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.
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.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
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.
Nah, famb. You’re not gonna do that to me.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.
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.
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.
yeah, the “I have a different viewpoint” virus is robust in Texas tap water
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.
Good grief, please go look up which country is supporting Assad.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
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.
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.
www.merriam-webster.com
I’m shocked that you would deign to blame Bernie supporters for something—shocked, I tell you!!
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.I despise Gabbard but
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.
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.
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.
Yes, and my point is that it doesn't make a difference if she's serving the same purpose.
Oh please, it is pearl clutching
That's is not imaged. It is an inconvenient fact you need to just deal with.
