Here you go:
No surprise that Russians favor candidates that do not want to antagonize them dangerously and needlessly. It is only natural that Russia would favor a more peaceful US president.
The US NGOs promote all kinds of candidates around the world in various elections. Should the citizens of those countries discount those candidates?
I call this the RT three-step:
- Russia never influenced the 2016 elections
- Ok they did but they didn’t spend much money
- Of course they should influence the 2020 election
- Russian influence amounted to a hill of beans.
- The hill of beans was cheap.
- The creation of the hill of beans makes sense.
There is nothing contradictory, bud.
You’ve got a bit of Putin’s cum on your chin there; let me get you a tissue.
Of course Russia doesn’t want a candidate who’s belligerent to Russia. They want a candidate who’s belligerent to everyone else in the world except for Russia. Like Trump, or Gabbard.
Let’s not bring your sordid fantasies into the discussion.
Yes the next step up from the rubber/glue comeback.
This sort of offensive sexual reference is out of line.
This is a Warning to refrain from doing it again.
[ /Moderating ]
This is one step short of the previously issued Warning. Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
Hillary calls Tulsi Gabbard (not naming her but implying it’s her) a Russian plant being groomed to run as a third party candidate to disrupt the election.
If they don’t think those US NGOs have their best interests in mind, wouldn’t it be really stupid not to? Of course, this assumes an equivalency between NGOs and government owned media outlets that is only sometimes true.
Even if Gabbard isn’t a plant, the possibility of her or someone else running a third party campaign is relatively high.
Yup, I wouldn’t be surprised that her mentor/spiritual advisor Chris Butler was using her as a proxy.
Investigative Series on the Science of Identity Sect and Tulsi Gabbard
Running for president has become a way to start a career - winning doesn’t matter. I mean, that’s what Jill Stein does, right? She’s a professional activist. That would explain the record number of candidates. I wouldn’t be surprised if we have 50 candidates in 2024.
I think that in the modern era Jesse Jackson started this. There have been plenty of such candidates on both sides, including that diminutive GOP preacher whose name escapes me.
It strikes that Gabbard could blunt this attack by pledging NOT to run as a third party candidate. If she does so pledge, well and good. IF she doesn’t, well, draw your own conclusions.
Seems like the last thing Hillary wants to do (or Dems want her to do) is to throw down the gauntlet.
I get your point, but Jackson is a poor example. In '84 and '88 he was very much a legitimate contender, winning numerous primaries and caucuses. He was not a 2% fringe candidate.
Gabbard says the primary is between her and Hillary. She has a high opinion of herself.
Sanders/Gabbard will run 3rd party. You read it here first. 