Oh ****, y’all were serious w/ that.
I can understand not agreeing with policy but to call her a “Russian” asset doesnt really square with me. If that’s the case, why not call her an asset of every state that benefits from USA demise? Is Russia the only state that benefits from what she’s saying?
further question (for my own education): how does Russia benefit from Gabbards rhetoric?
I Don’t agree with deifying the military and I don’t think just because you served you’re automatically correct on foreign policies... but shorty served and is STILL serving...
that’s wild af that a former First Lady would even allude to some **** like that. She knew what she was doing invoking Russia and Gabbard like that.
that ain’t right at all. just say you don’t agree with her.
How can someone be compromised if it’s their own ideology?
disagreeing with her policy and ways to fix this country is fine. Trafficking in “She’s a Russia asset” seems tin-foil hat-ish. It implies she does things to benefit them PURPOSEFULLY.
That may not be what y’all are saying but that’s how it comes across.
to be fair, doe... I might be biased because I don’t buy that Russia swayed the election to the point where it got DJT in. to me, it absolves the Dems for their mistakes and absolves the country for being as racist as it is. I don’t think Jill stein helped “steal” the election, either.
if it’s that easy, why won’t more powerful countries with more resources it? Why wouldn’t Russia target certain house / senate races?
USA meddles in elections ALL THE TIME. I’m sure our government understands what strings to pull to get someone in.
again, disagreeing with her, criticizing her, saying she’s not a Dem is cool... that other stuff seems like A stretch