12
votes
Hillary Clinton accuses Tulsi Gabbard of being Russian asset
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Analysis | Hillary Clinton suggests Putin has kompromat on Trump, Russia will back Tulsi Gabbard third-party bid
- Word count
- 530 words
I don't know about Russia, but Tulsi is absolutely part of a weirdo religious cult that blends homophobia, environmentalism, and Hinduism. They follow a guy named Chris Butler as the charismatic leader. They are explicitly trying to get their members into politics. More info
Reddit actually believes this somehow.
I disregard anything that comes from the Clinton camp. I didn’t think Gabbard was a russian before this story, and I’m not going to let Clinton influence me into putting the pieces together any differently. Gabbard has always had independent positions from party lines and I think spreading suspicions like you are doing, and like the thread on reddit is doing is so dangerous. “Her positions are not ours, sounds like a russian”. I will not say that I have any level of confidence that she’s not a russian. I think some of her positions are not what the party wants right now (and her polling shows it). But I will not tolerate any baseless implications thats any candidate is a plant.
If I recall rightly, Tulsi broke with the clinton camp 4 years ago when she stepped down from her position in the dnc to endorse Bernie. So I particularly don’t trust Clintons takes on Tulsi.
They magnify fringe perspectives and make them seem more mainstream than they really are by amplifying them with bots and drowning out/exhausting contrary perspectives through trolling and online harassment.
But the key is that they’re generally pretty fringe perspectives to start off and only become shared by appreciable amounts of real people through the sheer volume of FUD people get exposed to. And there is a whole population of literally paranoid or borderline individuals who are especially susceptible to this sort of thing.
If you think that her policies are too similar to Russia’s then just ignore her. She’s completely irrelevant as a presidential hopeful at the moment.
What's “dangerous” is that the Clintons don’t just make a comment out of the blue in good faith to help America. We haven’t heard from them in 4 years. The fact is whatever she is saying, it is with the intent of brining her or her allies more power. Everyone is now discussing Tulsi Gabbard. Maybe she is blocking for biden. Maybe she wants to make a run. May e I have no idea what she wants. But it is something. Again, tulsi is a) not a contender and b) someone that hillary could take down using someone else as a proxy, if she really wanted to “do the right thing” without stirring the pot.
This is remarkably untrue. Hillary has especially been consistently getting flack for being uncommonly willing to weigh in on how Trump has been doing. She took one small walk in the woods near her house and then has been on speaking tours and conferences talking about political issues pretty regularly since.
“Tulsi Gabbard might run as an independent” is a soundbite ive heard 9999% more in the past 2 days. And of course this has nothing to do with anything Im saying. Its all about beating trump by scrutinizing 2% dem candidates instead of consolidating around the handful of legit non biden candidates.
You don’t think it’s noteworthy that we haven’t heard a fucking peep out of Hillary in 4 years, she went to wear sweaters and walk in the woods. Now during the primaries her name is on the front page of reddit multiple times in a week? That doesn’t signal to you that she’s activating herself as a player on or off board in this election? If we all agree that defeating trump is the main priority, why are more people not wary of the person who lost to trump asserting her influence?
We’ve heard plenty from Hilary Clinton over the last few years, and your continued insistence that we haven’t doesn’t really strengthen any of your other talking points.
I would point you towards this post on /r/NeutralPolitics
She keeps some weird company and has a lot of far right sympathizers.
Again shes a completely irrelevant candidate. Or she was until this blew up. Why does it matter if she has far right “sympathizers”? If anything thats a good thing, but in general doesn’t matter because she doesn’t matter. Im not posting in defense of Tulsi. I’m posting in offense of hrc.
Please elaborate.
By your same dismissal of Tulsi as a "completely irrelevant candidate" we could easily dismiss Hillary, who isn't even running. If anything we should be more concerned about Gabbard, as she is a sitting senator, while Clinton just... Exists? I guess.
This thread is quickly getting way too much condescension in it. This isn't even a very interesting story in the first place ("politician makes vague, unsupported accusation about opposition"), so if it's just going to result in a bunch of bickering I'll lock it.
Clinton should recede back into her private life like she had done since the election. She may be right, but she is too divisive a figure and it’s too easy for provocateurs to jump on anything she says or does and pry on the cracks in civil discourse. That said, Gabbard has some very strange policy positions (for a Democrat) and she is also apparently being praised by conservatives (genuinely or not I’m not so sure). I’ve seen a lot of comparisons to Jill Stein.
Gabbard said she will not run as an independent multiple times in multiple interviews months before Hillary brought this up. It's never been an issue, and anyone who thinks Tulsi has enough support to do it is fooling themselves. She's polling below one percent. She's out of this race and this cycle unless someone picks her for VP, which doesn't seem likely to me given that no matter what candidate you are, there are better choices.
This is just an attention grab from Hillary, manufacturing rumors, taking cheap shots at someone who betrayed her last cycle. This has all the earmarks of a simple vendetta. She didn't have to call out Tulsi by name, the media has been running with 'Tulsi is a Russian asset' for weeks leading up to the debate. Hillary never could resist the opportunity to take cheap shots, that's one of the things I've always disliked about her. All the warmth of a reptile, that one.
If you're worried about spoilers, worry about Jill Stein. She was instrumental as a spoiler last election and she'll sure as hell do it again this cycle. She's openly involved with Russia. Tulsi has some strange things in her history (top comment here is dead on) but I don't see anything that lends credibility to the media's fictions about her involvement with Russia yet.
Oh, that's easy. The idea came from her entanglement in that whole Assad scandal. You can see how desperate WaPo is to hang her on that hook, and they aren't the only one. All of this morphs conveniently into 'russian stooge' when you run it through the top minds of reddit. Now it's in the rumor mill.
I'd care more, but she's out of the race at this point so there's really no reason to bother.