Yeah, Gabbard can’t be a Russian asset. She doesn’t own a hotel.
(Makes as much sense as the gibberish you posted.)
It keeps coming up because it’s valid point. 
It’s either pedantic or dishonest to call somebody an ‘asset’ of a perceived hostile foreign power and then hasten to explain when called on it that ‘but that doesn’t require their cooperation of course’.
Also Clinton went on to specifically aim the term ‘Russian asset’ at Jill Stein’s 2016 run, with the clear implication that the ‘person they have in mind this time’ was the same thing. So none of the further explanation of what Clinton ‘really’ said changes my mind: smear, and nutty.
I still think this officially marks HRC’s crossover from sore loser to crazy old aunt.
Her campaign is deliberately engaging in tactics and behavior that go beyond attacking a single candidate; her threatening a boycott of the Democratic debate and also her apparent grievances beforehand cast doubt on the fairness and legitimacy of the political process, which is what Putin wants even more than one particular candidate winning or losing.
Having an asset as President is bad, but it’s not even the worst of what Putin can do to the US. He can cast doubt on the entire political system’s fairness. Right now, the United States is a formidable nation that has national interests. It has fewer national interests when people can’t agree on who legitimately runs the country, which makes it impossible for people to agree on what our national interests are.
But it doesn’t require knowing cooperation. If Jill Stein runs a campaign that ends up causing the candidate who can be blackmailed by Russia to defeat the candidate who actually got more votes in the popular election, then that person’s an asset. It’s not necessary to prove that Stein cooperated or coordinated with Russia (although one can indeed be forgiven for reaching that conclusion based on their well-documented interaction).
What I wrote made perfect sense. It’s not my fault you didn’t understand it. I’ll try again. Gabbard is being called a Russian asset because her views on what America should do in Syria seem to broadly align with Russia’s views on what America should do in Syria.
Back in ‘03, Obama’s views on what America should do in Iraq broadly aligned with Russia’s views of what America should do in Iraq. Back then, nobody thought this meant Obama a Russian asset, and anyone who suggested it would’ve been laughed at.
However, if those calling Gabbard a Russian asset today were to judge Obama’s stance then by the same standard they’re using to judge Gabbard’s stance today, I see no way they could avoid the conclusion that, wittingly or not, Obama was acting as a “Russian asset”.
So people calling Gabbard a Russian asset have to bite the bullet. They can either acknowledge that, yes, in retrospect, Obama was acting as a Russian asset and that, by extension, one can be a Russian asset and still be doing the right thing, in which case calling Gabbard a Russian asset isn’t in any way meaningful. Or, they can acknowledge that they’re applying a harsher standard to Gabbard than they did to Obama, in which case they should explain why this new standard is fair.
No, incorrect.
She’s being called a Russian asset because she’s suggesting that the political system is treating her unfairly and threatening to boycott the debates, knowing that Bernie Sanders’ campaign made similar claims of unfairness in 2016. She knows - or should know - that her behavior potentially undermines confidence in the system, which is what Russian would want from an asset.
To clarify, and I’m not trying to be snarky, are you implying that it’s also reasonable to call Bernie a Russian asset?
Serious question: do you think that her Syria policy is the only reason why her critics think Russia is supporting her candidacy?
I don’t think it’s the only reason, but I think it’s by far the biggest.
Of course, the question is complicated by the fact that anyone sufficiently motivated can spin almost anything as being in Russia’s interests.
Tulsi gets the coveted David Duke endorsement. WTG Tulsi!
Well, the fact that Russian bots and propaganda outlets like RT shower inordinate attention are the biggest reason why people say Russia supports her candidacy. So, you’ve got things completely bass-ackward.
David Duke has endorsed Tulsi, saying she’s the only candidate who won’t send white soldiers to fight for Israel. But Tulsi repudiated his endorsement.
So she has both sides covered, those who follow David Duke and those who follow Vladimir Putin.
The thing that really set my alarm bells on Gabbard was when she parroted Trump’s false “no collusion” line and suggested that we should all move on, lest it spark a civil war. The full video is here. Apparently she doesn’t want to own that comment any more because she’s edited that part out of the video on her civil war part on her Twitter feed, but it’s still on YouTube and this is the text:
Obviously this raises eyebrows because she’s parroting Bill Barr’s false “no collusion” narrative, but even more so because it echoes anti-Clinton propaganda being put out by the Russians in which troll farms and even Russian politicians in 2016 were suggesting that a vote for Clinton is a vote for war with Russia. This sounds an awful lot like “we should move on from the Mueller report because it could spark a civil war”.
It’s really suspicious that Gabbard is pushing Russian talking points, and operating in ways that support their geopolitical interests, and being supported/amplified by both Russian troll farms and Russian state media.
The tin/aluminum futures market is heating up. Do you folks honestly believe in this nonsense? I know the most qualified ever opined on this but c’mon now.
Is it inordinate? I had a look through RT’s archive of Gabbard articles over the last six months and compared them to the number of articles for Elizabeth Warren. While there were quite a few more articles about Gabbard than about Warren, much of the difference is comprised of articles specifically about US left media & establishment Democrat allegations that Gabbard is a Russian asset; which is the kind of thing you’d expect RT to cover. I’d imagine if Hillary were calling Gabbard a British asset there’d be plenty of Gabbard articles on the BBC, too. It wouldn’t really prove very much.
You are also denying that Russian bots are promoting Gabbard, after cites show it’s the case?
And when the Russian fake news machine extols her virtues, what does she say? “That’s great! It means Russia wants peace!”
I think it’s fair to say that Bernie Sanders’ campaign - at least during the campaign - engaged in tactics that undermined the confidence that voters may have had in Clinton as a candidate. However, he ultimately conceded defeat, and he made impassioned pleas thereafter to voters to turn out and vote for her.
I’ll keep it brief: an individual is an asset if they can be used by a power. That use can be by overt collusion or manipulation of a useful idiot, such as creating support by way of bot farms in order to encourage various behaviors and narratives.
Is HRC right that a low cost investment is being made in supporting her campaign with specific messaging in order to manipulate her narrative? I would WAG likely yes. And the argument yea or nay is not impacted by whether or not HRC is evil or wonderful or any point in between.
^ This.
Also, the Kremlin could be providing support for Gabbard regardless of whether or not Gabbard has sought or welcomed support. Saying ‘she could be a Kremlin asset’ doesn’t imply that she is consciously a Kremlin asset. It says merely that the Kremlin decision-makers (hypothetically) believe that her style and her belief set could be useful both for the purpose of tearing down other Democrats, and for the purpose of tearing down faith in a fair election process.
Either serves them well.
Which part do you believe is nonsense?