NebraskaHarry Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said: Who is Bridget Phetasy? Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 Let me connect the dots. It's not hard. Who benefits from discord and internecine bickering within American politics? Our foes, not the least of all Russia. Thus, who would likely support and amplify the message of a longshot fringe candidate more concerned with flaming the establishment and criticizing the legitimate competition to the current hell we find ourselves in than actually winning the nomination of their party? Our domestic adversaries. I.e. Russia. 1 1 Link to comment
Landlord Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 3 hours ago, Danny Bateman said: Let me connect the dots. It's not hard. Who benefits from discord and internecine bickering within American politics? Our foes, not the least of all Russia. Thus, who would likely support and amplify the message of a longshot fringe candidate more concerned with flaming the establishment and criticizing the legitimate competition to the current hell we find ourselves in than actually winning the nomination of their party? Our domestic adversaries. I.e. Russia. I'm not at all saying you're wrong, but this 100% fits the literal definition of circumstantial evidence. There's nothing, as far as I know, that actually ties Gabbard to Russian interference, there's just compelling arguments that paint a picture where it would make sense. 2 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 Let’s say all this stuff about Gabbard is true. Then the DNC and Hillary are both idiots. No one gave a f#&% about Gabbard and most didn’t really know she existed. Then Hillary opens her big mouth and others start weighing in. If Gabbard runs as a third candidate and has any kind of success, this is what launched it. Ignoring her and letting her fade out after her not being invited to future debates was the best solution. 2 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted October 20, 2019 Share Posted October 20, 2019 On 10/19/2019 at 2:51 AM, Landlord said: I'm not at all saying you're wrong, but this 100% fits the literal definition of circumstantial evidence. There's nothing, as far as I know, that actually ties Gabbard to Russian interference, there's just compelling arguments that paint a picture where it would make sense. Sorry, long weekend or I'd have replied to you sooner. You're absolutely right. There's zero proof that I know of indicating she's actually literally working for the Russian government. Like, if we go to her house, we're not going to find a Kremlin ID badge or Russian paystubs. I just laid out the scenario in which she's a useful idiot advancing their causes. The positions she takes and particularly the vigor with which she criticizes the diabolical Democratic establishment are a goldmine for hostile nations whose primary concern is stirring up as much sh#t as possible here. Personally I don't particularly care at all if Hillary criticizes Tulsi or vice-versa, though I find it an odd electoral strategy for the former if her actual goal is to win the primary. If it's just to flamethrow the establishment and cultivate internecine fights as some type of progressive folk hero, that makes more sense. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 This is a scene of the 1996 Democrat National Convention. It's in spoilers because it is truly awful and I don't want to just inflict this on your eyeballs. What's weird is everyone seems to be wearing 1980s era clothes. And Hillary was no less plastic in 1996 than she was in 2016. Super awkward. Spoiler 4 Link to comment
ZRod Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 2 hours ago, knapplc said: This is a scene of the 1996 Democrat National Convention. It's in spoilers because it is truly awful and I don't want to just inflict this on your eyeballs. What's weird is everyone seems to be wearing 1980s era clothes. And Hillary was no less plastic in 1996 than she was in 2016. Super awkward. Hide contents Seems like a fun party... Link to comment
Moiraine Posted November 5, 2019 Share Posted November 5, 2019 2 hours ago, knapplc said: This is a scene of the 1996 Democrat National Convention. It's in spoilers because it is truly awful and I don't want to just inflict this on your eyeballs. What's weird is everyone seems to be wearing 1980s era clothes. And Hillary was no less plastic in 1996 than she was in 2016. Super awkward. Hide contents *shudder* Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/18/us/muncie-indiana-mayor-arrest/index.html I thought they were only targeting Trump with corruption investigations Link to comment
NM11046 Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 48 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/18/us/muncie-indiana-mayor-arrest/index.html I thought they were only targeting Trump with corruption investigations They should open investigations up on any middle aged white man with eyebrows like that (and Trumps). Can’t trust a man that doesn’t shape those monsters. 1 Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted November 18, 2019 Share Posted November 18, 2019 When I denounce Trump, I want to be able to point to Democrats who provide a clear and inspiring difference. Biden and Clinton can't get far away fast enough for me. 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts