***Official Political Discussion Thread***

14,763
8,703
Joined Jan 20, 2006
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 mean it's not like we have a whole report that details the ways in which Russia sought to influence our election or anything.
if it’s that easy, why won’t more powerful countries with more resources it? Why wouldn’t Russia target certain house / senate races?
What do you mean "more powerful countries"? What would they have to gain? Russia is in a very unique place and their standing in the world is pretty complicated.
 

RustyShackleford

Supporter
38,899
71,853
Joined Jul 20, 2009
Oh ****, y’all were serious w/ that.

:wow: :wow:

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
Because Russia, right now, is the main country trying to sway our elections to get people into office (Trump) that make geopolitical moves that they want. There is state sponsored effort by the Russians to interfere with our elections. They constantly try to propaganda to further those goals. The view any politician, pundit, or journalist that will help them in their goals as an asset. Let us not act like all things are created equal here.

Tulsi repeats Russian talking points constantly, Russia bots on Twitter love volume boosting her nonsense, Russian state news is always mentioning her, other Trump Stans and Russian sympathizers do the same. Belgium Belgium spelled out in great detail how problematic Gabbard is. She is not someone I have a principled disagreement on policy, she is a ****ing hypocrite that injects bull**** talking points into the public debate.

Whether she does it intentionally or is a massive useful idiot, that still makes her an asset to the Russian's aim in helping Trump win. Same goes for Stein.

Hillary didn't even say Gabbards name, but everyone knew who she was alluding too because everyone paying attention can see the smoke around Gabbard.

Yes, the US does not meddle in other people's elections, but a) That is whataboutism, it does not make Russia's actions excusable b) A lot of people that doesn't like America interference in foreign elections don't like Russia's either c) That is a talking point that Trump used, I don't respect it because it is handwaving a serious issue.

You can have issues with the Democrats strategy and take issue with Russia involvement in our elections, it is not mutually exclusive. All things considered Clinton did get cheated out of the Presidency, and a Russian propaganda campaign was part of that.

I swear Russia needs to **** over Bernie for some of you to wake the **** up to how serious this is.

I don't a damn about her military status, that doesn't make her a expert on geopolitics. The is the same line of thinking that made Ben Carson a policy expert during the ACA debate.
 
Last edited:

RustyShackleford

Supporter
38,899
71,853
Joined Jul 20, 2009
I notice all the defenders of Gabbard online all seem to ignore all the problematic stuff Gabbard been doing for years.

They have an issue with Clinton over 2016, so the enemy of their enemy is their friend.
 
Last edited:
4,121
2,274
Joined Oct 30, 2009
Don’t take this the wrong way, but if you don’t believe that Russia influenced the election and that it helped elect Trump, we have nothing to talk about. :lol:

It’s been well documented that they DID influence the election. How much? Not sure how you can quantify it, so if you’re looking for they swayed X amount of votes, you’ll never be convinced.
Nah, famb. You’re not gonna do that to me.

I said “to the point where it got DJT elected”

that DOES NOT MEAN I don’t think Russia had an influence. That means DJT would be president if they interfered or not.

I fully believe USA is racist enough as a collective to elect him. You don’t?
 
708
1,726
Joined Jul 15, 2018
I mean it's not like we have a whole report that details the ways in which Russia sought to influence our election or anything.

What do you mean "more powerful countries"? What would they have to gain? Russia is in a very unique place and their standing in the world is pretty complicated.
honestly when it comes to the international level, they ain’t **** without selling oil to European countries and making weapons To flex on the US and that shows in how they have gone about business these last few years.
 
Last edited:
4,121
2,274
Joined Oct 30, 2009
I mean it's not like we have a whole report that details the ways in which Russia sought to influence our election or anything.

What do you mean "more powerful countries"? What would they have to gain? Russia is in a very unique place and their standing in the world is pretty complicated.

I don’t have a direct answer because, as you stated, it’s complicated.

the first couple states that come to mind are China, NK, and some middle eastern nations. Also, according to what I’ve seen, russia didn’t spend an insane amount of money (I saw monthly budgets of~$2 million a month).

people always says she’s an Assad apologist.why not be an Assad asset?

If the answer is “Russia is the only state that stands to gain/lose from the USA election, the only state with the capacity to have an impact, and the only state to have done something” then so be it.

putting all that aside (Easy to get off track), invoking Gabbard and Russia in the manner she did seems unfair.

Must be something in that Texas water.
yeah, the “I have a different viewpoint” virus is robust in Texas tap water

:rolleyes :rolleyes
 
708
1,726
Joined Jul 15, 2018
Hillary didn't even say Gabbards name, but everyone knew who she was alluding too because everyone paying attention can see the smoke around Gabbard.
Everyone is ignoring the fact Hillary didn’t say her name or even her gender. It really was that clear to everyone who the “asset” was and Tulsi’s response was a classic “she doth protest to much”, because she (or the people around her) is aware of what she really is.
 

RustyShackleford

Supporter
38,899
71,853
Joined Jul 20, 2009
I don’t have a direct answer because, as you stated, it’s complicated.

the first couple states that come to mind are China, NK, and some middle eastern nations. Also, according to what I’ve seen, russia didn’t spend an insane amount of money (I saw monthly budgets of~$2 million a month).

people always says she’s an Assad apologist.why not be an Assad asset?

If the answer is “Russia is the only state that stands to gain/lose from the USA election, the only state with the capacity to have an impact, and the only state to have done something” then so be it.

putting all that aside (Easy to get off track), invoking Gabbard and Russia in the manner she did seems unfair.



yeah, the “I have a different viewpoint” virus is robust in Texas tap water

:rolleyes :rolleyes
Good grief, please go look up which country is supporting Assad.
 
1,796
1,218
Joined Feb 21, 2006
I despise Gabbard but handullz handullz has a point as far as folks in here and beyond playing fast and loose with language regarding her. Repeatedly calling someone a “Russian asset” and then when pressed saying “Well, she might not actually be a Russian asset but the Russians like her rhetoric so it’s the same thing” is incredibly problematic, to say the least. And this is the kind of dynamic many of y’all would be on absolute fire about if it were coming from and/or directed toward other political corners.
 
14,763
8,703
Joined Jan 20, 2006
handullz handullz Russia has made an effort to sow discord across the western world. This isn't just a US thing. It's really just the perfect storm for their efforts to work here.

China is a superpower with economic ties around the world. What do they achieve by a disinformation campaign and DT in office?

North Korea is isolated with few allies but does not have any power. Ironically, they're another Russian ally. Saudi has similar interests with Russia as far as the middle East goes, but has substantial American support as well. They're a perceived ally. Not sure what they'd gain from it either.
 
4,757
5,829
Joined Dec 12, 2012
I despise Gabbard but handullz handullz has a point as far as folks in here and beyond playing fast and loose with language regarding her. Repeatedly calling someone a “Russian asset” and then when pressed saying “Well, she might not actually be a Russian asset but the Russians like her rhetoric so it’s the same thing” is incredibly problematic, to say the least. And this is the kind of dynamic many of y’all would be on absolute fire about if it were coming from and/or directed toward other political corners.
If she's spouting the same rhetoric that Russia is using to sow division, then it makes sense that she is an asset to Russia.
 

RustyShackleford

Supporter
38,899
71,853
Joined Jul 20, 2009
I’m shocked that you would deign to blame Bernie supporters for something—shocked, I tell you!!

Bernie was the one having her at campaign events, simily just because she was a Democrat that endorsed him at was saying the DNC was riggin the process against him. Bernie Bros, and the outlets that serve them were the ones name dropping her as a reliable anti-DNC and anti-Clinton Democrat. Saying **** like calling her a real progressive for supporting Bernie. Nonsense like that is what motivated like the Jacobin to write an article entitled "Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Your Friend". As always, you want to handwave the buffoonery that goes on within the Bernie supporting crowd.

And for the millionth ****ing time, I said Bernie Bros not all Bernie supporters. I have explained in detail the I am not talking about all Bernie supporters.

So spare me your damn pearl clutching
 
Last edited:
7,864
13,567
Joined Jan 16, 2011
All things considered Clinton did get cheated out of the Presidency, and a Russian propaganda campaign was part of that.
It should be mentioned that they didn't even need to create the campaign from scratch, considering that the groundwork the GOP has put down for the past 20 years with regards to the Clintons.

The same could be said regarding the Russian efforts to discourage the Black turnout. They simply exploited the sociopolitical hubris that most Americans don't want to address.
 
1,796
1,218
Joined Feb 21, 2006
If she's spouting the same rhetoric that Russia is using to sow division, then it makes sense that she is an asset to Russia.
You do understand what the term “asset” refers to in geopolitics, right? If so, then your point here—which I don’t disagree with as stated—is irrelevant.
 
1,796
1,218
Joined Feb 21, 2006
Bernie was the one having her at campaign events, simily just because she was a Democrat that endorsed him at was saying the DNC was riggin the process against him. Bernie Bros, and the outlets that serve them were the ones name dropping her as a reliable anti-DNC and anti-Clinton Democrat. Saying **** like calling her a real progressive for supporting Bernie. Nonsense like that is what motivated like the Jacobin to write an article entitled "Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Your Friend". As always, you want to handwave the buffoonery that does on it the Bernie supporting crowd. And for the millionth damn time, I said Bernie Bros not Bernie supporters. I have explained in detail why I separate.

So spare me your damn pearl clutching, it is true.
With the routine barrage of derision, sarcasm, and hostility directed toward Bernie and his supporters in here over any and every little “transgression,” both real and (mostly) imagined, “pearl clutching” is a rich way to describe the slightest pushback to this dynamic.
 
4,757
5,829
Joined Dec 12, 2012
You do understand what the term “asset” refers to in geopolitics, right? If so, then your point here—which I don’t disagree with as stated—is irrelevant.
Yes, and my point is that it doesn't make a difference if she's serving the same purpose.
 

RustyShackleford

Supporter
38,899
71,853
Joined Jul 20, 2009
With the routine barrage of derision, sarcasm, and hostility directed toward Bernie and his supporters in here over any and every little “transgression,” both real and (mostly) imagined, “pearl clutching” is a rich way to describe the slightest pushback to this dynamic.
Oh please, it is pearl clutching

Whenever you dudes have a issue with a criticism I have of Bernie, I always explain in detail what motivates that ciritism. Do I not? Do I try to troll you guys, or just leave my criticism without explanation? So this assertion of it being most imagined is pure bull****.

It seems since people like you and other Bernie supporters can't label my criticism untrue, or in bad faith, what is left is to whine about the fact I do it at all.

Tulsi's buzz started with this...


When Trump was considering her for a cabinet position, new outlets her calling out her major claim to fame...
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democratic-rep-tulsi-gabbard-consideration-trump-cabinet/story?id=43696303

Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a high-profile Bernie Sanders supporter during the Democratic primaries, is “under serious consideration” for various Cabinet positions in President-elect Donald Trump's administration, according to a senior official on the transition team.
That's is not imaged. It is an inconvenient fact you need to just deal with.

And for the again, I wasn't even speaking of all Bernie supporters.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom