Hillary Clinton appears to suggest Russians are 'grooming' Tulsi Gabbard for third-party run

[woolfe9998]

I also see nothing productive in Hillary showing up on a podcast to suggest "theories" seemingly cut from template of an Alex Jones podcast which ends up invariably bringing 2016 up. It would be quite another thing if she also had documents or recordings that supported such "theories" but so far as I know none has been presented.


_____________

I already said earlier in the thread, twice, that Clinton should not have made this allegation. Accordingly, your reply is moot, at least, insofar as my contributions go.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Hillary is in no position to make that assessment

Oh, what was that word now? Oh yeah, "yawn"

 

[ivwshane]

Perhaps you and your ilk purposefully misinterpreted what Hillary said... an asset implies that Tulsi is knowingly co-operating... but hey that's something you all conveniently brush aside.

The word "asset" has an agreed upon definition and it certainly doesn't mean to "knowingly cooperate".

At this point I can only assume you are trolling as you continue to use straw man arguments and you are now making up your own definition for words and you will be reported as such.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So up your reading comprehension maybe?



_______

Oh, I may be old but I still read just fine thanks. And my mind is still able to understand both the words and the concepts behind their use.

 

[ivwshane]

Hillary is in no position to make that assessment

And you are who exactly?

 

[Victorian Gray]

And you are who exactly?

Apparently, a person playing on the interwebs.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Yes it could set you free but you choose to disbelieve what Van Jones has laid out buy outright dismissing his statements on CNN... showing that you refuse to be set free by the facts....


__________

I dismiss Van Jones!! You see Van Jones does not walk on water, but some of you might think he does!

 

[Starbuck1975]

And you are who exactly?

Someone even more unqualified. However, if her intent was to thwart the Russians, she failed. Even that raging alt-right conservative Matt Taibbi over at Rolling Stone is mocking her for it.

 

[blankslate]

The word "asset" has an agreed upon definition and it certainly doesn't mean to "knowingly cooperate".

Given that this person in question is a mid-level officer in the Reserves has been on or is on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, House Committee on Armed Services among others if Russia was targeting her for being an unaware stooge our intelligence services very likely imho would have gotten wind of it before Hillary conjured up her own conspiracy theory if that in fact held any water. "You keep on saying Straw Man..." you know the rest... it's a famous enough movie.

I dismiss Van Jones!! You see Van Jones does not walk on water, but some of you might think he does!

Acknowledging his experience as activist involved in the Democratic Party for some time and the distinct possibility that he has made enough connections to get inside contacts on wonky political goings on is not suggesting that he walks on water at all. However much you may wish to characterize it as such.


___________
*edited to be a bit more nuanced in regards to intelligence services*

 

[JEDIYoda]

Someone even more unqualified. However, if her intent was to thwart the Russians, she failed. Even that raging alt-right conservative Matt Taibbi over at Rolling Stone is mocking her for it.

What is interesting everybody mocks Hillary! Doesn`t matter there politicasl persuasion -- right, left, up or down!! So what was the point?

 

[blankslate]

Even that raging alt-right conservative Matt Taibbi over at Rolling Stone is mocking her for it.

This article? Everyone is a Russian Asset

Hillary is just pointing at people Oprah style "You're a Russian Asset!! And you too, You're a Russian Asset!!"


________________

 

[woolfe9998]

The word "asset" has an agreed upon definition and it certainly doesn't mean to "knowingly cooperate".

No, but it could mean that. It is open to that interpretation. And that is the problem with what Clinton said here. She made an ambiguous remark which she knew at least some people would interpret as an allegation of complicity but she knew she only had evidence of Russian efforts but no evidence of the candidate's complicity. Had she clarified that the Russians were trying to prop her up but that she had no reason to believe Gabbard was in on it, that would have been fine. As such, the remark was a scurrilous innuendo.

I like Clinton most of the time, but I'm not happy with what she did here.

 

[JEDIYoda]

wrong thread sorry!

 

[imported_tajmahal]

This article? Everyone is a Russian Asset

Hillary is just pointing at people Oprah style "You're a Russian Asset!! And you too, You're a Russian Asset!!"


________________

Don't forget the religious bigotry that Hillary engaged in when she targeted one of only three Hindu politicians in the United States with this smear.

 

[ivwshane]

Given that this person in question is a mid-level officer in the Reserves has been on or is on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, House Committee on Armed Services among others if Russia was targeting her for being an unaware stooge our intelligence services would have gotten wind of it before Hillary conjured up her own conspiracy theory if that in fact held any water. "You keep on saying Straw Man..." you know the rest... it's a famous enough movie.


Acknowledging his experience as activist involved in the Democratic Party for some time and the distinct possibility that he has made enough connections to get inside contacts on wonky political goings on is not suggesting that he walks on water at all. However much you may wish to characterize it as such.


___________

Sure, just like word got out about trump and his work with many, many Russians, or maybe you prefer Mike Flynn as the example. When did that leak out again?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Don't forget the religious bigotry that Hillary engaged in when she targeted one of only three Hindu politicians in the United States with this smear.

is There a link so I won`t forget??

 

[Amused]

Yes it could set you free but you choose to disbelieve what Van Jones has laid out buy outright dismissing his statements on CNN... showing that you refuse to be set free by the facts....


__________

No one here has tried to discount what Van Jones said.

That's not the point, and actually fits in what is happening here.

The entire alt-right echo-sphere has promoted her, even though her entire platform (outside of isolationism) is contrary to theirs.

At the same time, Russian bots have promoted her as well.

There is no rational reason for this coordinated effort other than trying to create a third party candidate by making her believe she has bipartisan support and her support is higher than it actually is, thus a viable third party candidate.

You keep thinking this Van Jones thing debunks this. No, it reinforces it. It makes her a prime target for the right-wing and Russians to use to disrupt the election and tip it in their favor.

 

[ivwshane]

Someone even more unqualified. However, if her intent was to thwart the Russians, she failed. Even that raging alt-right conservative
over at Rolling Stone is mocking her for it.

You don't know what her intent was.

 

[ivwshane]

No one here has tried to discount what Van Jones said.

That's not the point, and actually fits in what is happening here.

The entire alt-right echo-sphere has promoted her, even though her entire platform (outside of isolationism) is contrary to theirs.

At the same time, Russian bots have promoted her as well.

There is no rational reason for this coordinated effort other than trying to create a third party candidate by making her believe she has bipartisan support and her support is higher than it actually is, thus a viable third party candidate.

You keep thinking this Van Jones thing debunks this. No, it reinforces it. It makes her a prime target for the right-wing and Russians to use to disrupt the election and tip it in their favor.

He doesn't get and he never will. He was a useful tool for the 2016 election and he looks to be triggered as another useful tool for the 2020 election.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hillary is in no position to make that assessment

So, kill the messenger, right? It's perfectly obvious that a variety of insincere actors are pushing Tulsi, creating some buzz, apparently encouraging her to run third party to splinter the Dems. It's perfectly reasonable for anybody who can see it to point it out. The only way that reflects unfavorably on Tulsi is if she takes the bait, which I doubt.

 

[blankslate]

You keep thinking this Van Jones thing debunks this. No, it reinforces it. It makes her a prime target for the right-wing and Russians to use to disrupt the election and tip it in their favor.

Actually no it doesn't Tulsi being the target of "Payback Hell" as Van Jones puts it makes her unlikely to be very popular outside of the alt-right or some who are focused only on "anti-war" as their main voting issue. Just look at everyone rushing in to go "yup yup she's a Russian Asset"
Aside from the other Russian Assets in the Primary of course...


_____________

 

[Victorian Gray]

Don't forget the religious bigotry that Hillary engaged in when she targeted one of only three Hindu politicians in the United States with this smear.

The propaganda above has been brought to you by the Ministry of Culture and Public Enlightenment.

 

[ivwshane]

No, but it could mean that. It is open to that interpretation. And that is the problem with what Clinton said here. She made an ambiguous remark which she knew at least some people would interpret as an allegation of complicity but she knew she only had evidence of Russian efforts but no evidence of the candidate's complicity. Had she clarified that the Russians were trying to prop her up but that she had no reason to believe Gabbard was in on it, that would have been fine. As such, the remark was a scurrilous innuendo.

I like Clinton most of the time, but I'm not happy with what she did here.

What, specifically are you not happy about? The fact that she highlighted that Russia is still meddling in our election process? The fact that she explained how they were meddling or because people were able to figure out who it was? Or are you upset about the responses and how the right is jumping on this and making this about Hillary instead of about Russian inference?

Ask yourself this; what does Clinton have to gain by exposing this?

Do you prefer this sort of information to come out after the election or were you waiting for someone with first hand knowledge to come out about this like what didn't happen in 2016?

It's pretty easy to get caught up in this stuff but when you have an actor like Russia, who are experts in this type of subterfuge, it's important to look at the big picture and ask why is this happening and who stands to benefit. Take a guess at what the answer is in this case.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Actually no it doesn't Tulsi being the target of "Payback Hell" as Van Jones puts it makes her unlikely to be very popular outside of the alt-right or some who are focused only on "anti-war" as their main voting issue. Just look at everyone rushing in to go "yup yup she's a Russian Asset"
Aside from the other Russian Assets in the Primary of course...
_____________

This is a very old articfle -- can people change sure -- but I doubt it in her case -- https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/1/20/1056467/-

I would say you need to take a close look at who is courting her.....she is on FOX network a lot! Her beliefs line up more with the Republican party than the Democratic party.

Here is one article -- https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/1/20/1056467/-
Tulsi Gabbard is a candidate for the HI-02 House seat vacated by Congresswoman Hirono to run for Senate. She has previously served in the military, in the Honolulu City Council, and in the Hawaii House of Representatives--her campaign materials seem to emphasize her military service. But behind this impressive political C.V.--like so many--is the product of a political dynasty. Tulsi is the daughter of Mike Gabbard, a Hawaii state Senator, former Republican, and anti-gay activist. Certainly, no one should be assumed to share the political views of their parents. But Tulsi Gabbard's political connections to her father go far beyond the family relationship. Despite her recent claims to socially-progressive views, the identities of her staffers and donors make much more sense as the products of a conservative family network than as the products of conventional ideological organizations.

Mike Gabbard:


As a quick introduction to Tulsi Gabbard's father, here is a 2004 profile from Honolulu magazine:

Many remember Gabbard best as the antagonistic leader of the movement to quash same-sex marriage in Hawai'i. As founder of the Alliance for Traditional Marriage and Values, a political action committee, Gabbard helped wage an expensive media campaign to convince voters that gay marriage would devastate Hawai'i.

An article about Tulsi Gabbard's congressional campaign and "leftward journey" adds additional information about Mike Gabbard's more recent positions:

Mike Gabbard went through a transformation of his own — from being a Republican to a Democrat — in recent years, but his social conservatism doesn't appear to have changed. For example, when Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed legislation legalizing same-sex civil unions last year, the elder Gabbard called it a "sad day" for the people of Hawaii.

That's not all, though, from the Honolulu Magazine piece. I don't know how much to emphasize this--I don't want to judge anyone for their religious beliefs or membership--but it's impossible to ignore once you start reading about the Gabbards. Take it as information about their political and social networks--not as mockery of their religious beliefs.

Gabbard had strong ties to an obscure Hare Krishna splinter group that, in the late 1970s, fielded several political candidates. The splinter group was founded by a Hawai'i homegrown guru named Chris Butler.
...
Butler eventually broke away from ISKCON, criticizing the regimen and centralization of ISKCON life. He formed his own organization, which has had several names: Hare Name Society, Identity Institute and the Science of Identity Foundation. What started as a small religious sect on Maui in the 1970s developed a following that, according to some estimates, includes tens of thousands of people all over the world.
...
Many of Butler's associates made headlines in the 1976 election when they created a party called Independents for Godly Government. As its name implied, the group insisted on rigorous moral standards for its candidates.
...
In the '80s and '90s, Butler appeared in a series of locally filmed shows, titled Jagad Guru Speaks, in which he sermonized on spirituality. In one episode... Mike and Carol Gabbard are shown sitting just a few feet away from the charismatic guru, laughing along with the audience.
Gabbard's wife served as secretary/treasurer of the Science of Identity Foundation until 2000, before she successfully ran for a seat on the state Board of Education. Both Gabbard and his wife were listed as teachers at the Science of Identity Foundation in Polk's

City Directory in the early 1990s.


In the late '80s and early '90s, both Gabbards worked as staffers in the office of then Maui state Sen. Rick Reed. A controversial figure himself, Reed has acknowledged Butler as his "spiritual adviser." Reed mounted short-lived campaigns for both Congress and the lieutenant governorship in 1986. He then ran for U.S. Senate against Daniel Inouye in 1992, setting off a scandal when he publicized claims that Inouye had sexually molested a Honolulu hairdresser named Lenore Kwock.


All five of Gabbard's children have Hindu names: Bhakti, Jai, Aryan, Tulsi and Vrindavan (Hinduism is the root of the Hare Krishna religion). The Gabbards' Natural Deli was housed in Down to Earth, which was then owned and managed by Butler followers.


No one questions Gabbard's right to believe as he chooses. Some may even applaud him for his religious beliefs. However, some voters may worry about his former ties to a Krishna sect. Especially when members and associates of that group have mounted repeated attempts at high public office.


This a vgery long article......…. YEs -- it gets even more interesting....

Tulsi Gabbard: The Curiously Conservative and Nepotistic Network of a Democratic Candidate

Tulsi Gabbard is a candidate for the HI-02 House seat vacated by Congresswoman Hirono to run for Senate. She has previously served in the military, in the Honolulu City Council, and in the Hawaii ...

www.dailykos.com

 

[woolfe9998]

What, specifically are you not happy about? The fact that she highlighted that Russia is still meddling in our election process? The fact that she explained how they were meddling or because people were able to figure out who it was? Or are you upset about the responses and how the right is jumping on this and making this about Hillary instead of about Russian inference?

Ask yourself this; what does Clinton have to gain by exposing this?

Do you prefer this sort of information to come out after the election or were you waiting for someone with first hand knowledge to come out about this like what didn't happen in 2016?

It's pretty easy to get caught up in this stuff but when you have an actor like Russia, who are experts in this type of subterfuge, it's important to look at the big picture and ask why is this happening and who stands to benefit. Take a guess at what the answer is in this case.

I'm not happy about precisely what I said I'm not happy about, nothing more, nothing less. Clinton purposefully used ambiguous words like "grooming" and "Russian asset" knowing that at least some listeners would interpret that as an allegation of complicity on the part of Gabbard. And since I said I would have been fine with it had she clarified that she was talking about Russian conduct and not alleging complicity, that should address the concerns you raise above.