Holy Crap - The Revolution is about to start

[Gospel]

Going off the cuff (no AI improvements)

Trump is hardly the first Republican president to demonize Democrats-only difference is that his attacks are more direct, more personal, and most relentless than any of his predecessors, mainly because of the reach of today's social media. Today's Democratic Party bears little resemblance to the party during the era of Abraham Lincoln, Richard Nixon, or Ronald Reagan-all of whom denounced Democrats for various reasons.

For example, Nixon was the so-called 'peace candidate' of the Vietnam War, while Reagan termed democrats as big government; to this day, it would appear that republicans are the party of big government in respect to religious influences. Definitely not the same shit involved when Lincoln was in office and the democrats that opposed him on every hand through the Civil War.

Where Republican presidents typically denounced the policy or ideology of the opposing party, Trump regularly unleashes personal, abusive, or highly critical language, against individual Democrats. His usage of demeaning nicknames-"Crooked Hillary", "Sleepy Joe", "Crazy Nancy"-to belittle and vilify opponents has been unparalleled in Trump's rhetoric, repeated at rallies, on social media, and in interviews. Whereas his predecessors have rarely trafficked in conspiracy theories and outright disinformation, Trump has routinely accused Democrats of everything from stealing elections to plotting deep state coups. That kind of bullshit only happened when the demarcates did it, back in the civil war era.

Trump has framed himself as an outsider, fighting against a corrupt political establishment, which includes both Democrats and some Republicans. Who the fuck as a republican president did that?

 

[Patooka]

Your rhetoric, as well as that of several other people here and throughout social media, is rhetoric that lays the foundation for violence. Every bit of the "existential threat to democracy" narrative is crafted to justify violence against fellow citizens. It provides the basis for demonizing half the country as being evil traitors that cannot be tolerated. You are actively involved in the vilification of half the nation, and you are helping to push a belief that will rationalize civil unrest.

Don't get me wrong - a portion of people on the other side do the same thing with different topics.

But don't delude yourself - and not just you, by the way, but several posters here - that you're complicit in amplifying a message that will lead to violence.

Thank you, I guess. If I ever needed a textbook definition of gaslighting, you've now made it pretty fucking easy Ms "I only get my news from this forum".

Which I totally believe, by the way. That sounds 100% plausible.

 

[SLD]

It rather sounds like you're ready and willing to do violence to get your way.

I will stand up to violence to preserve democracy, if that is what you mean. If not, what are you trying to impute?
The limit is my limit. I am only one person, of moderate capability and minimal influence. If I am a worry to you, and the pending election of a megalomaniacal treasonous apricot is not, that says volumes about you.

Your rhetoric, as well as that of several other people here and throughout social media, is rhetoric that lays the foundation for violence. Every bit of the "existential threat to democracy" narrative is crafted to justify violence against fellow citizens. It provides the basis for demonizing half the country as being evil traitors that cannot be tolerated. You are actively involved in the vilification of half the nation, and you are helping to push a belief that will rationalize civil unrest.

Don't get me wrong - a portion of people on the other side do the same thing with different topics.

But don't delude yourself - and not just you, by the way, but several posters here - that you're complicit in amplifying a message that will lead to violence.

And what is wrong with violence? In the defense of liberty it maybe essential as we have discovered several times in our history. I don’t wish it. But I’ll be damned if I roll over and accept tyranny. I’ll try other means first. But we must always be prepared for the violent defense of our liberties.

 

[Elixir]

Protest “lays the foundation” for violence.
Especially if it is protest against ghastly violence?
Got it, barbos. Standard issue dictator-speak.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Damn, Loren, you’re talking about these gravy seals as if they are a well disciplined corps of 22 year old seasoned fighters on their fourth deployment to a hot zone.
They’re NOT. They are a bunch of cowards whose greatest fighting ability is to look really scary by dressing themselves up bristling with guns they can’t even carry up a flight of stairs.

Give me ONE actual 4x spec ops veteran of hot zones with a fucking .22 handgun and a knife, and he will take out a few dozen of them before they even know they’re under threat. I don’t think Trump even knows those guys exist.

You think none of them have military training???

 

[Elixir]

Damn, Loren, you’re talking about these gravy seals as if they are a well disciplined corps of 22 year old seasoned fighters on their fourth deployment to a hot zone.
They’re NOT. They are a bunch of cowards whose greatest fighting ability is to look really scary by dressing themselves up bristling with guns they can’t even carry up a flight of stairs.

Give me ONE actual 4x spec ops veteran of hot zones with a fucking .22 handgun and a knife, and he will take out a few dozen of them before they even know they’re under threat. I don’t think Trump even knows those guys exist.

You think none of them have military training???

Do you think they’re crack troops?
More likely troops on crack.

 

[BH]

It rather sounds like you're ready and willing to do violence to get your way.

I will stand up to violence to preserve democracy, if that is what you mean. If not, what are you trying to impute?
The limit is my limit. I am only one person, of moderate capability and minimal influence. If I am a worry to you, and the pending election of a megalomaniacal treasonous apricot is not, that says volumes about you.

Your rhetoric, as well as that of several other people here and throughout social media, is rhetoric that lays the foundation for violence. Every bit of the "existential threat to democracy" narrative is crafted to justify violence against fellow citizens. It provides the basis for demonizing half the country as being evil traitors that cannot be tolerated. You are actively involved in the vilification of half the nation, and you are helping to push a belief that will rationalize civil unrest.

Don't get me wrong - a portion of people on the other side do the same thing with different topics.

But don't delude yourself - and not just you, by the way, but several posters here - that you're complicit in amplifying a message that will lead to violence.

And what is wrong with violence? In the defense of liberty it maybe essential as we have discovered several times in our history. I don’t wish it. But I’ll be damned if I roll over and accept tyranny. I’ll try other means first. But we must always be prepared for the violent defense of our liberties.

SLD,

You are a lawyer. You know all governments are just gangs that exist, composed of the elite, that defend their turf from other nations/gangs so they can pimp any society for their own benefit. Any good things or service provided to the regular citizen is just to get him or her to go along with the game. I don't and never have felt anything about this country or any country worth dying for.

 

[Emily Lake]

It rather sounds like you're ready and willing to do violence to get your way.

I will stand up to violence to preserve democracy, if that is what you mean. If not, what are you trying to impute?
The limit is my limit. I am only one person, of moderate capability and minimal influence. If I am a worry to you, and the pending election of a megalomaniacal treasonous apricot is not, that says volumes about you.

Your rhetoric, as well as that of several other people here and throughout social media, is rhetoric that lays the foundation for violence. Every bit of the "existential threat to democracy" narrative is crafted to justify violence against fellow citizens. It provides the basis for demonizing half the country as being evil traitors that cannot be tolerated. You are actively involved in the vilification of half the nation, and you are helping to push a belief that will rationalize civil unrest.

Don't get me wrong - a portion of people on the other side do the same thing with different topics.

But don't delude yourself - and not just you, by the way, but several posters here - that you're complicit in amplifying a message that will lead to violence.

Given Trump promotes violence with about every third utterance and had an observable record of doing so, your “its the anti-trumpers who are the real problem” is ignorant hysteria.

Oh good fucking christ on a pogo stick.

HERE ON THIS SITE. PEOPLE WE ARE INTERACTING WITH RIGHT HERE.

Show me the right wingers on IIDB who are doing this, and I will give them the same lecture.

But hey, if it makes you feel better:
All you people who don't post here and are making hyperbolic and exaggerated comments that tacitly support violence against half the country, stop doing that. Don't take part in rhetoric that will incite and justify violence!

 

[Emily Lake]

You're reaching.

My understanding is that mainstream Democrats are reacting to Trumpism with strong criticism, and if viewed without the context of Trump, their actions might come across as unjustifiably aggressive. However, that doesn’t mean I’m unable to see or acknowledge the flaws within the DNC, nor am I attempting to defend them.

You can have that opinion if you want. My perception and opinion is that several posters right here on IIDB are engaging in inflammatory rhetoric that will end up rationalizing and justifying violence if Trump somehow wins this election. Maybe you think it's all just hot air, but I don't.

I'm not talking about some random hypothetical dems out in the world, I'm talking about the language and approach used on this forum by members here. And it's not like it's some once-in-a-blue-moon type of commentary, it's rampant from a few people.

 

[laughing dog]

It rather sounds like you're ready and willing to do violence to get your way.

I will stand up to violence to preserve democracy, if that is what you mean. If not, what are you trying to impute?
The limit is my limit. I am only one person, of moderate capability and minimal influence. If I am a worry to you, and the pending election of a megalomaniacal treasonous apricot is not, that says volumes about you.

Your rhetoric, as well as that of several other people here and throughout social media, is rhetoric that lays the foundation for violence. Every bit of the "existential threat to democracy" narrative is crafted to justify violence against fellow citizens. It provides the basis for demonizing half the country as being evil traitors that cannot be tolerated. You are actively involved in the vilification of half the nation, and you are helping to push a belief that will rationalize civil unrest.

Don't get me wrong - a portion of people on the other side do the same thing with different topics.

But don't delude yourself - and not just you, by the way, but several posters here - that you're complicit in amplifying a message that will lead to violence.

Given Trump promotes violence with about every third utterance and had an observable record of doing so, your “its the anti-trumpers who are the real problem” is ignorant hysteria.

Oh good fucking christ on a pogo stick.

HERE ON THIS SITE. PEOPLE WE ARE INTERACTING WITH RIGHT HERE.

Woosh - the point went right by you.

Your hysterical over-reaction exemplifies your point. No one is villifying half the nation except maybe you. I don't see anyone here saying or even implying that a majority of Trump voters are violent Magatards. Only a blind lunatic would deny that the overwhelming evidence of a realistic threat of Trump inciting and getting a violent reaction if he loses. That occurred in 2020 without any of this rhetoric. In the interim, he has ramped up his accusations and rhetoric.

 

[Emily Lake]

Going off the cuff (no AI improvements)

Trump is hardly the first Republican president to demonize Democrats-only difference is that his attacks are more direct, more personal, and most relentless than any of his predecessors, mainly because of the reach of today's social media. Today's Democratic Party bears little resemblance to the party during the era of Abraham Lincoln, Richard Nixon, or Ronald Reagan-all of whom denounced Democrats for various reasons.

For example, Nixon was the so-called 'peace candidate' of the Vietnam War, while Reagan termed democrats as big government; to this day, it would appear that republicans are the party of big government in respect to religious influences. Definitely not the same shit involved when Lincoln was in office and the democrats that opposed him on every hand through the Civil War.

Where Republican presidents typically denounced the policy or ideology of the opposing party, Trump regularly unleashes personal, abusive, or highly critical language, against individual Democrats. His usage of demeaning nicknames-"Crooked Hillary", "Sleepy Joe", "Crazy Nancy"-to belittle and vilify opponents has been unparalleled in Trump's rhetoric, repeated at rallies, on social media, and in interviews. Whereas his predecessors have rarely trafficked in conspiracy theories and outright disinformation, Trump has routinely accused Democrats of everything from stealing elections to plotting deep state coups. That kind of bullshit only happened when the demarcates did it, back in the civil war era.

Trump has framed himself as an outsider, fighting against a corrupt political establishment, which includes both Democrats and some Republicans. Who the fuck as a republican president did that?

You're right, Trump is dogshit, and his style is abhorrent. I don't approve of it at all.

But he's NOT the only one doing it. Let's just acknowledge that democratic nominees and politicians are a bit more sophisticated about their sophistry... but that doesn't mean it's not there. Clinton started accusing Trump of being a russian plan, a foreign agent, and a traitor way back at the start of the 2016 campaign. None of those accusations bore fruit, none of it was actually true... but that conspiracy theory was adopted and amplified by lower ranking dems, media outlets, and social media every bit as much as any of Trump's childish and moronic nicknames.

Harris has called Trump unstable and unhinged, has repeatedly compared him to fascist dictators, and similar. She has said that Trump is dangerous to americans.

You might agree with her opinion - that's fine, you can have whatever opinion you like. But at least recognize that they're both engaged in the same type of negative smear-mongering approach. Harris is going about it like a college sophomore, and Trump is going about it like a fourth grader. But they're both doing it. So did Clinton.

 

[pood]

You're right, Trump is dogshit, and his style is abhorrent. I don't approve of it at all.

But he's NOT the only one doing it. Let's just acknowledge that democratic nominees and politicians are a bit more sophisticated about their sophistry... but that doesn't mean it's not there. Clinton started accusing Trump of being a russian plan, a foreign agent, and a traitor way back at the start of the 2016 campaign. None of those accusations bore fruit, none of it was actually true.

Are you sure? Among other things, an ex-KGB agent has said that the Soviets/Russia have been cultivating Trump as an “asset” for the last 40 years. This is not proof, but it is circumstantial evidence, and there is more besides, like Trump’s utter refusal to condemn any Putin act. But even more to the point, could you cite where Clinton actually said any of those things?

Harris has called Trump unstable and unhinged, has repeatedly compared him to fascist dictators, and similar. She has said that Trump is dangerous to americans.

And the problem is?

You might agree with her opinion - that's fine, you can have whatever opinion you like. But at least recognize that they're both engaged in the same type of negative smear-mongering approach.

A smear is lie. The truth is not a smear.

 

[Emily Lake]

It rather sounds like you're ready and willing to do violence to get your way.

I will stand up to violence to preserve democracy, if that is what you mean. If not, what are you trying to impute?
The limit is my limit. I am only one person, of moderate capability and minimal influence. If I am a worry to you, and the pending election of a megalomaniacal treasonous apricot is not, that says volumes about you.

Your rhetoric, as well as that of several other people here and throughout social media, is rhetoric that lays the foundation for violence. Every bit of the "existential threat to democracy" narrative is crafted to justify violence against fellow citizens. It provides the basis for demonizing half the country as being evil traitors that cannot be tolerated. You are actively involved in the vilification of half the nation, and you are helping to push a belief that will rationalize civil unrest.

Don't get me wrong - a portion of people on the other side do the same thing with different topics.

But don't delude yourself - and not just you, by the way, but several posters here - that you're complicit in amplifying a message that will lead to violence.

Given Trump promotes violence with about every third utterance and had an observable record of doing so, your “its the anti-trumpers who are the real problem” is ignorant hysteria.

Oh good fucking christ on a pogo stick.

HERE ON THIS SITE. PEOPLE WE ARE INTERACTING WITH RIGHT HERE.

Woosh - the point went right by you.

Your hysterical over-reaction exemplifies your point. No one is villifying half the nation except maybe you. I don't see anyone here saying or even implying that a majority of Trump voters are violent Magatards.

Are you selectively ignoring the plethora of posts over the past few years that paint republicans in general - as well as independents and anyone who is NOT a dedicated democrat - as being just as bad as fascist nazis, complicit in destroying democracy, one of the deplorables, and a tryant apologist? Or do you just have Elixir on ignore so you don't see his comments?

Only a blind lunatic would deny that the overwhelming evidence of a realistic threat of Trump inciting and getting a violent reaction if he loses. That occurred in 2020 without any of this rhetoric. In the interim, he has ramped up his accusations and rhetoric.

Is it your belief that if Trump wins, there will be no violent reaction from the opposing voters?

Clearly, you're reading this thread in a very different tone than I am, because this interchange sounds like a few posters here are quite ready and willing to initiate violence if Trump wins. Sure, they wrap it up in language of defense, but it's based on the assumption and speculation that their absolute worst fears will be real if he wins.

They can hunt down us liberals and get a pardon from the orange Jesus. They could be very dangerous.

I'm sure that statements like this couldn't possibly antagonize anything, nor could it ever be a concern that it might incite violence.

Gee, let’s not talk about the guy who antagonizes everyone, with the actual apparent and demonstrated outcome and stated intent to incite violence, hunt down and execute his political enemies, silence his critics … AND IS SEEKING THE ABILITY TO DO SO WITH IMPUNITY …
Yeah sure Emily. Talking about THAT might be inflammatory!!

And if that cocksucker does get elected, which is looking very likely, I will still stand up him in any way I can.

+1.
I’m too old to give a ff about repercussions. It’s kind of like being 19 and immortal again.

 

[laughing dog]

It rather sounds like you're ready and willing to do violence to get your way.

I will stand up to violence to preserve democracy, if that is what you mean. If not, what are you trying to impute?
The limit is my limit. I am only one person, of moderate capability and minimal influence. If I am a worry to you, and the pending election of a megalomaniacal treasonous apricot is not, that says volumes about you.

Your rhetoric, as well as that of several other people here and throughout social media, is rhetoric that lays the foundation for violence. Every bit of the "existential threat to democracy" narrative is crafted to justify violence against fellow citizens. It provides the basis for demonizing half the country as being evil traitors that cannot be tolerated. You are actively involved in the vilification of half the nation, and you are helping to push a belief that will rationalize civil unrest.

Don't get me wrong - a portion of people on the other side do the same thing with different topics.

But don't delude yourself - and not just you, by the way, but several posters here - that you're complicit in amplifying a message that will lead to violence.

Given Trump promotes violence with about every third utterance and had an observable record of doing so, your “its the anti-trumpers who are the real problem” is ignorant hysteria.

Oh good fucking christ on a pogo stick.

HERE ON THIS SITE. PEOPLE WE ARE INTERACTING WITH RIGHT HERE.

Woosh - the point went right by you.

Your hysterical over-reaction exemplifies your point. No one is villifying half the nation except maybe you. I don't see anyone here saying or even implying that a majority of Trump voters are violent Magatards.

Are you selectively ignoring the plethora of posts over the past few years that paint republicans in general - as well as independents and anyone who is NOT a dedicated democrat - as being just as bad as fascist nazis, complicit in destroying democracy, one of the deplorables, and a tryant apologist? Or do you just have Elixir on ignore so you don't see his comments?

I don't read every post, but I have not seen such plethora of posts.

Only a blind lunatic would deny that the overwhelming evidence of a realistic threat of Trump inciting and getting a violent reaction if he loses. That occurred in 2020 without any of this rhetoric. In the interim, he has ramped up his accusations and rhetoric.

Is it your belief that if Trump wins, there will be no violent reaction from the opposing voters?

Clearly, you're reading this thread in a very different tone than I am, because this interchange sounds like a few posters here are quite ready and willing to initiate violence if Trump wins. Sure, they wrap it up in language of defense, but it's based on the assumption and speculation that their absolute worst fears will be real if he wins.

They can hunt down us liberals and get a pardon from the orange Jesus. They could be very dangerous.

I'm sure that statements like this couldn't possibly antagonize anything, nor could it ever be a concern that it might incite violence.

Gee, let’s not talk about the guy who antagonizes everyone, with the actual apparent and demonstrated outcome and stated intent to incite violence, hunt down and execute his political enemies, silence his critics … AND IS SEEKING THE ABILITY TO DO SO WITH IMPUNITY …
Yeah sure Emily. Talking about THAT might be inflammatory!!

And if that cocksucker does get elected, which is looking very likely, I will still stand up him in any way I can.

+1.
I’m too old to give a ff about repercussions. It’s kind of like being 19 and immortal again.

I guess you should have your bunker built and stocked with supplies if you are serious.

 

[ZiprHead]

You're right, Trump is dogshit, and his style is abhorrent. I don't approve of it at all.

But he's NOT the only one doing it. Let's just acknowledge that democratic nominees and politicians are a bit more sophisticated about their sophistry... but that doesn't mean it's not there. Clinton started accusing Trump of being a russian plan, a foreign agent, and a traitor way back at the start of the 2016 campaign. None of those accusations bore fruit, none of it was actually true.

Are you sure? Among other things, an ex-KGB agent has said that the Soviets/Russia have been cultivating Trump as an “asset” for the last 40 years. This is not proof, but it is circumstantial evidence, and there is more besides, like Trump’s utter refusal to condemn any Putin act. But even more to the point, could you cite where Clinton actually said any of those things?

Also a bipartisan senate investigation found collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and Russian interference in the election.

 

[ZiprHead]

It rather sounds like you're ready and willing to do violence to get your way.

I will stand up to violence to preserve democracy, if that is what you mean. If not, what are you trying to impute?
The limit is my limit. I am only one person, of moderate capability and minimal influence. If I am a worry to you, and the pending election of a megalomaniacal treasonous apricot is not, that says volumes about you.

Your rhetoric, as well as that of several other people here and throughout social media, is rhetoric that lays the foundation for violence. Every bit of the "existential threat to democracy" narrative is crafted to justify violence against fellow citizens. It provides the basis for demonizing half the country as being evil traitors that cannot be tolerated. You are actively involved in the vilification of half the nation, and you are helping to push a belief that will rationalize civil unrest.

Don't get me wrong - a portion of people on the other side do the same thing with different topics.

But don't delude yourself - and not just you, by the way, but several posters here - that you're complicit in amplifying a message that will lead to violence.

Given Trump promotes violence with about every third utterance and had an observable record of doing so, your “its the anti-trumpers who are the real problem” is ignorant hysteria.

Oh good fucking christ on a pogo stick.

HERE ON THIS SITE. PEOPLE WE ARE INTERACTING WITH RIGHT HERE.

Woosh - the point went right by you.

Your hysterical over-reaction exemplifies your point. No one is villifying half the nation except maybe you. I don't see anyone here saying or even implying that a majority of Trump voters are violent Magatards.

Are you selectively ignoring the plethora of posts over the past few years that paint republicans in general - as well as independents and anyone who is NOT a dedicated democrat - as being just as bad as fascist nazis, complicit in destroying democracy, one of the deplorables, and a tryant apologist? Or do you just have Elixir on ignore so you don't see his comments?

You're pretty long on statements but quite short on actual proof. You do know how to quote posts, right?

Only a blind lunatic would deny that the overwhelming evidence of a realistic threat of Trump inciting and getting a violent reaction if he loses. That occurred in 2020 without any of this rhetoric. In the interim, he has ramped up his accusations and rhetoric.

Is it your belief that if Trump wins, there will be no violent reaction from the opposing voters?

Like storming the capaital after being riled up by Trump's constant stream of lies about the election? No.

 

[pood]

Both-siderism about Trump and Harris on this or ANY topic is utter bullshit. Trump is a deranged monster who is openly running a fascist cult movement named MAGGOT. He has already tried to overthrow the government once, and expressed complete indifference at the prospect of his own vice president being hanged by the mob he incited; he has stolen top-secret government documents and refused to return them (they had to be seized by the FBI); he has called for the military to quash internal dissent (namely against him) in the U.S., and much else besides, not even considering the fact that he is already a convicted felon and faces scores of other indictments yet to be adjudicated. There is nothing, nothing at all, comparable on the Democrtatic/Harris side, not in rhetoric or anything else. When Harris says Trump poses a threat to the U.S., that is not a smear, it is not an opinion, it is the truth. He has already done enormous damage to it, in particular his deliberately bungled handling of the Covid pandemic that led to the needless deaths very large numbers of people.

 

[Gospel]

Clinton started accusing Trump of being a russian plan, a foreign agent, and a traitor way back at the start of the 2016 campaign. None of those accusations bore fruit, none of it was actually true... but that conspiracy theory was adopted and amplified by lower ranking dems, media outlets, and social media every bit as much as any of Trump's childish and moronic nicknames.

The rumors about Trump and Russia started circulating during his first term (Post Hilary). While it's debatable whether the focus was misguided, the rumor wasn’t created out of nowhere.

Harris has called Trump unstable and unhinged, has repeatedly compared him to fascist dictators, and similar. She has said that Trump is dangerous to americans.

Have you actually listened to Trump or seen his Truth Social posts? This accusation didn’t come out of nowhere. Just to be clear, I’m not arguing whether or not the claims have merit, but they certainly weren't invented out of thin air.



Threatening the media? That’s not unhinged at all—surely not.

You might agree with her opinion - that's fine, you can have whatever opinion you like. But at least recognize that they're both engaged in the same type of negative smear-mongering approach.

The point isn’t whether I agree with her opinion, but rather whether it’s based on things Trump has actually said. Instead of addressing the criticism, Trump and his supporters dismiss these reactions as completely fabricated, claiming they aren’t in response to anything he’s said and are invented out of thin air. That's nuts. That’s like me responding to your reply with, "What are you talking about? I didn’t say anything—you’re crazy!

Now, contrast calling Trump unhinged for things he’s actually said, like "Obama founded ISIS," with Trump’s claims of a rigged election and accusations that Democrats fabricated or destroyed votes to cheat him. Where are the words or actions that justify those election-related accusations?

Edit: I misspoke, I meant (post Hilary). Edited to correct. To clarify further, I meant to say that by that point, Hillary was already out of the picture.

 

[Gospel]

I’m aware that during the debate, Hillary asked Trump if he would confront Vladimir Putin, which came up as Russian interference started to become a topic during the election. I don’t think that was out of the ordinary for a presidential candidate trying to get a weak response from their opponent. The major controversy surrounding collusion really escalated in 2017 with the release of the dossier. By that point, Trump was already president, and Hillary had essentially disappeared from the political landscape.

 

[ZiprHead]

I’m aware that during the debate, Hillary asked Trump if he would confront Vladimir Putin, which came up as Russian interference started to become a topic during the election. I don’t think that was out of the ordinary for a presidential candidate trying to get a weak response from their opponent. The major controversy surrounding collusion really escalated in 2017 with the release of the dossier. By that point, Trump was already president, and Hillary had essentially disappeared from the political landscape.

The "Russian puppet" phrase was used by both.