initial thinking about her. She's not horrible, she has some good positions, but there's something about her that, odd as it may seem, considering she's obviously very intelligent, but it's a personality thing - she reminds me in some ways of Trump. Maybe that's something all her right-wing supporters are picking up on instinctively, I don't know. But her tweeted response to Hillary sounded so much like something Trump would've said, it was uncanny. "Queen of warmongers?" Come on... but of course, it threw the MAGA crowd into ecstasies.

                              Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Regarding the Hillary quote (doesn't bother me at all that she said it, she's right): it's been misconstrued by some sources. Example:

                                CNN:
                                Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said Thursday the Russians are currently “grooming” a Democrat running in the presidential primary to run as a third-party candidate and champion their interests.

                                Hillary said (and she did this without naming Tulsi, so it's super interesting it was Tulsi who reacted ) that "someone" is a favorite of the Russians and there's definitely a case that can be made for the accuracy of Hillary's statement. However, when Hillary spoke of grooming a third party candidate, Hillary was referring to the Trump campaign.

                                The podcast is Campaign HQ with David Plouffe, Oct. 16.

                                At about the 34/35 minute mark, Plouffe and Hillary are talking about how Trump won because a third party candidate split the vote, and that the Trump campaign can't win in 2020 without repeating that same strategy. "They're also gonna do third party again" comes right before the viral quote. She says after the viral quote "They know they can't win without a third party candidate..."

                                So as has happened so often with Hillary, the narrative has been given a twist that gives ammunition to the right, and there won't be any putting the horse back in the barn, everyone will now say that Hillary said "the Russians are grooming" and entirely miss (or intentionally ignore) that of course the Trump campaign will want a third party spoiler or disgruntled Bernie/Stein/Gabbard voters to sabotage the nominee. Of course they do! And of course Russia is going to meddle in the election again, of course it will!

                                Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X