All of my life I’ve listened to liberals and Democrats bemoan the USA’s massive military spending and American imperialism.
So along come people like Tulsi, Bernie, and Trump who want to bring closure to the endless wars in the Middle East and suddenly they are traitors. It really reenforces the notion of a Deep State. The Afghanistan war has been going on for 18 years. Surely, there has to be an end.
Russia has never done anything to me. Are Russians pouring over our southern border? Perhaps, Putin would like to spend less on his military as well?
This is as attached to reality as is Trump’s claim that he is just the victim of a witch hunt.
There is NO question that Russia has been engaged in an ongoing campaign to subvert our election process and to influence our governance by supporting and influencing (via bots and a variety of other means, including agents) a variety of political figures who would be to their advantage to greater prominence and to do and say things to their advantage. Those so supported and so influenced are assets to Russia’s goals. Trump is a Russian asset in that sense whether or not their was any collusion. The NRA was influenced to becoming a Russian asset by Maria Butina.
NONE of this is the stuff wild conspiracy theories. It is well established.
Gabbard says many things the Russians like having said. Gabbard is apparently being supported by the Russian influencing machine.
This is also pretty factual.
That is them perceiving her having as large of a voice on the stage and being as disruptive to the Democratic nomination process as possible as an asset to them and doing what they can to increase the value of that asset.
That is also pretty clear. IT DOES NOT MEAN OR IMPLY SHE IS AN AGENT OR IS COLLUDING WITH THEM IN ANY WAY.
Their interference machine is also well served by doing what it can to be sure that a third party who appeals to some D leaners more than R leaners is active in the general. That also is pretty clear. To believe they will not try to influence someone to be that person - by bot accounts and other means of created “support” - is horribly and dangerously naive.
Is Gabbard someone they have in mind to try to do that with? It looks like it.
Can it really be “her” anti-war label if she’s not the one putting it about? Gabbard has been pretty clear from day one that, when it came to terrorism, she was a hawk.
I read that as “thong of Twitter bots.” I’m so glad I read that wrong.
On topic, though, I have to wonder about Hillary stepping into the public eye again. She’s still polarizing, and I can see her resurfacing being used as a bullet for the GOP for
"See what the Democrats are doing? Hillary is still trying to interfere in the election. ‘Crooked’ Hillary Clinton is trying to rig the election, folks! She can’t accept that I won by a landslide, so she’s trying to find a way to overturn the election. Sad! #neverhillary#trump2020
I didn’t mention this before, but I think it’s important:
Hillary made a major mistake by criticizing Gabbard in this way. Not because she is wrong that Russia is promoting Gabbard for their own ends – clearly that is a fact. Hillary made an unforced error because she raised Gabbard’s profile at a time when people were starting to forget about her. Streisand effect and all.
Hillary should stay out of the 2020 race. Lose twice, one inexcusably so, and you are dunzo.
The notion of being an “asset” does not mean Tulsi Gabbard is knowingly working for the Russians. She’s not. It could mean simply that Russian money and social media assets are pumping her campaign up in an effort to cause division - hell, they may be doing it openly to have it deliberately come out that they’re doing it to cause the very arguments we’re seeing play out. I’d say it’s very, very likely they’re doing this.
It could also mean Gabbard is an active useful idiot - that the Russians are influencing her, and/or persons in her inner circle, to do things beneficial to them and harmful to the USA. That is possible but very unlikely, simply because I can’t think of why they’d bother. Given the hordes of Democrats who ran for President, it was certain one would already be a doofus and friendly towards a dictator or two.
Of course Gabbard is not meeting with Sergei the Spy in a smoky cafe somewhere.
This is why sound bites are dangerous. Basically all I heard was the headline, and it just sounded nuts. With your explanation, it makes more sense. Thanks.
Hillary is a ‘useful idiot’ for Russia. They start some online activity that on the surface appears to be an attempt to help Gabbard, but the real purpose was to provoke a response by Hillary Clinton, fracturing the Democrats some and weakening the party vis-a-vis Trump. Now I’m seeing posts seriously wondering if Hillary will try for the nomination again.
I really think that it was said exactly right earlier: Clinton has no fucks to give. She’s like the older relative who just says what she thinks now. The impact it has? I don’t think she gives a shit.
She’s right, and she’s right to think that attention to Russian machinations should be paid. Her saying it, and saying it how she said it, very much the wrong thing to do. But IMHO she don’t care.
She’d have been a good president but she’s an awful losing candidate and a worse party elder. Smart yes, wise no.
That’s giving her far too much benefit of the doubt. Her displays as a bad losing candidate and party elder raise a lot of doubt how good a President she would have been. It wouldn’t have been all sunny days in office.
I guess must add “still better than Trump” to at least cut down on the people who will rush to point that out to me.