Jump to content
Required Reading for any Longhorn ×

Is Tulsi Gabbard A Russian Asset?

USMCHorn

By USMCHorn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 884
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Red Five
Red Five

I'm not sure if she's a Russian asset. I am sure however that I want to lick her box. 

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

*clicks on random page in Hillary thread*   Onboard 2.0     2,843          #1

Hank Scorpio
Hank Scorpio

How did you get in here? Did someone leave the door open? Get out of here! Shoo!       

Posted Images

bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13226

Posted
Posted
Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

I think you’re wrong 

You can think that if you want, I guess. But here's the actual information.

Latest Action: 05/18/2016 Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.

It became part of the 2017 military funding bill (which Tulsi and 140 other Dems voted against in the House).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29439

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

No she didn't.

The 2016 Global Magnitsky Act never made it to the House floor, so she didn't even have a chance to vote for or against it.

Factually accurate attacks are good.

There is literally no good reason to defend Tulsi. I don't care if it's over something as meaningless as some idiot getting mad at her for acknowledging that the sun rises in the east. Just ignore it and move on, man. She's human garbage and is much closer to the far right than the left politically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18292

Posted
Posted

“Conspiracy theory” is a poor fit for the Tulsi accusations.  McCarthyism or the Satanic Panic would be better analogies.  But those criticisms are weaker because the problem is not so much complete fantasy as it is overzealous application.  Communists and serial killers exist, and so do American politicians useful to and backed by Russia. The question is whether it’s unreasonable to suspect any particular politician.  

Hillary was right about Trump.  There’s a lot of weird smoke around Tulsi and, at the very least, a lot of indications that she would be Russia’s choice among the Dem field.  

Again, if you think Russia doesn’t have a preferred candidate on both sides (h/t, Anastasis) or that Russia won’t actively work to support that candidate financially and with propaganda efforts, you’re incredibly naive and haven’t been paying a lick of attention since 2016.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13226

Posted
Posted

I don't care about Tulsi, she's a weirdo with bad politics who was raised in a cult. She has no chance of winning the nomination and would lose the general by 10 miles. She could disappear tomorrow and I wouldn't notice. She's kind of hot, and that's my strongest feeling towards her as a person or candidate.

There are very good reasons to fighting back against Russia hysteria.

- It's being promoted by warmongers (Hillary and the like) who want more people to die in pointless wars overseas.
- It is a cover used by terrible politicians to justify continued oppressive and immiserating domestic policy.

There is also the simple reality that saying things that aren't true is bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29439

Posted
Posted
Just now, BrickHorn said:

“Conspiracy theory” is a poor fit for the Tulsi accusations.  McCarthyism or the Satanic Panic would be better analogies.  But those criticisms are weaker because the problem is not so much complete fantasy as it is overzealous application.  Communists and serial killers exist, and so do American politicians useful to and backed by Russia. The question is whether it’s unreasonable to suspect any particular politician.  

Hillary was right about Trump.  There’s a lot of weird smoke around Tulsi and, at the very least, a lot of indications that she would be Russia’s choice among the Dem field.  

Again, if you think Russia doesn’t have a preferred candidate on both sides (h/t, Anastasis) or that Russia won’t actively work to support that candidate financially and with propaganda efforts, you’re incredibly naive and haven’t been paying a lick of attention since 2016.

I think Tulsi wants to run as a third party spoiler in the general, with the goal of preventing a Democrat from being elected President, and will tacitly welcome Russian support to do so. Would she do it without Russian support? Probably, but that's not a world we live in. Since she knows she'll have their support she's not a useful idiot, and while I understand the reluctance to call her an "asset" since she's primarily doing it to further her own fucked up politics, I don't know what falls between "asset" and "useful idiot" and that's not a hair I think really needs to be split.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GW Hayduke

GW Hayduke 1953

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't care about Tulsi, she's a weirdo with bad politics who was raised in a cult. She has no chance of winning the nomination and would lose the general by 10 miles. She could disappear tomorrow and I wouldn't notice. She's kind of hot, and that's my strongest feeling towards her as a person or candidate.

There are very good reasons to fighting back against Russia hysteria.

- It's being promoted by warmongers (Hillary and the like) who want more people to die in pointless wars overseas.
- It is a cover used by terrible politicians to justify continued oppressive and immiserating domestic policy.

There is also the simple reality that saying things that aren't true is bad.

Yes. We know you don’t really care about Tulsi. You are just bending over backwards to defend her because you don’t want folks speaking bad about Russia. Thx for the honesty. Makes total sense. It also makes sense that you’ve vehemently defended Assange and defended Russian election meddling. It makes further sense that you were forced by the Dems to vote Trump and that your preferred strategy is to divide the left.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8742

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You can think that if you want, I guess. But here's the actual information.

Latest Action: 05/18/2016 Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.

It became part of the 2017 military funding bill (which Tulsi and 140 other Dems voted against in the House).

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/09/13/us-global-magnitsky-act

Why are you insisting the 2016 vote didn’t happen?

In an important step for global accountability, Congress built on the original Russia-focused Magnitsky law in 2016 and enacted the Global Magnitsky Act, which allows the executive branch to impose visa bans and targeted sanctions on individuals anywhere in the world responsible for committing human rights violations or acts of significant corruption. The act received widespread bipartisan support. Senator Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, introduced a version of the bill, and five Republican senators and five Democratic senators signed on as co-sponsors. President Barack Obama signed the law on December 23, 2016.
Edited by Pig Bellmont
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Useful idiot works best.

I think useful idiot at this point is too generous.  You're not an idiot if you align yourself with the Kremlin for political expediency.  You are an opportunistic asset.

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Lot of people here obviously don't know the difference between "asset" and "agent."  

Yep, all agents are assets but not all assets are agents.  

Paul Manafort is what I would consider a Russian agent because he was being paid tens of millions of dollars to advance Russia’s interests worldwide. 

Tulsi is no Paul Manafort

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Yes. We know you don’t really care about Tulsi. You are just bending over backwards to defend her because you don’t want folks speaking bad about Russia. Thx for the honesty. Makes total sense. It also makes sense that you’ve vehemently defended Assange and defended Russian election meddling. It makes further sense that you were forced by the Dems to vote Trump and that your preferred strategy is to divide the left.  

You think BT voted for Trump ?  Pass the bong pal, I'd like some of that.

Edited by Onboard 2.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13226

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Yes. We know you don’t really care about Tulsi. You are just bending over backwards to defend her because you don’t want folks speaking bad about Russia. Thx for the honesty. Makes total sense. It also makes sense that you’ve vehemently defended Assange and defended Russian election meddling. It makes further sense that you were forced by the Dems to vote Trump and that your preferred strategy is to divide the left.  

I defend Assange because he published vital whistleblower information that we should have known about.

I have never "defending Russian election meddling", whatever that means.

I didn't vote for Trump lol your brain worms are out of control

11 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/09/13/us-global-magnitsky-act

Why are you insisting the 2016 vote didn’t happen?

Because it never happened in the House. It happened in the Senate, but Gabbard is not a Senator.

That's just how legislating works in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8742

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

I defend Assange because he published vital whistleblower information that we should have known about.

I have never "defending Russian election meddling", whatever that means.

I didn't vote for Trump lol your brain worms are out of control

Because it never happened in the House. It happened in the Senate, but Gabbard is not a Senator.

That's just how legislating works in the US.

The President signed a law that only passed the Senate? That’s not how any of this works

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13226

Posted
Posted
Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

The President signed a law that only passed the Senate? That’s not how any of this works

Again...

Latest Action: 05/18/2016 Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.

It did not go to the floor for a roll call vote. It moved forward without objection.

The chair asks, "Hey does anyone object to us putting this thing in and moving it forward?" If no one objects, it goes forward as unanimous consent (not a unanimous vote). That's what happened here. Gabbard did not object to it moving forward. If Gabbard had objected, it would have been put to formal vote.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13226

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

The bill was added to the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act was passed with bipartisan support in both houses and signed by Obama in December 2016. Gabbard voted against it. Why are you dying on this stupid hill?

Gabbard voted against the Defense Authorization Act, not the Global Magnitsky Act.

She voted with 30 other Democrats against it.

(Bernie also voted against it in the Senate.)

These are just facts.

All Dems should have voted against the Defense Authorization Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8742

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Gabbard voted against the Defense Authorization Act, not the Global Magnitsky Act.

She voted with 30 other Democrats against it.

(Bernie also voted against it in the Senate.)

These are just facts.

All Dems should have voted against the Defense Authorization Act.

Just admit you were wrong. The NDAA included the Magnitsky Act and Gabbard voted against it. She voted for the 2016 NDAA, so perhaps it’s not some dove stance. My question about why posted up thread remains valid, despite this weird rabbit hole you went down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13226

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Just admit you were wrong. The NDAA included the Magnitsky Act and Gabbard voted against it.

The Global Magnitsky Act was never put up for a vote in the House, so it is false to say she voted against it. Gabbard could have objected to its passage as an amendment, and she did not.

Would she have voted against it if it were put to the floor for a vote? Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know because she was never asked to vote on it. Saying that she voted against that specific amendment is false, because that's not how votes work.

Quote

She voted for the 2016 NDAA, so perhaps it’s not some dove stance.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe because it was under Obama and she's a Democrat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

I think Tulsi wants to run as a third party spoiler in the general, with the goal of preventing a Democrat from being elected President, and will tacitly welcome Russian support to do so. Would she do it without Russian support? Probably, but that's not a world we live in. Since she knows she'll have their support she's not a useful idiot, and while I understand the reluctance to call her an "asset" since she's primarily doing it to further her own fucked up politics, I don't know what falls between "asset" and "useful idiot" and that's not a hair I think really needs to be split.

lmao.  Tulsi derangement syndrome.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4606

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Thread title should change to “is bad teammate a Russian asset?”

This whole board is a Russian asset, given how loosely this thread has defined it. The paranoia of Russian puppet masters hiding under every rock breeds fear, division, and desensitizes people to cases when it might really be true-in other words, it’s absolutely promoting their interests.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

This whole board is a Russian asset, given how loosely this thread has defined it. The paranoia of Russian puppet masters hiding under every rock breeds fear, division, and desensitizes people to cases when it might really be true-in other words, it’s absolutely promoting their interests.

I do have a small bust of Lenin on our bookshelves, and a Soviet era space poster glorifying the brave, and death defying cosmonauts.  Man I must be going to the dark side and didn't even realize it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46296

Posted
Posted

This whole dustup is exactly what Russia wants to see.  I'm pretty sure Hillary isn't a Russian agent/asset/ass, but once she started it, perhaps in good faith and with good reason, perhaps not, the US political world exploded in heated arguments over a non-starter when it comes to the Democratic primaries.  Mission accomplished.

If Gabbard runs 3rd party, this will be important.  Until then, it's a complete nothingberder that is delighting Putin and the Oligarchs (#1 with a bullet).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89858

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

This whole dustup is exactly what Russia wants to see.  I'm pretty sure Hillary isn't a Russian agent/asset/ass, but once she started it, perhaps in good faith and with good reason, perhaps not, the US political world exploded in heated arguments over a non-starter when it comes to the Democratic primaries.  Mission accomplished.

If Gabbard runs 3rd party, this will be important.  Until then, it's a complete nothingberder that is delighting Putin and the Oligarchs (#1 with a bullet).

If she runs third party, she won’t make it to the debate, and she’ll probably just pull in people who wouldn’t normally vote.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89858

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Fozzz said:

I know she's hot...but be careful, she's likely a Russian asset.

I kept expecting the last picture to be a full-length shot, and for her to be packing a penis.

I'm not sure what that says about me or about what I expect when people post a bunch of pictures like that on Surly.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...