Hillary Clinton says Tulsi Gabbard is a 'Russian asset' groomed to ensure Trump reelection

[One Brow]

He's a

He's a propagandist for turkeys? That I can believe.

My wife's pet name for me happens to be "Turkey".

 

[gandalfe]

My wife's pet name for me happens to be "Turkey".

Because you gobble?

 

[fishonjazz]

Because you gobble?

:^O

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[JazzyFresh]

I love how Tulsi is sticking it to corporate media elitists by appearing on... Checks notes... Fox News.

Lololololol

 

[JazzyFresh]

Remember how Clinton said stuff about Tulsi and some posters here got mad at Clinton? Good times.

Whiny as f*. Big deal.

 

[The Thriller]

As the board's foremost Russia watcher:

Tulsi is a Russian agent.

Weird. Here she is defending Russia’s invading of Ukraine.




Who needs RT when you already have Fox News?

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Weird. Here she is defending Russia’s invading of Ukraine.

Serious question: Are you just trying to be edgy or is that really the way your brain processes information?

Tulsi is clearly saying that Putin is posturing to get leverage into getting a guarantee that Ukraine won't be allowed into NATO. Her proposed solution is to give Putin that guarantee. She believes that if Putin gets what he wants then it is mission accomplished for him and everyone goes home. That is her idea to avoid an invasion. I'm not saying it is correct but that certainly is what she is advocating for in these clips.

You hear her idea on stopping any escalation into what may become an invasion and somehow it gets jumbled around and reworked in your brain to mean "she is defending Russia’s invading of Ukraine". If you were trying to come up with some interpretation for a gotcha that completely missed the mark, then fine. No one is on all the time. However if you truly believe what you just wrote then it explains a lot. Did you mean what you wrote there?

 

[The Thriller]

Serious question: Are you just trying to be edgy or is that really the way your brain processes information?

Tulsi is clearly saying that Putin is posturing to get leverage into getting a guarantee that Ukraine won't be allowed into NATO. Her proposed solution is to give Putin that guarantee. She believes that if Putin gets what he wants then it is mission accomplished for him and everyone goes home. That is her idea to avoid an invasion. I'm not saying it is correct but that certainly is what she is advocating for in these clips.

You hear her idea on stopping any escalation into what may become an invasion and somehow it gets jumbled around and reworked in your brain to mean "she is defending Russia’s invading of Ukraine". If you were trying to come up with some interpretation for a gotcha that completely missed the mark, then fine. No one is on all the time. However if you truly believe what you just wrote then it explains a lot. Did you mean what you wrote there?

Three things there:

1. Putin’s issue isn’t with NATO, but with democracy. He’s invaded other countries and killed off dissidents living in other countries regardless of NATO. He already invaded back in 2014 and it had nothing to do with NATO. Right? Even if Ukraine were to join NATO, it doesn’t justify his invasion of it. Putin is in the wrong here and only he can de-escalate it. We aren’t the ones escalating the situation, Putin is.
2. I’m really tired of some people putin politicians and talking heads Defending Putin and blaming the west. We need to stop appeasing one of the world’s worst dictators. And absolutely I believe Tulsi is a tool for Putin. She consistently takes his side of things and it’s been that way for about 5 years now.
3. Our options are limited. Which is why the west should provide Ukraine with as much hardware as they can and then sanction the **** out of Russia if they pursue this course.

 

[Gameface]

Three things there:

1. Putin’s issue isn’t with NATO, but with democracy. He’s invaded other countries and killed off dissidents living in other countries regardless of NATO. He already invaded back in 2014 and it had nothing to do with NATO. Right? Even if Ukraine were to join NATO, it doesn’t justify his invasion of it. Putin is in the wrong here and only he can de-escalate it. We aren’t the ones escalating the situation, Putin is.
2. I’m really tired of some people putin politicians and talking heads Defending Putin and blaming the west. We need to stop appeasing one of the world’s worst dictators. And absolutely I believe Tulsi is a tool for Putin. She consistently takes his side of things and it’s been that way for about 5 years now.
3. Our options are limited. Which is why the west should provide Ukraine with as much hardware as they can and then sanction the **** out of Russia if they pursue this course.

It has A LOT to do with NATO. If Ukraine was in NATO then NATO would be obligated to respond to aggressive and/or hostile acts against Ukraine with more than sanctions.

 

[JimLes]

Tulsi is clearly saying that Putin is posturing to get leverage into getting a guarantee that Ukraine won't be allowed into NATO. Her proposed solution is to give Putin that guarantee. She believes that if Putin gets what he wants then it is mission accomplished for him and everyone goes home. That is her idea to avoid an invasion. I'm not saying it is correct but that certainly is what she is advocating for in these clips.

This is her idea to avoid an invasion tomorrow. That's the key thing here. Putin is asking for a guarantee that NATO will not defend Ukraine when Russia decides to invade it again.

It's not some huge leap of logic to suggest that the reason Russia wants Ukraine out of NATO so it can at some point invade it with impudence. Saying "give Putin what he wants" is supporting him invading Ukraine, whichever way you'd like to spin it.

 

[One Brow]

It's not some huge leap of logic to suggest that the reason Russia wants Ukraine out of NATO so it can at some point invade it with impudence.

I think Putin would perform this invasion with maximal politeness, personally, if also with impunity.

 

[The Thriller]

It has A LOT to do with NATO. If Ukraine was in NATO then NATO would be obligated to respond to aggressive and/or hostile acts against Ukraine with more than sanctions.

Which… ironically, might’ve served as a deterrent to putin.

Ironically, I hope more nations apply for NATO membership and sanctions obliterate Russia’s oligarchs. This invasion could really blow up in Putin’s face. Well deserved too.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Saying "give Putin what he wants" is supporting him invading Ukraine, whichever way you'd like to spin it.

That's a nice straw man you built there but advocating for a course of deescalation even if it is naive is not the same thing as defending an invasion. Being Neville Chamberlain is not the same as being Philippe Pétain.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Which… ironically, might’ve served as a deterrent to putin.

Ironically, I hope more nations apply for NATO membership and sanctions obliterate Russia’s oligarchs.

So you are rejecting the approach of the Biden and Obama administrations to advocate for George W. Bush's stance.

NATO Allies Oppose Bush on Georgia and Ukraine (Published 2008)

President Bush’s position on NATO’s ties with Georgia and Ukraine contradicts German and French views.

www.nytimes.com

This invasion could really blow up in Putin’s face. Well deserved too.

It is not sounding like Tulsi is the one here wanting to see this invasion go forward.

 

[The Thriller]

Putin is invading Ukraine because he doesn’t believe it should be an independent country:

Back in June, during a nationally televised call-in show, Putin pronounced that Ukrainians and Russians were a "single people." He then elaborated on the subject in a 5,000-word article that lamented the "artificial division of Russians and Ukrainians."

Stripped to its essence, Putin's argument was that Ukraine and Ukrainians are part of a larger "historical Russia" -- and that modern-day Ukraine, which gained independence in 1991, was merely the by-product of administrative and territorial boundaries cooked up by the Soviet leadership.
The Russian president made no mention, of course, of the millions of Ukrainians who voted overwhelmingly in support of independence.
No, in Putin's view, post-Soviet Ukraine became a tool of the West for weakening Russia.
"Ukraine was dragged into a dangerous geopolitical game aimed at turning Ukraine into a barrier between Europe and Russia, a springboard against Russia," he wrote. "Inevitably, there came a time when the concept of 'Ukraine is not Russia' was no longer an option. There was a need for the 'anti-Russia' concept which we will never accept."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/24/europe/vladimir-putin-history-wars-russia-ukraine-cmd-intl/index.html
Maybe it’s time we finally place blame where it truly lies, Putin?

 

[The Thriller]

So you are rejecting the approach of the Biden and Obama administrations to advocate for George W. Bush's stance.

NATO Allies Oppose Bush on Georgia and Ukraine (Published 2008)

President Bush’s position on NATO’s ties with Georgia and Ukraine contradicts German and French views.

www.nytimes.com

It is not sounding like Tulsi is the one here wanting to see this invasion go forward.

You’re being dishonest, again. Why do you always turn these arguments into spin, straw man, and ultimately just dishonesty? Like seriously, is your life so devoid of value or interest that you have to lie and try and incite argument on a damn sports message board? I’m tolerant of different views and encourage debate. But it needs to be (1) honest and (2) supported by evidence. You rarely do this. It’s quite annoying and I’m rethinking my decision to unignore you tbh

I don’t want Putin to invade Ukraine (again). But if he does, I hope it blows up completely in his face (unlike the last time he illegally invaded them).

 

[The Thriller]

These are fantastic reads for those interested in why Putin is behaving the way he is and what the west can do if/when Putin invades Ukraine.

Putin, like every autocrat, knows that democracy anywhere is a threat to his own regime, because people making their own decisions and running their own lives gives his own citizens some unhealthy ideas. And when it’s being practiced by former Soviet subjects—and especially by other Slavs—right on his doorstep, he gets especially itchy. As McFaul put it smartly and succinctly, Putin is not threatened by NATO expansion into Ukraine but by the existence of democracy in Ukraine.

World War III?

Not likely. But Putin is warming up the dice.

newsletters.theatlantic.com

What can be done:

Only Putin Knows What Happens Next

He alone can make the choice to bring Europe back from the brink of a major war.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[The Thriller]

I also think it’s important to recognize why so much of the American right loves Putin. They see a blueprint for themselves in Putin. A way to hold power against the majority. A country of white Christianity to emulate. It’s also why Tucker is so gaga over Orban and Hungary. They see these illiberal democracies as blueprints:

in the 21st century, we must also contend with a new phenomenon: right-wing intellectuals, now deeply critical of their own societies, who have begun paying court to right-wing dictators who dislike America. And their motives are curiously familiar. All around them, they see degeneracy, racial mixing, demographic change, “political correctness,” same-sex marriage, religious decline. The America that they actually inhabit no longer matches the white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant America that they remember, or think they remember. And so they have begun to look abroad, seeking to find the spiritually unified, ethnically pure nations that, they imagine, are morally stronger than their own. Nations, for example, such as Russia… The pioneer of this search was Patrick Buchanan, the godfather of the modern so-called alt-right, whose feelings about foreign authoritarians shifted right about the time he started writing books with titles such as The Death of the West and Suicide of a Superpower. His columns pour scorn on modern America, a place he once described, with disgust, as a “multicultural, multiethnic, multiracial, multilingual ‘universal nation’ whose avatar is Barack Obama.” Buchanan’s America is in demographic decline, has been swamped by beige and brown people, and has lost its virtue. The West, he has written, has succumbed to “a sexual revolution of easy divorce, rampant promiscuity, pornography, homosexuality, feminism, abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, assisted suicide—the displacement of Christian values by Hollywood values.”

The False Romance of Russia

American conservatives who find themselves identifying with Putin’s regime refuse to see the country for what it actually is.

www.theatlantic.com

Hungary to host global right-wing populists in support of PM Orban

Hungary will in March host right-wing participants from the United States and Europe including the leader of Spain's Vox party at a conference linked to U.S. conservatives, a leading pro-government think-tank said on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

 

[JimLes]

That's a nice straw man you built there but advocating for a course of deescalation even if it is naive is not the same thing as defending an invasion. Being Neville Chamberlain is not the same as being Philippe Pétain.

Tulsi Gabbard is not so stupid(or naive as you say) as to not realize what Putin actually wants. No one is that stupid, even on this board.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Tulsi Gabbard is not so stupid(or naive as you say) as to not realize what Putin actually wants. No one is that stupid, even on this board.

The understanding of where this is going or what is motivating it is not agreed upon by everyone as your echo chamber says. I don’t necessarily agree with them as I’ve stated that Russia could indeed move into the Donbas where there are a lot of ethnic Russians, but those who think this is all posturing do point to some interesting evidence to support their case.

Here are five reasons an invastion isn’t likely:
1.) Risk aversion. (Even The Thriller thinks this will blow up in Putin’s face)
2.) You break it, you own it.
3.) Galvanizing NATO.
4.) Inevitable sanctions.
5.) Domestic opposition.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorent...hy-putin-wont-invade-ukraine/?sh=154115372927

is Russia actually about to attack Ukraine? The answer, based on the empirical evidence, seems to be a resounding no. … First of all, Russia has made no effort to conceal the movement of these forces … The Ukrainian army, at this point, is experienced, modernized, and highly motivated. It would not be a pushover … Russia’s current occupations of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Crimea are expensive, but they are viable because there is an element of the local population there that welcomes Russia. … Such a dynamic does not exist in western Ukraine
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/17/russia-isnt-about-to-attack-ukraine/

If Vladimir Putin does decide on war in Ukraine, few Russians will be expecting it. The propaganda machine has not yet been switched on
https://www.economist.com/europe/20...-in-ukraine-few-russians-will-be-expecting-it