Hillary says Tulsi Gabbord is a Russian spy.

[Toni]

My take is that she's all over the spectrum because she's just trying to see what sticks with whoever will support her.

Well, Hillary is certainly guilty of that too. I remember during her campaign she was asked some question and did not really have a straight answer so she said something to the extent of "I will do whatever people like me to do"

1. Hillary is not running for POTUS.

2. This is true, I think, of almost all politicians to a certain extent. However, Gabbard's dramatic switches from being not just unsupportive or somewhat anti-gay but virulently anti-gay to being 'supportive' is enough to give one whiplash. Her bouncing between Muslim strongmen to anti-Muslim strong man makes me think the attraction is: strongman. Her embrace of Bernie and his position is diametrically opposed to her earlier stances. Yes, people evolve and change their minds.

And some people just want power. She strikes me as someone who simply wants power and will say and do anything to gain it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

My take is that she's all over the spectrum because she's just trying to see what sticks with whoever will support her.

So she used to be anti-gay and and some bad people have said they like her. She plays different messages looking for political angles as most politicians do. Ok ... But that's no what you said before. You said she's a Russian asset and that you'd vote for Trump over her. Explain this without vague hand waving.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

View attachment 24896

More interesting would be a similar survey of Russians and others about the US being a serious threat. Russia is comparatively harmless.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nonsense is indeed easy. But keep your day job...

No, Trump is the asset. He favors Putin and generally weakens US world standing.

But who is or isn't an asset is only significant if that interest, Russia e.g., has a troll bot presence in US social media.

One could argue that Trump is an asset because he refuses to criticize Putin, or because he has business dealings in Russia, etc.

The theory of Trump and Russia is that there is a direct connection with Trump to the Kremlin. Gabbard and Stein, on the other hand are being promoted via Twitter and Social Media mills to help drive astroturfed support for them. This would be from the outside, not the inside.

Gabbard seems a bit disingenuous seeing that she 'discovered' insider dealings in a major political party and was shocked? Seriously? The DNC wanted Clinton to win over the Independent... this is scandalous? Nevermind the odd right-wing support you hear for Gabbard.

 

[Horatio Parker]

More interesting would be a similar survey of Russians and others about the US being a serious threat. Russia is comparatively harmless.

I hear this from righties, but for some reason they all want to ally with Russia against China. If Russia is so weak, what difference does it make? China is bound to turn Russia into a client state.

 

[barbos]

Nonsense is indeed easy. But keep your day job...

No, Trump is the asset. He favors Putin and generally weakens US world standing.

But who is or isn't an asset is only significant if that interest, Russia e.g., has a troll bot presence in US social media.

One could argue that Trump is an asset because he refuses to criticize Putin, or because he has business dealings in Russia, etc.

The theory of Trump and Russia is that there is a direct connection with Trump to the Kremlin. Gabbard and Stein, on the other hand are being promoted via Twitter and Social Media mills to help drive astroturfed support for them. This would be from the outside, not the inside.

Gabbard seems a bit disingenuous seeing that she 'discovered' insider dealings in a major political party and was shocked? Seriously? The DNC wanted Clinton to win over the Independent... this is scandalous? Nevermind the odd right-wing support you hear for Gabbard.

I understand DNC took steps to ensure Clinton winning the nomination, it was not merely wanting.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

More interesting would be a similar survey of Russians and others about the US being a serious threat. Russia is comparatively harmless.

I hear this from righties, but for some reason they all want to ally with Russia against China. If Russia is so weak, what difference does it make? China is bound to turn Russia into a client state.

Both China and Russia remain weak as compared tot he US. Both engage in less international interference. But times are changing. China will likely eclipse the US eventually. Americans lucked out with ideal geography and that turned them into a world power, but that will become less and less an important factor as time goes on I think.

 

[Toni]

My take is that she's all over the spectrum because she's just trying to see what sticks with whoever will support her.

So she used to be anti-gay and and some bad people have said they like her. She plays different messages looking for political angles as most politicians do. Ok ... But that's no what you said before. You said she's a Russian asset and that you'd vote for Trump over her. Explain this without vague hand waving.

I already explained: Trump is old and is in failing health. His mental decline is more obvious every time he's in front of a camera. I don't think he would survive another 4 years.

Tulsi is young and in apparent good health. I think she'd make it through a term just fine, health wise.

I understand that people's beliefs and positions evolve and change over time. In Gabbard's case, the changes are so radical that they stretch credulity, particularly since they come with zero context. She loves dictators. She hated gay people until she didn't. She's been extremely conservative and in the past 3 or 4 years decided she likes Bernie.

 

[Horatio Parker]

More interesting would be a similar survey of Russians and others about the US being a serious threat. Russia is comparatively harmless.

I hear this from righties, but for some reason they all want to ally with Russia against China. If Russia is so weak, what difference does it make? China is bound to turn Russia into a client state.

Both China and Russia remain weak as compared tot he US. Both engage in less international interference. But times are changing. China will likely eclipse the US eventually. Americans lucked out with ideal geography and that turned them into a world power, but that will become less and less an important factor as time goes on I think.

How can a weak state eclipse the US?

China has the second largest economy in the world.

You make no sense at all.

Either China is a geopolitical threat to the US, or it isn't. But with you it's a threat only when you want it to be. China is weak and therefore no threat to Russia, but OTOH will eclipse the US. Uh hunh.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

More interesting would be a similar survey of Russians and others about the US being a serious threat. Russia is comparatively harmless.

I hear this from righties, but for some reason they all want to ally with Russia against China. If Russia is so weak, what difference does it make? China is bound to turn Russia into a client state.

Both China and Russia remain weak as compared tot he US.

China is vulnerable to economic issues domestically, however, China is definitely asserting influence heavily in the South China Sea, and economically in places like Africa.

Both engage in less international interference.

Probably less, but how much less likely is a subjective judgment. While US troops can be found in more places, Russia invaded Ukraine and had mercs in Syria. China is definitely asserting influence in Asia, as well as in third world nations.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

China’s Xi calls Putin his ‘best friend’ against a backdrop of souring US relations

Russia and China Take Military Partnership to New Level

A Russian-Chinese Partnership Is a Threat to U.S. Interests

 

[Horatio Parker]

China’s Xi calls Putin his ‘best friend’ against a backdrop of souring US relations

Russia and China Take Military Partnership to New Level

A Russian-Chinese Partnership Is a Threat to U.S. Interests

Yeah, true, but wake me up when they fight a war on the same side.

 

[barbos]

More interesting would be a similar survey of Russians and others about the US being a serious threat. Russia is comparatively harmless.

I hear this from righties, but for some reason they all want to ally with Russia against China. If Russia is so weak, what difference does it make? China is bound to turn Russia into a client state.

I understand some foreign policy people do/did want to accept Russia. But they are/were small minority. My theory is that they did not think China was good enough to play a role of an enemy so they reassigned that role to Russia. I mean China still does not have nearly enough nukes compared to US/Russia. So it was a collective business decision for US military-industrial complex to stick to something which worked well .before. Now China is getting better and better fit for the role of an enemy, But two enemies is better than one as far as military-industrial complex concerned.

 

[Horatio Parker]

More interesting would be a similar survey of Russians and others about the US being a serious threat. Russia is comparatively harmless.

I hear this from righties, but for some reason they all want to ally with Russia against China. If Russia is so weak, what difference does it make? China is bound to turn Russia into a client state.

I understand some foreign policy people do/did want to accept Russia. But they are/were small minority. My theory is that they did not think China was good enough to play a role of an enemy so they reassigned that role to Russia. I mean China still does not have nearly enough nukes compared to US/Russia. So it was a collective business decision for US military-industrial complex to stick to something which worked well .before. Now China is getting better and better fit for the role of an enemy, But two enemies is better than one as far as military-industrial complex concerned.

There's an ideological factor, too. Russia is now free market/private enterprise and China is still commie.

 

[barbos]

I understand some foreign policy people do/did want to accept Russia. But they are/were small minority. My theory is that they did not think China was good enough to play a role of an enemy so they reassigned that role to Russia. I mean China still does not have nearly enough nukes compared to US/Russia. So it was a collective business decision for US military-industrial complex to stick to something which worked well .before. Now China is getting better and better fit for the role of an enemy, But two enemies is better than one as far as military-industrial complex concerned.

There's an ideological factor, too. Russia is now free market/private enterprise and China is still commie.

Yes, but I am not sure how this factor plays. And China IS free market/private enterprise, more so than Russia I think. It's just government has better grip over politics.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I understand some foreign policy people do/did want to accept Russia. But they are/were small minority. My theory is that they did not think China was good enough to play a role of an enemy so they reassigned that role to Russia. I mean China still does not have nearly enough nukes compared to US/Russia. So it was a collective business decision for US military-industrial complex to stick to something which worked well .before. Now China is getting better and better fit for the role of an enemy, But two enemies is better than one as far as military-industrial complex concerned.

There's an ideological factor, too. Russia is now free market/private enterprise and China is still commie.

Yes, but I am not sure how this factor plays. And China IS free market/private enterprise, more so than Russia I think. It's just government has better grip over politics.

There's no ideological purity anywhere, but if a neocon needs a handy excuse...

But the problem with a US/Russia alliance is of course Western Europe. I guess it would be useful in Central Asia? Too bad for the US that Russia has no ambitions to expand in the Far East.

 

[ZiprHead]

I understand some foreign policy people do/did want to accept Russia. But they are/were small minority. My theory is that they did not think China was good enough to play a role of an enemy so they reassigned that role to Russia. I mean China still does not have nearly enough nukes compared to US/Russia. So it was a collective business decision for US military-industrial complex to stick to something which worked well .before. Now China is getting better and better fit for the role of an enemy, But two enemies is better than one as far as military-industrial complex concerned.

There's an ideological factor, too. Russia is now free market/private enterprise and China is still commie.

Only if you pay Putin his vig, so not quite free market.

 

[barbos]

Yes, but I am not sure how this factor plays. And China IS free market/private enterprise, more so than Russia I think. It's just government has better grip over politics.

There's no ideological purity anywhere, but if a neocon needs a handy excuse...

Oh, that, OK.

But the problem with a US/Russia alliance is of course Western Europe.

why is that a problem? Western Europe have never been as anti-Russia as US.

I guess it would be useful in Central Asia? Too bad for the US that Russia has no ambitions to expand in the Far East.

You keep looking at that from very narrow military perspective. Russia could have been in EU if it were not for US military-industrial complex and EU distrust of big members. Despite all these proclamations of good relations with China, Russia is very suspicious of them, and we are not close culturally, in the past it was all based on common ideology. Neocons know all of that and correctly assume that Russia-China alliance will never work.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I already explained: Trump is old and is in failing health. His mental decline is more obvious every time he's in front of a camera. I don't think he would survive another 4 years.

Tulsi is young and in apparent good health. I think she'd make it through a term just fine, health wise.

Yes, I got that part. But that analysis rests on them being otherwise equivalent, or close enough to equivalent that the other factors don't matter. That demands some explanation. Tulsi is that bad? Just because she used to have some anti-gay ideas and you hang some spectre of Russian evilness onto her for some reason? Or is Trump that not-bad?

Its all rather moot anyway since she has no real chance of winning anyway, regardless of this smearing from Hillary Clinton and others. Jill Stein (who Hillary also smeared as a "Russian Asset") isn't running, so is irrelevant in and of herself. This is much more a story about Hillary's need to smear others (and other women too if that matters to you).