Tulsi Gabbard sues Hillary Clinton for $50M, claims defamation over 'Russian asset' remark

[Toni]

Yer jus jealoussss.

Gabbard was handed significant power within the DNC after winning a seat. But then she decided she knew better and backed Sanders. Gabbard then decided to run for President, with almost no experience.

Ocasio-Cortez came from out of no where to win a long time incumbent's House seat, and has shown some DC IQ in decisions she has made, from particular questions she has asked during House committee hearings to making good decision such as she wasn't dumb enough to oppose Pelosi for Speaker.

Ocasio-Cortez is growing as a politician... Gabbard's quick ascension went to her head and it has stunted political growth.

I don’t think that Gabbard ever had a great deal of potential to go further than she has. She was lucky in winning and I would not be surprised if she lost her seat. I had never heard of her prior to her POTUS bid. AOC, on the other hand, is making a much bigger name for herself in a much shorter period of time. She’s done a much better job of gaining a following and hasn’t even needed to publish bikini shots of herself. She seems much more intelligent, better educated and better informed and more importantly seems to be genuinely interested in public service.

But what is it with Bernie that he has gained such enthusiastic support from young attractive women?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Once you "feel the Bern"...

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It's very simple. Putin would find anyone that either split votes or siphoned them off of Trump's opponent an asset. Stein was an asset. Sanders was an asset (and in a much more actively utilized fashion in regard to Putin's information warfare).

None of which is to say that any of them were knowingly participating (aka, "colluding") with any Russians. You don't have to do jackshit and you may still be considered an asset just by virtue of your position.

 

[Toni]

Once you "feel the Bern"...

More a pinkie swear, I’d think.

 

[ZiprHead]

Although I can't dent how much pleasure it would have provided if someone had finally blow away that Clinton bitch vampire for a few million.

And yet, if I gave you a few million, you couldn't possibly provide anything substantive against her to justify such irrational hatred.

Comments like this are everywhere, from both the left and the right. I really have no idea how Hillary warrants such vitriol. My guess is a lot of people like the poster above cannot justify it too.

 

[Elixir]

But what is it with Bernie that he has gained such enthusiastic support from young attractive women?

WUT? I don't think anyone of any age or gender has complicated reasons for supporting Bernie. He is manifestly less corrupt than the average politician, and has been consistent for many years on most issues germane to his supporters. That's enough.

 

[Elixir]

Although I can't dent how much pleasure it would have provided if someone had finally blow away that Clinton bitch vampire for a few million.

And yet, if I gave you a few million, you couldn't possibly provide anything substantive against her to justify such irrational hatred.

Trump hates her and fears her - isn't that sufficient?
I have nothing against her except that I wish she would just STFU - nothing she says or does helps any of the causes she supposedly supports. She has become toxic, thanks to the Republican smear machine.

 

[Toni]

But what is it with Bernie that he has gained such enthusiastic support from young attractive women?

WUT? I don't think anyone of any age or gender has complicated reasons for supporting Bernie. He is manifestly less corrupt than the average politician, and has been consistent for many years on most issues germane to his supporters. That's enough.

He has a very prominent devotee in AOC. Gabbard endorsed him for POTUS last election. I suppose she needed to do something to get herself noticed. That's all I meant. He's not getting tons of accolades from less young/nubile/attractive legislators. Or I haven't noticed such.

I think it's generational to a large extent. Your parents are so uncool but your cranky old grandpa? Uber cool.

 

[PyramidHead]

But what is it with Bernie that he has gained such enthusiastic support from young attractive women?

WUT? I don't think anyone of any age or gender has complicated reasons for supporting Bernie. He is manifestly less corrupt than the average politician, and has been consistent for many years on most issues germane to his supporters. That's enough.

He has a very prominent devotee in AOC. Gabbard endorsed him for POTUS last election. I suppose she needed to do something to get herself noticed. That's all I meant. He's not getting tons of accolades from less young/nubile/attractive legislators. Or I haven't noticed such.

I think it's generational to a large extent. Your parents are so uncool but your cranky old grandpa? Uber cool.

Listen to women!

Except when they support Bernie and loudly/repeatedly explain why they support him; in that case, just absentmindedly ponder why so many nubile waifs are apparently desperate enough for attention to line up behind his campaign

 

[Toni]

He has a very prominent devotee in AOC. Gabbard endorsed him for POTUS last election. I suppose she needed to do something to get herself noticed. That's all I meant. He's not getting tons of accolades from less young/nubile/attractive legislators. Or I haven't noticed such.

I think it's generational to a large extent. Your parents are so uncool but your cranky old grandpa? Uber cool.

View attachment 25795

Listen to women!

Except when they support Bernie and loudly/repeatedly explain why they support him; in that case, just absentmindedly ponder why so many nubile waifs are apparently desperate enough for attention to line up behind his campaign

Nope. I've only wondered why ONE woman needed to latch onto Bernie for attention: Gabbard. I've wondered about Bernie's penchant for attracting/attaching to young attractive female supporters, at least one of which seems to have a great deal more political acumen than does Bernie. Maybe you should listen to this woman or at least read what she wrote before responding to her?

Personally I listen to women on political matters to the extent that I think they know what they're talking about and have the knowledge and skill sets to be effective. So while I am a fan of AOC, I prefer to listen and vote for women I think will get something positive done. Same qualifications for men, btw. Among those who are left in race for POTUS are: Warren and Klobuchar.

Again: my biggest objection to Sanders is his age, which is, imo, a reason to not vote for him. Aside from that, I need to consider whether I think he will be effective in getting the legislature to pass any of those wonderful progressive points. Based on his success rate so far, I have to say: No. I don't think he's been an effective Senator and he's had problems in the past with women (see numerous complaints of sexism and sexism ignored within his 2016 campaign and his current one) as well as issues with racism. I believe those women. Why don't you?

And to note: the images you posted were of female Bernie supporters who, as far as I can tell, do not fit the profile of Bernie bro.

Another note: It's really unacceptable to hijack an important and much needed movement that states that women should be believed when they report sexual assault and harassment as they so often are not believed with believing random women about something that agrees with your own personal position. Hardly progressive or feminist or even mildly support of women. Instead it's pretty conveniently exploitative.

 

[Half-Life]

Does anyone see the hypocrisy of Tulsi calling Trump a Russian asset for years but then she sues when Hillary makes the same claim against her? "

"It's OK for me to accuse someone of being a Rusian asset but don't you dare accuse ME of being one!"

 

[laughing dog]

Does anyone see the hypocrisy of Tulsi calling Trump a Russian asset for years but then she sues when Hillary makes the same claim against her? "

"It's OK for me to accuse someone of being a Rusian asset but don't you dare accuse ME of being one!"

When did Gabbard start calling Trump a russian asset? Do have a link substantiating your claim?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Does anyone see the hypocrisy of Tulsi calling Trump a Russian asset for years but then she sues when Hillary makes the same claim against her? "

"It's OK for me to accuse someone of being a Rusian asset but don't you dare accuse ME of being one!"

So I can call you a Far Leftist.

 

[Half-Life]

Does anyone see the hypocrisy of Tulsi calling Trump a Russian asset for years but then she sues when Hillary makes the same claim against her? "

"It's OK for me to accuse someone of being a Rusian asset but don't you dare accuse ME of being one!"

When did Gabbard start calling Trump a russian asset? Do have a link substantiating your claim?

Russian puppet

Russian stooge

In bed with Putin

You seriously never heard Tulsi agree with these? Then you must believe that she doesn't believe Trump is a Russian puppet, which would make her a minority among the Dems.

 

[Toni]

Does anyone see the hypocrisy of Tulsi calling Trump a Russian asset for years but then she sues when Hillary makes the same claim against her? "

"It's OK for me to accuse someone of being a Rusian asset but don't you dare accuse ME of being one!"

When did Gabbard start calling Trump a russian asset? Do have a link substantiating your claim?

Russian puppet

Russian stooge

In bed with Putin

You seriously never heard Tulsi agree with these? Then you must believe that she doesn't believe Trump is a Russian puppet, which would make her a minority among the Dems.

Actually I haven't heard Tulsi agree with any of those. Can you please link to any such statements?

 

[lpetrich]

Tulsi Gabbard seems to have only one issue that she's interested in: ending US military adventures.

It has not been getting her much political traction, and she seems unwilling to accept that that is why she is doing so poorly.

She has decided that she won't be running again for her House seat, and that raises the question of what next for her. Since she's very unlikely to be President, it might be something related, like a Cabinet position. Or she might go into semi-retirement and start a family.

AOC is one of the most interesting personalities to emerge in national politics in a long time. She's what Barack Obama ought to have been. Someone who does not seem like some handwringing helpless centrist. Someone who unapologetically advocates progressive policies and then tries to implement them. Someone who refuses to be cowed by right-wing attacks and instead fights back. It also helps that she is very likable and relatable.

Her main ideology might be called do-gooderism, and she likes activists and activism. She doesn't seem to have much taste for having a political career for the sake of having a political career, and she doesn't seem very interested in becoming President. I think that she'd be happy with representing the Bronx and Queens for as long as she likes doing that and for as long as her constituents like her enough to re-elect her.

 

[Half-Life]

Tulsi Gabbard seems to have only one issue that she's interested in: ending US military adventures.

It has not been getting her much political traction, and she seems unwilling to accept that that is why she is doing so poorly.

She has decided that she won't be running again for her House seat, and that raises the question of what next for her. Since she's very unlikely to be President, it might be something related, like a Cabinet position. Or she might go into semi-retirement and start a family.

AOC is one of the most interesting personalities to emerge in national politics in a long time. She's what Barack Obama ought to have been. Someone who does not seem like some handwringing helpless centrist. Someone who unapologetically advocates progressive policies and then tries to implement them. Someone who refuses to be cowed by right-wing attacks and instead fights back. It also helps that she is very likable and relatable.

Her main ideology might be called do-gooderism, and she likes activists and activism. She doesn't seem to have much taste for having a political career for the sake of having a political career, and she doesn't seem very interested in becoming President. I think that she'd be happy with representing the Bronx and Queens for as long as she likes doing that and for as long as her constituents like her enough to re-elect her.

The problem with us "ending our military presence in countries" means that we are content to let the people live under brutal dictatorships. When people say, "We should've never went to war in Iraq!," what they are essentially saying is, "Screw those people! Let them live under a brutal dictator! I don't care how much they want their regime to change!"

It definitely would leave most countries stuck in the dark ages as opposed to being more Democratic and free. Certainly not very progressive to want other countries to live under brutal dictators.

Imagine if no one wanted to help Germany in WWII. How horrifying it would be today leaving those people under Hitler's regime. Progressives say they are against nationalism, but the very definition of nationalism is, "Screw every other country! Our country comes first!" It's putting your own nation above all others and not caring what any other nation does.

Yet, progressives say conservatives are nationalists.

 

[ZiprHead]

Tulsi Gabbard seems to have only one issue that she's interested in: ending US military adventures.

It has not been getting her much political traction, and she seems unwilling to accept that that is why she is doing so poorly.

She has decided that she won't be running again for her House seat, and that raises the question of what next for her. Since she's very unlikely to be President, it might be something related, like a Cabinet position. Or she might go into semi-retirement and start a family.

AOC is one of the most interesting personalities to emerge in national politics in a long time. She's what Barack Obama ought to have been. Someone who does not seem like some handwringing helpless centrist. Someone who unapologetically advocates progressive policies and then tries to implement them. Someone who refuses to be cowed by right-wing attacks and instead fights back. It also helps that she is very likable and relatable.

Her main ideology might be called do-gooderism, and she likes activists and activism. She doesn't seem to have much taste for having a political career for the sake of having a political career, and she doesn't seem very interested in becoming President. I think that she'd be happy with representing the Bronx and Queens for as long as she likes doing that and for as long as her constituents like her enough to re-elect her.

The problem with us "ending our military presence in countries" means that we are content to let the people live under brutal dictatorships. When people say, "We should've never went to war in Iraq!," what they are essentially saying is, "Screw those people! Let them live under a brutal dictator! I don't care how much they want their regime to change!"

It definitely would leave most countries stuck in the dark ages as opposed to being more Democratic and free. Certainly not very progressive to want other countries to live under brutal dictators.

Imagine if no one wanted to help Germany in WWII. How horrifying it would be today leaving those people under Hitler's regime.

You do realize we didn't get into WWII until we were attacked by Japan, don't you.

Also, please list the countries we have liberated since WWII and are now free.

 

[Half-Life]

Tulsi Gabbard seems to have only one issue that she's interested in: ending US military adventures.

It has not been getting her much political traction, and she seems unwilling to accept that that is why she is doing so poorly.

She has decided that she won't be running again for her House seat, and that raises the question of what next for her. Since she's very unlikely to be President, it might be something related, like a Cabinet position. Or she might go into semi-retirement and start a family.

AOC is one of the most interesting personalities to emerge in national politics in a long time. She's what Barack Obama ought to have been. Someone who does not seem like some handwringing helpless centrist. Someone who unapologetically advocates progressive policies and then tries to implement them. Someone who refuses to be cowed by right-wing attacks and instead fights back. It also helps that she is very likable and relatable.

Her main ideology might be called do-gooderism, and she likes activists and activism. She doesn't seem to have much taste for having a political career for the sake of having a political career, and she doesn't seem very interested in becoming President. I think that she'd be happy with representing the Bronx and Queens for as long as she likes doing that and for as long as her constituents like her enough to re-elect her.

The problem with us "ending our military presence in countries" means that we are content to let the people live under brutal dictatorships. When people say, "We should've never went to war in Iraq!," what they are essentially saying is, "Screw those people! Let them live under a brutal dictator! I don't care how much they want their regime to change!"

It definitely would leave most countries stuck in the dark ages as opposed to being more Democratic and free. Certainly not very progressive to want other countries to live under brutal dictators.

Imagine if no one wanted to help Germany in WWII. How horrifying it would be today leaving those people under Hitler's regime.

View attachment 25805

You do realize we didn't get into WWII until we were attacked by Japan, don't you.

Also, please list the countries we have liberated since WWII and are now free.

But I could say the same thing about leftists who agreed we should stop Germany, yet they also didn't sign up to fight. You can't give them a pass just because it was defensive. If they want to defend the U.S. from Germany, they should've "taken a seat and joined," right?

 

[Keith&Co.]

View attachment 25805

You do realize we didn't get into WWII until we were attacked by Japan, don't you.

Also, please list the countries we have liberated since WWII and are now free.

But I could say the same thing about leftists who agreed we should stop Germany, yet they also didn't sign up to fight. You can't give them a pass just because it was defensive. If they want to defend the U.S. from Germany, they should've "taken a seat and joined," right?

Your military record argues against your ability to criticize anyone for not signing up.
ESPECIALLY since you give the Orange shitgibbon a pass for dodging the draft.