• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Defamation Lawsuit toward Clinton from Tulsi Gabbard....

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,177
18,977
136
So the answer to my question above is that she doesn't openly hate Trump.

I've only seen her speak once as I didn't watch the debates, she presented herself well.
Using Hillarys extremely sour grapes to grab some notoriety doesn't wear well, though she could also be genuinely outraged by an accusation of what could be called treason.
Not wanting Congress to act against the most egregious corruption in the entire history of the country seems like a pretty huge problem, haha.

For me any candidate that does not support impeachment and conviction is a non-starter. It's time people put country before party or personal interest and that means removing Trump. Period.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
15,281
3,497
136
Fox News will probably lose 1/2 its viewership and maybe go under.... but since most of their viewers are over 65 that's already an issue but perhaps Fox News will just have a harder time garnering viewers to replace those who become no longer able to view Fox News and it will still go under.

I'd be fine without a Fox News channel anyways it's barely even news and with Sheppard Smith leaving or already gone it has even less of a claim to be legitimate news than even before...


__________
You wish they were mostly over 65.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
103,539
18,099
136
So the answer to my question above is that she doesn't openly hate Trump.

I've only seen her speak once as I didn't watch the debates, she presented herself well.
Using Hillarys extremely sour grapes to grab some notoriety doesn't wear well, though she could also be genuinely outraged by an accusation of what could be called treason.
I was told that when accusing Trump of the very same exact...um, completely exact same thing (and that it was actually proven), we couldn't call it treason for some reason?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
103,539
18,099
136
As darkswordsman17 pointed out, Gabbard has some policy problems regardless of her stance on Trump.

One thing I've noticed is that many right-wingers are obsessed with championing Gabbard as the 'real' candidate, as if she would surely be leading the polls if it weren't for the eeeeevil DNC keeping her down. No, you're rooting for her because she's the most conservative candidate, and she's polling low for that same reason. Well, that and I suspect some are going by the Fox News school of selection where they choose women for jobs based on sexual fantasies instead of qualifications.
It is always the Democrats faults for not selecting the conservative candidate that all the hyper conservatives want to vote for. This is the same story, over and over again.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,714
136
So the answer to my question above is that she doesn't openly hate Trump.

I've only seen her speak once as I didn't watch the debates, she presented herself well.
Using Hillarys extremely sour grapes to grab some notoriety doesn't wear well, though she could also be genuinely outraged by an accusation of what could be called treason.
ROFLMFAO
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,027
4,772
126
Gotta milk that Hillary fear as far as it will go.

...I wonder what the self-hatin fascists will do with themselves when Hillary is gone from this world. How do they operate when they no longer have their life determined by the Hillary() function?
have you seen right wing media's obsession with AOC?
 

Meghan54

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2009
9,487
2,302
136
OH GOD THEY SAT AT A TABLE TOGETHER!!!!

I bet inbetween they passed sticky notes with nuclear launch codes as well!

GET YOUR TINFOIL HAT!
The loch ness monster is real!
Area 51 has aliens!
September 11 was an inside job!
Jefferey Epstein was murdered!

OMG!!!! Jill Stein sat at a table with Putin..............in Moscow............at the 10th anniversary celebration of Russia Today, a Russian state backed, Kremlin propaganda faux news outlet. Only other American sitting with the other Russians at Putin's table was Flynn, who was paid $45,000 to speak at the affair.

Wonder why no other American politicans showed up to celebrate RT's 10th anniversary....or why Stein did show up?

According to Andrew Weiss, a Russia expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: "Some of Stein's virulent pro-Russian rhetoric has barely gotten attention. Her talking points on hot button issues like the war in Ukraine look like she's reading off of a Kremlin-supplied script."

Did you know Stein even used RT to help launch her 2016 campaign for president? She announced her decision to form an exploratory committee on the U.S.-based RT program "Redacted Tonight" in February 2015. Not an American news agency nor any Western Euro. news organization.....but a Russian "news" organization.

Every wonder why? But of course you don't......why should anyone expect anything different?


 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,177
18,977
136
OH GOD THEY SAT AT A TABLE TOGETHER!!!!

I bet inbetween they passed sticky notes with nuclear launch codes as well!

GET YOUR TINFOIL HAT!
The loch ness monster is real!
Area 51 has aliens!
September 11 was an inside job!
Jefferey Epstein was murdered!
So to be clear you think a spoiler candidate who would clearly take votes from the Democratic nominee in the 2016 election showing up at a 2015 Russian propaganda event at the President of Russia’s table after he has ordered Russia to intervene in the US election is just an incredible coincidence? It was probably a coincidence that Russian propaganda was pumping her candidacy the whole time too. I’m trying to envision how naive someone would have to be to believe that is the most likely answer. It’s difficult.

Unlike with Trump there is no evidence that Jill Stein colluded with Russia. She was pretty obviously a useful idiot for them though.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,467
422
126
It is always the Democrats faults for not selecting the conservative candidate that all the hyper conservatives want to vote for. This is the same story, over and over again.
At the very least we should have at least gotten the candidate who might've gotten swing voters who rather incorrectly think they are moderate when most people who are asked solely about policy positions on social and economic issues (without bringing up left/right conservative/liberal etc.) are more likely to agree with the "far left" of the Democratic party than not....

Here is an article with links to polls (many of which are less than 5 years old).



59 percent—and 72 percent of likely voters—think Wall Street has too much power and influence in Washington.
82 percent of Americans think economic inequality is a “very big” (48 percent) or “moderately big” (34 percent) problem. Even 69 percent of Republicans share this view.
67 percent of Americans support lifting the cap to require higher-income workers to pay Social Security taxes on all of their wages.
48 percent support raising the national minimum wage to $15 an hour. (A survey of registered voters found that 54 percent favored a $15 minimum wage.)
78 percent of likely voters favor establishing a national fund that offers all workers 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave.
I just provided information on polls related to Money in politics and the minimum wage.... there are also polls on education climate change etc.

The only area I have noticed where people tend to be conservative on policy is the death penalty....

Just going for the swing voters instead of "moderate republicans" would likely (imho) have been enough to beat Trump in 2016 (In the Electoral College Mr. Doofus who will want to mention the popular vote margin... which happens to be oddly similar to the margin that Trump lost CA by in 2016)....

The Democratic Party contrary to what some hardcore conservatives believe would do well enough ignoring the conservative base and go for the swing voters who may for a Democratic or Republican candidate just depending on who the candidates are by daring to go a little more left than usual.

But somehow people who have influence in campaigns just think being even going a little more left than is in their comfort zone will lose in the general election... and they gave Trump a way into an Electoral Victory.




__________________
*edited to fix glaring grammar error*
 
Last edited:

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,053
4,121
136
Tulsi Gabbard has no chance of earning more than 5% of the vote.

She is being used by right-wing propaganda outlets in the same way they used Sanders in 2016.

The difference is that Sanders didn't just go along with it, because he isn't a fucking shill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jman19 and Vic

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
16,661
2,171
126
No, that's your bullshit answer to your bullshit question.
No need to be angry, it's an observation, not an accusation.
I found her poised, well spoken, and a soldier, three things I respect. She also hasn't jumped on the Robin Hood bandwagon, that's a tough one to avoid for the dems. When your competition is selling twenty dollar bills for ten bucks, it's pretty tough to compete.
She never had a chance at the white house, poses no threat to the front runners, but has garnered a great deal of hate from the progressives around here. There almost has to be a Trump connection.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
16,661
2,171
126
At the very least we should have at least gotten the candidate who might've gotten swing voters who rather incorrectly think they are moderate when most people who are asked solely about policy positions on social and economic issues (without bringing up left/right conservative/liberal etc.) are more likely to agree with the "far left" of the Democratic party than not....

Here is an article with links to polls (many of which are less than 5 years old).













I just provided information on polls related to Money in politics and the minimum wage.... there are also polls on education climate change etc.

The only area I have noticed where people tend to be conservative on policy is the death penalty....

Just going for the swing voters instead of "moderate republicans" would likely (imho) have been enough to beat Trump in 2016 (In the Electoral College Mr. Doofus who will want to mention the popular vote margin... which happens to be oddly similar to the margin that Trump lost CA by in 2016)....

The Democratic Party contrary to what some hardcore conservatives believe would do well enough ignoring the conservative base and go for the swing voters who may for a Democratic or Republican candidate just depending on who the candidates are by daring to go a little more left than usual.

But somehow people who have influence in campaigns just think being even going a little more left than is in their comfort zone will lose in the general election... and they gave Trump a way into an Electoral Victory.




__________________
*edited to fix glaring grammar error*
I have no issue at all buying into this. When asked if a child should die for lack of medical care, how many would say yes? When asked if a vet with PTSD should be living on the street how many would say yes? Very few want to harm others, the answers change when greed is injected into the question. Change either of those to "how much are you willing to pay" and a lot of the answers will be different.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,177
18,977
136
No need to be angry, it's an observation, not an accusation.
I found her poised, well spoken, and a soldier, three things I respect. She also hasn't jumped on the Robin Hood bandwagon, that's a tough one to avoid for the dems. When your competition is selling twenty dollar bills for ten bucks, it's pretty tough to compete.
She never had a chance at the white house, poses no threat to the front runners, but has garnered a great deal of hate from the progressives around here. There almost has to be a Trump connection.
I mean surely you realize that 'here is something for nothing' has been the singular GOP campaign slogan for the last 40 years, right? Their whole mantra is that cutting taxes increases revenues, the definition of a free lunch. This is a problem the Democrats have run into a lot though, their programs are grounded in reality and they have tradeoffs. People liked a lot about the ACA but didn't like the mandate or some of the additional taxes. The GOP solution to that would have been to simply not pay for anything and play Santa Claus, as evidenced by, well, basically every major piece of legislation they have passed since GHWB's tax increases.

Tulsi Gabbard generally supports the same domestic policy positions as the rest of the Democrats though so if you think that's playing 'Robin Hood' she's one of them too.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
10,859
176
106
Maybe we need a reminder of exactly who and what these Russians really are....
In October of 1962, the Soviets secretly installed nuclear missiles on the island of Cuba. No, the Soviets were not using Cuba as a storage bin for their over supply of nukes, the soviets were actually arming and aiming those missiles directly at the United States.
And.... intended to use them if so needed.
THIS is who the Soviets are.
The same Soviet Union that Donald Trump loves sooooooo much.
One can only imagine how many nukes Vladimir Putin has re-installed back in Cuba since Donald Trump has taken over.
Now THAT'S something we should be looking into.
Multiple things wrong about this:
1. Russia is not the USSR, different government and different leadership. Putin was certainly raised in that environment but it's not the same.
2. Russia put nukes in Cuba after the US put nukes in Turkey. The deal was that Russia remove their nukes in Cuba and we remove our nukes in Turkey.
3. There's no reason to think Russia has nukes in Cuba. With the current tech, it's not needed. We though do have nukes in Turkey. These rather than having nukes close to each other what is needed is anti-ballastic misiles that can engage at the launch of the ICBMs when they are more easily intercepted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cirrrocco

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,204
126
Does copper ward off Russians?
No it attracts them which is why Republicans and especially Trump have a metric shit ton of it and then some.

The GOP tried some in the House today but unfortunately, Vlad didn't show to rescue them.
 

cirrrocco

Golden Member
Sep 7, 2004
1,946
73
91
Multiple things wrong about this:
1. Russia is not the USSR, different government and different leadership. Putin was certainly raised in that environment but it's not the same.
2. Russia put nukes in Cuba after the US put nukes in Turkey. The deal was that Russia remove their nukes in Cuba and we remove our nukes in Turkey.
3. There's no reason to think Russia has nukes in Cuba. With the current tech, it's not needed. We though do have nukes in Turkey. These rather than having nukes close to each other what is needed is anti-ballastic misiles that can engage at the launch of the ICBMs when they are more easily intercepted.

Thanks for giving some members an education. It's pretty amazing that basic history has been blinded by propaganda. I feel like we are in a era of left wing Mcarthyism. Pretty sad really and unfortunate that a serving soldier is slandered to no end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NewSilkTurtle

Meghan54

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2009
9,487
2,302
136
Multiple things wrong about this:
1. Russia is not the USSR, different government and different leadership. Putin was certainly raised in that environment but it's not the same.
2. Russia put nukes in Cuba after the US put nukes in Turkey. The deal was that Russia remove their nukes in Cuba and we remove our nukes in Turkey.
3. There's no reason to think Russia has nukes in Cuba. With the current tech, it's not needed. We though do have nukes in Turkey. These rather than having nukes close to each other what is needed is anti-ballastic misiles that can engage at the launch of the ICBMs when they are more easily intercepted.

Ummm.......about your critique......specifically #2. The U.S. did not secretly deploy Jupiter missles in Italy and Turkey. On the other hand, Khrushchev did in fact deploy the nukes into Cuba secretly, a vast difference. Our deployment was quite public while the USSR's deployment was done via stealth. I just have to wonder why that little tidbit was omitted from your critique of sportage's post?

And while it's true Russia today is different than the USSR was in the '60's, it's still a country bent on wholly fucking up the West, if not militarily, then by economic and social/political means. Russia's leadership appears, at least to an outsider, to be just a variant on Khrushchev and his "We will bury you" sentiments. The leadership of Russia still condones assassination of political dissidents, even on foreign soil....just like the good ole USSR used to do....jailing political rivals, annexing land of other countries (Georgia, Crimea for example,) etc., etc.

While the USSR is formally "gone," it's more a change of the facade.....under the hood, very little in their political philosophy has progressed at all. Just more of the same with a different name.

You did make a quite nice apology post for Russia, tho.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
16,661
2,171
126
I mean surely you realize that 'here is something for nothing' has been the singular GOP campaign slogan for the last 40 years, right? Their whole mantra is that cutting taxes increases revenues, the definition of a free lunch. This is a problem the Democrats have run into a lot though, their programs are grounded in reality and they have tradeoffs. People liked a lot about the ACA but didn't like the mandate or some of the additional taxes. The GOP solution to that would have been to simply not pay for anything and play Santa Claus, as evidenced by, well, basically every major piece of legislation they have passed since GHWB's tax increases.

Tulsi Gabbard generally supports the same domestic policy positions as the rest of the Democrats though so if you think that's playing 'Robin Hood' she's one of them too.
You think cutting taxes is a giveaway?
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
10,859
176
106
I just have to wonder why that little tidbit was omitted from your critique of sportage's post?
Because my response on that point was 2 sentences. How did your reply miss that the Russia was supporting Cuba after the failed Bays of Pig invasion and Cuba wanted assurances that the US wouldn't invade?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,177
18,977
136
You think cutting taxes is a giveaway?
Cutting taxes while maintaining the same level of services, financed by borrowing is most certainly a giveaway. This is common sense.

Republicans play Santa Claus every time they control the government and then try and gaslight the country and claim they are the responsible ones.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
16,661
2,171
126
Cutting taxes while maintaining the same level of services, financed by borrowing is most certainly a giveaway. This is common sense.

Republicans play Santa Claus every time they control the government and then try and gaslight the country and claim they are the responsible ones.
You slid the goal posts a couple hundred feet on that one. There was no mention of service cuts or increases.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY