• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Hillary vs Tulsi

First of all, here is the actual podcast, which I'll bet even money no one itt has actually heard. It's a casual, long-form discussion and extremely insightful.

The section that has been jumped on begins at about the 34 minute mark and it's an extended conversation about using the third party as a strategy. And the "they" she is referring to is the Trump campaign.

Here is what she actually said (my translation; my bold):

David Plouffe: So one, it's connected to the discussion we just had, actually about social media earlier in our discussion, you know, Donald Trump, you know better than anyone in the world only got 46.1% of the vote nationally. You know he got 47.2 in Wisconsin, 47.7 in Michigan. If you had said those before the election, you would have said he's going to lose in a landslide. But one of the reasons he was able to win is the third party vote.
Hillary Clinton: Right
Plouffe: And what's clear to me, you mentioned, you know, he's gonna just lie. I mean, what he's gonna say, whoever our nominee is will ban hamburgers and steaks and life and infanticide and people believe this. So, how concerned are you about that? For me, so much of this does come down to the win number, of he has to get 49 or even 49.5...
Clinton: He can't get that.
Plouffe: And I think he can't, so he's going to try and drive people not to vote for him, but just, to say, you know, you can't vote for them either, and that seems to be, I think to the extent that I can define a strategy, their key strategy right now.
Clinton (35:13 mark): Well I think there's going to be two parts and I think it's going to be the same as 2016. Don't vote for the other guy. You don't like me, don't vote for the other guy, because the other guy is going to do X, Y and Z, or the other guy did such terrible things, I'm going to show you in these, you know, flashing videos that appear and then disappear and they're on the dark web and nobody can find them--but you're going to see them--and you're going to see that person doing these horrible things. They're also going to do third party again. And I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate. She's a favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. And that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a Russian asset. Yeah, she's a Russian asset, I mean totally and so they know they can't win without a third party candidate. And so, I don't know who it's going to be but I will guarantee you, they'll have a vigorous third party challenge in the key states that they most needed.

So, it's a conversation about how the Trump campaign's strategy will be to throw whatever weight they can muster around supporting a third party candidate because they know it will only benefit his chances (and in conjunction with all of the other tricks they will be pulling, like voter suppression and the ongoing pro-Trump Russian activity) etc.

In regard to Gabbard in particular, the basis of her being the prime target for their support (both overt and covert)--and therefore an asset (not an "agent") the way Stein was an asset (not an "agent")--can be seen in what others have said about her:

Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist, is impressed with her political talent. Richard B. Spencer, the white nationalist leader, says he could vote for her. Former Representative Ron Paul praises her “libertarian instincts,” while Franklin Graham, the influential evangelist, finds her “refreshing.”

And far-right conspiracy theorists like Mike Cernovich see a certain MAGA sais quoi.

“She’s got a good energy, a good vibe. You feel like this is just a serious person,” Mr. Cernovich said. “She seems very Trumpian.”
...
She is now injecting a bit of chaos into her own party’s primary race, threatening to boycott that debate to protest what she sees as a “rigging” of the 2020 election. That’s left some Democrats wondering what, exactly, she is up to in the race, while others worry about supportive signs from online bot activity and the Russian news media.

Perhaps strangest of all is the unusual array of Americans who cannot seem to get enough of her.

On podcasts and online videos, in interviews and Twitter feeds, alt-right internet stars, white nationalists, libertarian activists and some of the biggest boosters of Mr. Trump heap praise on Ms. Gabbard. They like the Hawaiian congresswoman’s isolationist foreign policy views. They like her support for drug decriminalization. They like what she sees as censorship by big technology platforms.

Then there is 4chan, the notoriously toxic online message board, where some right-wing trolls and anti-Semites fawn over Ms. Gabbard, calling her “Mommy” and praising her willingness to criticize Israel. In April, the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website, took credit for Ms. Gabbard’s qualification for the first two Democratic primary debates.
...
Ms. Gabbard has disavowed some of her most hateful supporters, castigating the news media for giving “any oxygen at all” to the endorsement she won from the white nationalist leader David Duke. But her frequent appearances on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show have buoyed her support in right-wing circles.
...
Democrats are on high alert about foreign interference in the next election and the D.N.C. is well aware of the frequent mentions of Ms. Gabbard in the Russian state news media.

An independent analysis of the Russian news media found that RT, the Kremlin-backed news agency, mentioned Ms. Gabbard frequently for a candidate polling in single digits, according to data collected by the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a group that seeks to track and expose efforts by authoritarian regimes to undermine democratic elections.

Disinformation experts have also pointed to instances of suspicious activity surrounding Ms. Gabbard’s campaign — in particular, a Twitter hashtag, #KamalaHarrisDestroyed, that trended among Ms. Gabbard’s supporters after the first Democratic debate, and appeared to be amplified by a coordinated network of bot-like accounts — but there is no evidence of coordination between these networks and the campaign itself.
...
Ms. Gabbard’s fans are especially sensitive to claims that she is supported by Russian bots and amplified by the Russian state-funded news media outlets — a conspiracy theory, they say, that is designed to delegitimize her campaign and her foreign policy views.

“This whole thing the Democratic Party has done by putting forward this false idea that there was collusion between Russia and Trump has hurt our relations in a huge way with the Russians,” Mr. Graham said. “I can’t speak for Tulsi, but I think she feels kind of the same way on some of these things.”
...
While Ms. Gabbard has opposed recent military interventions in the Middle East, she has developed relationships with leaders known for their authoritarian tendencies. She touts her support for Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, who has empowered Hindu fundamentalists at great cost to India’s minorities. Ms. Gabbard also met with Egypt’s strongman leader, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, during a 2015 trip to Paris with Dana Rohrabacher, a former Republican congressman known for his ties to Russians.

Most controversially, she has repeatedly defended the brutal Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, whom she met in January 2017.

Those positions confound even some of her former Republican supporters.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, a pro-Israel activist who founded the World Values Network, said he first met Ms. Gabbard through Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, who brought the congresswoman to dinner at a kosher restaurant in Washington.

His group, which is funded by the Republican megadonors Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, awarded Ms. Gabbard their “Champion of Freedom Award” at their annual gala in 2016. A picture from the event shows a grinning Ms. Gabbard posing with Rabbi Boteach and Ms. Adelson.

In the three years since, Ms. Gabbard has criticized Israel for its reaction to protests, met with Mr. Assad and made several statements defending his regime.

“To have a moral woman like Tulsi who is a military hero suddenly sit with a man who did that was inexplicable,” Rabbi Boteach said. “I don’t understand it until today. I can’t figure her out.”

It's not in any way an accusation that she is a Russian agent; it is an observation that she could be of significant use as an asset by the Trump campaign (which, of course, includes the Russians).
 
Last edited:
Tulsi has clearly stated numerous times that she will not be running third party. Stein isn't even running at all in this election. Hillary is clearly throwing this out as a smear against two women she holds grudges against.

Stein's appearance on CNN in response was excellent, with her championing ranked choice voting. It is a seriously fucked up system when you get a failed presidential candidate warning us that somebody may add another voice into the political debate rather than fall blindly and obediently behind the drum beat of the establishment and she thinks she's doing a good thing.

Meanwhile Tulsi's response is a bit over the top in its own right, even following Hillary's spokesman saying "if the nesting doll fits" when asked if Hillary was alleging Tulsi. But Tulsi wasn't wrong in her description of Hillary as the personification of the rot in the Democratic party. Hillary has become political poison and needs to go.
 
How many times does Tulsi have to say she isn't going to run 3rd party? How many times dose Stein have to say she isn't running AT ALL in this election? Clinton and her comrades will continue to smear them nonetheless.

The irony is that the Clintons have more ties to Russia than anyone they have accused except for Trump.
 
TULSI GABBARD IS BEING USED BY THE RUSSIANS, AND TO A FORMER US DOUBLE AGENT, THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR

Much has been made of Hillary Clinton's implication that Tulsi Gabbard is someone Russia has "their eye on." While Gabbard has responded with claims that she is the subject of a coordinated smear campaign by Clinton, she has steadfastly refused to renounce any Russian support she may be receiving. As somebody who worked against Russian intelligence, I agree with Clinton's assessment—Gabbard's campaign and messaging are at risk of being weaponized to interfere with and manipulate our election.

The allegation that Gabbard may be benefiting from Russian support is disturbing for many reasons. Democracy demands inclusion and debate of all ideas, whether or not they fall within the mainstream of a political party—and this extends to Gabbard as well. Her claims of a smear or McCarthy-style campaign to silence her have a level of legitimacy. However, while we must ensure that all the presidential candidates are free to speak and present their ideas, whether or not they are considered controversial, these messages must be free from foreign amplification and manipulation. Therein lies my chief concern: that Moscow will use its skillful propaganda machine to prop up Gabbard and use her as a tool to delegitimize the democratic process.

In order to understand the Russians' goal, we must understand how they think. My understanding of Russian logic comes from the three years I worked undercover for the FBI, as well as from interactions I had with both the Russians and with FBI counterintelligence in the 20-year relationship that began after a Soviet intelligence officer walked into my parents' NYC office. That cumulative experience watching and dealing with Russia for decades brings me to this conclusion: Russian ideology seeks to harm the United States, and they will support anyone who can help them achieve that goal. This is not about pushing ideas that are pro-Russia— that is too small for them. They want to see a retreat of American influence. What better way to accomplish that than to attack our democracy by casting doubt on the legitimacy of our elections.

Russia's success in attacking our democracy is not tied to their ability to recruit Gabbard (or anyone else) to parrot Russian talking points. Rather, their success comes with their ability to influence and manipulate, through amplification, certain messages and candidates that create division. As we saw in 2016, Russia was able to aid Donald Trump by using tailored and manipulated social media campaigns, without even the knowledge or direction of the Trump campaign itself. After all, Russia's goal in 2016 was the delegitimization of our elections; they did not need to coordinate with Trump to make that happen. That's the disturbing parallel with Gabbard: Russia can seek to support her, without her knowledge.
 
Tulsi Gabbard’s Deceptive Foreign Policy
The Hawaii congresswoman’s anti-interventionism masks an affinity for authoritarians, nationalists, and Islamophobes.


Yet it would be a mistake to place Gabbard in the lineage of internationalist, anti-war American leftism that seeks, among other things, to help emancipate and defend the oppressed. In fact, Gabbard’s public record points in a much different direction, toward an “America first” Trumpism of the left that would restore the Middle East’s dictators club as long as it benefits the United States. On closer analysis, hers is a foreign policy that favors authoritarianism cloaked as counter-terrorism, nationalism cloaked as anti-interventionism, and Islamophobia barely cloaked at all.

To begin, Gabbard doesn’t actually oppose military intervention, or the abusive tactics used to prosecute the “war on terror,” as long as they’re directed against those she identifies as Islamic extremists. She summarized her philosophy neatly in 2016, telling West Hawaii Today that “when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk. When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.”

Gabbard is a staunch supporter of the United States’ counter-ISIS campaign, but her view of the fight goes much further. During a visit to India in 2014, she told an interviewer that the United States had failed in its “very clear” mission to defeat “Islamic extremism”—the fight she said led her to enlist after the September 11 attacks—and that we needed “to focus all of our efforts and energy” and “root out this evil wherever it is.” When pressed on whether torture could be part of those efforts, Gabbard didn’t reject it, saying some believed it worked. Invoking the fantastical scenario of a ticking nuclear time bomb, Gabbard said that if she were president, she “would do everything in my power to keep the American people safe.” If there was a gap between Gabbard’s philosophy and the forever war, it was hard to spot.
 
If anything is "an attack on democracy" it is Hillary and her comrades smearing a presidential candidate of her own party to sew division and throw the legitimacy of the US election into question with empty allegations of said candidate being somehow vaguely connected to Russia.
 
I'm not certain how many anti-vaccers that voted for Stein would have voted for the Democrat candidate anyway, instead of just abstaining and voting for other far left candidates in the remaining races they actually existed.

Clinton's statement was pretty strong, but don't we already know that the Russians already influenced the US election via social media.
 
Funny. Hillary never mentioned Gabbard by name. Gabbard outed herserself.
 
Notice how the latest volley in this game has been to distinguish an "agent" from an unknowing "asset". That way, you don't ever have to come up with anything definitively linking someone to the influences you're claiming they serve; you can just say they FUNCTION as a useful dupe. In effect, this allows you to cast anyone who diverges from an establishment position in the Democratic party, or indeed anyone from the entire Republican party, as an "other" on the basis of serving foreign interests.

But these interests are never specified, beyond handwaving about "sowing discord" or something. What you're doing is taking any behavior that challenges the status quo, which by definition is a behavior that sows discord and is a good thing, and aligning it with a nefarious external plot to weaken America. That's an inherently reactionary and conservative stance to take, and thus it's unsurprising that historically conservatives have been the ones to use this tactic.

So what if the political platform of a candidate running for President aligns with what some foreign leader wants? Do you have a brain of your own, or do you evaluate policies based solely on whether or not Putin wants us to implement them? Again, we already have a real and nearly impermeable filter in our politics that preferentially grants wealth and power to those who uncritically support the interests of another foreign power, namely Israel! Every American presidential election has global consequences, and so every major power has a stake in how they want it to turn out. But just because (for example) drawing down our worldwide military presence is something Russia would like to see America do, doesn't make doing so any less of a fucking essential and self-evidently good course of action! Russian interests can be--and I know this is hard to accept--partly compatible with things that we should be doing for our own reasons, and Russian scaremongering about every candidate who challenges the existing structure essentially lets the scope of political discourse in America be determined by what Russia doesn't want.
 
Notice how the latest volley in this game has been to distinguish an "agent" from an unknowing "asset". That way, you don't ever have to come up with anything definitively linking someone to the influences you're claiming they serve; you can just say they FUNCTION as a useful dupe. In effect, this allows you to cast anyone who diverges from an establishment position in the Democratic party, or indeed anyone from the entire Republican party, as an "other" on the basis of serving foreign interests.

But these interests are never specified, beyond handwaving about "sowing discord" or something. What you're doing is taking any behavior that challenges the status quo, which by definition is a behavior that sows discord and is a good thing, and aligning it with a nefarious external plot to weaken America. That's an inherently reactionary and conservative stance to take, and thus it's unsurprising that historically conservatives have been the ones to use this tactic.

So what if the political platform of a candidate running for President aligns with what some foreign leader wants? Do you have a brain of your own, or do you evaluate policies based solely on whether or not Putin wants us to implement them? Again, we already have a real and nearly impermeable filter in our politics that preferentially grants wealth and power to those who uncritically support the interests of another foreign power, namely Israel! Every American presidential election has global consequences, and so every major power has a stake in how they want it to turn out. But just because (for example) drawing down our worldwide military presence is something Russia would like to see America do, doesn't make doing so any less of a fucking essential and self-evidently good course of action! Russian interests can be--and I know this is hard to accept--partly compatible with things that we should be doing for our own reasons, and Russian scaremongering about every candidate who challenges the existing structure essentially lets the scope of political discourse in America be determined by what Russia doesn't want.

I agree with you.

I would like to add, though, that gauging who is a Russian agent or asset isn't really obvious. For all I know, Clinton received communication about this Tulsi thing from a Russian proxy. So now what is Clinton doing? She's sowing division, the very thing that Russians want. OR maybe this whole scam, if it is a scam, comes from Trump who is trying to destroy the Democratic Party.

I will also add that the ramifications of this thing if it grows into a scandal, could also undermine Russia and Ukraine and impeachment efforts since it devalues what a Russian asset is. Public perception could in theory change in favor of looking at this as McCarthyism and the people might not support further investigations. The investigations are important, though, because there are actual efforts by Trmp administration officials to be corrupted by foreign influences.

The answer is the same as you have outlined. Look at what policies you want, regardless of whether at the moment you hear one country or another also by coincidence favors that policy. We can't make elections all about this unsubstantiated gossip and drama.
 
Funny. Hillary never mentioned Gabbard by name. Gabbard outed herserself.

Yeah! Maybe Clinton meant Klobuchar or Harris! Nevermind that Clinton's comrades have been hounding Tulsi and making smears against her since she entered the race. Nevermind that when asked if she meant Tulsi, Hillary's spokesman snidely said "if the nesting doll fits". Nevemind that Clinton did name Jill Stein by name, saying she should "give up" being a Russian asset (as if she chooses to be one) despite Stein not even running for anything at all currently. Surely Clinton didn't mean Tulsi. Surely she really meant Joe Biden in a dress.
 
Every American presidential election has global consequences, and so every major power has a stake in how they want it to turn out. But just because (for example) drawing down our worldwide military presence is something Russia would like to see America do, doesn't make doing so any less of a fucking essential and self-evidently good course of action!

It is remarkable how Hillary and her comrades manage to twist their pro-war agenda against people who oppose it by claiming those others serve the interests of the enemy. You're right, that's the sort of thing Bush Jr's regime did, yet now we see the Democrat insiders doing it.

With us or against us Tulsi? If you're not for war over there are you for Russia over here? Why do you hate Amurika?

I won't be at all surprised if this is a warm up for Clinton's comrades doing the same smear campaign on Sanders should he become the front runner.
 
Last edited:

Not so much that she is the proxy, but that she has proxies. Tulsi accuses her of being behind the other smears Tulsi's been facing. That may or may not be true. But as Tulsi wrote, she's emblemic of the rot in the Democratic party and of the warmongerers who got your country into these wars to begin with. She voted for them. Tulsi served in them as an enlisted and saw first had what they did.
 
Back
Top Bottom