Hillary Clinton Claims Russians ‘Grooming’ Tulsi Gabbard as Third-Party Candidate

I'm playing catch-up on how unstable Hillary is becoming...

Hillary defends Harvey Weinstein, but calls Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard a Russian Agent!

twitter.com...

originally posted by: carewemust
I'm playing catch-up on how unstable Hillary is becoming...

Hillary defends Harvey Weinstein, but calls Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard a Russian Agent!

twitter.com...

I could swear your link directs to a video of Ronan Farrow.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

So Gabbard has gained the opposite of Hillary Clinton's endoresement. Sounds good to me. Still think Gabbard and Trump need to team up.

Gabbard and Rand Paul would make a good Third Party ticket.

a reply to: Xcalibur254
Your crazy!! Bernie would send all the money fleeing out of this country and wa la you have Venezuela and Cuba. He wants to tax wealthy people at 95%. I guess he is kind at heart and leaves them a bone at 5%. Why don't you move to Cuba and stop supporting the downfall of this country. Their government is already to your liking.

a reply to: carewemust

Hillary defends Harvey Weinstein, but calls Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard a Russian Agent!

and that surprises you?
hillary is a first class turd
on the wrong side of nearly every issue
no discernible moral compass

but she keep hot sauce packets in her purse....you know to put on chicken.....

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: carewemust

Hillary defends Harvey Weinstein, but calls Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard a Russian Agent!

and that surprises you?
hillary is a first class turd
on the wrong side of nearly every issue
no discernible moral compass

but she keep hot sauce packets in her purse....you know to put on chicken.....

The funny part about this is she likely HAS to carry hot sauce on her all the time now because people will ask.

a reply to: Gryphon66

And that's the thing, there isn't. The link I provided in the OP was lost but can be found in Critial Stinkers post on the second page. It was an article from Glenn Greenwald in the Intercept that points out the flimsy and likely nefarious origins of this fable.

I see the political spectrum as just that. While Trump and others in the Democrat Party would have us believe it is all as simple as us or them, what I see is a much more fluid scope of political stances, many if not most are not even stances but just people looking up from their daily stuff and going with whoever sounds like what they themselves hold to be their best hopes for government.

All the rest of the ''issues'' to me are moot if we do not get this goof out of the Oval. This means finding a candidate who can appeal to people in the middle, people who do not want the more liberal Dem candidates but would consider a moderate simply because they themselves are moderate. Us people who still believe that we all climb together or fall though separation.

Oh, and thanks for your thoughts on Gabbard and those quotes you put up on her positions and stuff. I don't think she is going to go away and while so many of the pundits dissmiss her out of hand I think that at best they are only demonstrating their own lack of awareness. I was watching a few on CNN yesterday and all they could come up with were the old alligations along with ''I just don't know what to make of this''

a reply to: Vasa Croe

The funny part about this is she likely HAS to carry hot sauce on her all the time now because people will ask.

sista can I borrow your hot sauce....
el oh el

but I already saw you had some.....why you act like that....
ahahahaha

Hillary Clinton Claims Russians ‘Grooming’ Tulsi Gabbard as Third-Party Candidate

I don't like either of them.

Don't mind me.

I'm just a bot drinking some Smirnoff.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I talk about this all the time. The last two years especially, but probably the last decade, have really brought the false dichotomies that we're bombarded with 24/7 by media/internet sources. It's not just divide and conquer anymore ... it's divide and divide and divide and divide ... until there's nothing left.

It's not just Democrat and Republican or conservative and liberal or right and left ... it's Black and White, or White and Everybody Else, or Gay/Straight, Christian/Non-Christian, male/female, trans/cis ... ad nauseam ad infinitum ... and whichever granular fallacy you look at from an INDIVIDUAL viewpoint, it's meaningless.

The only bedrock for me in this is the Constitution and my own moral code. The double-headed snake aka the two-party system is NEVER going to give us candidates that the majority can truly agree upon again.

The stranglehold that plagues our bicameral political party system has to be disempowered somehow.

I agree, enough already, throw your hat in the ring or endorse someone. My fiancé said to me today, "why do I keep hearing about Hillary Clinton in the news? Can't she she just go away?"

Is there precedent for a candidate to enter into a field at this time in such a way if she were to?
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

a reply to: Rob808
It' amazing really. If she was half as liberal as she makes herself out to be she would just back away and stay out of things. But I guess not huh?

Wait What ? ......... 😃

"THAT'S WHY I'VE ENDORSED BERNIE SANDERS FOR COMMANDER IN CHIEF BECAUSE I AM CONFIDENT HE HAS THAT MILITARY MINDSET" -2016 tulsi gabbard

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard wants to sit down with Hillary Clinton for a face-to-face discussion.

www.foxnews.com...

I hope Tulsi knows to wear a bulletproof vest, and to not accept any gift labeled "open at home please".

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: tanstaafl
Get a grip here Tans.

My grip is most excellent, thanks. It is the best grip, a fabulous grip.

The poster I was replying to has had that post removed for trolling. I was responding to that post when I said, ''not necessarily true.

I know... saying that sounds like you consider it a possibility. The fact is, it is purely and simply preposterous.

So basically Tulisi was getting attention but not enough for main stream so the Beast figured she would cut her off before she took an independent route.

She made the Hildabeast nervous.





BUT RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA.!!!!!

a reply to: carewemust

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard wants to sit down with Hillary Clinton for a face-to-face discussion.

Of course she does! LOL She thinks she can put herself on equal footing with Hillary Clinton. She can't. She wants to relitigate the 2016 primary and pretend she's running against Hillary. She's not. She's running against the current set of candidates, and Hillary isn't one of them.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

you are correct

the question is

why does Mrs Bill Clinton

get news time?

at all?

she is not newsworthy or relavent, and YOU agree

and why is she still influencing foreign policy? Isn't that what Tulsi claimed?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

I did? Wow, that rhubarb pie was stronger than I thought.

You seem to be on it every day I guess huh?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The POTUS as you like to phrase it, is an elected offical with limited Constitutional powers. If he is removed (and that is unlikely while Republicans control the Senate) it will be by a Constitutional process. I have posted here in support of the idea that the Clinton Campaign, thru proxies, broke the same laws that the Trump Campaign desperately tried to do.

Riiight, you mean how democrats/socialists are doing a closed door impeachment? Not allowing Republicans to cross examine witnesses? Not allowing witnesses from Republicans/POTUS Trump? Not allowing Republicans to even have a transcript of the witnesses' testimony? Not allowing the POTUS due process, etc?... Is that what you call "a Constitutional process"?... Even during Clinton's impeachment he was allowed all due process, for his defense to cross examine witnesses, democrats had an equal voice to Republicans, but now?... Democrats/socialists don't want even to open a vote because they know they would not get the votes,, as it has happened in the three times they called for a vote for impeachment in which even several democrats voted NO...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You like to ignore, however, that there were multiple corroborations of some material in the dossier from ally nations and our own IC resulting in credible bases to justify FISA warrants. You like to ignore that it is not spying when the FBI performs its legal function to prevent foreign interests from illicitly intervening in our Electoral process.
...

ROFLMAO... what corroboration?... Comey himself admitted that the FISA warrants were not corroborated...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Fundamentally, your argument collapses to it's not illegal if your favored POTUS does it.

ROFLMAO... First of all, there was NO EVIDENCE from the start that POTUS Trump or ANYONE in his campaign "colluded with the Russians..." Yet this false premise was used to SPY on EVERYONE close to candidate Trump, and then the "false RUSSIAN claims" were used to try to depose the duly elected POTUS...

Second of all, Biden ADMITTED to having fired the Ukrainian prosecutor whom was about to investigate his son and the corruption in Burisma Holdings, and contrary to the claim about POTUS Trump, Biden ADMITTED to having withheld over a billion U.S.D. unless they fired that prosecutor.

Your argument collapses to "okay, we have no evidence of any wrong doing so let's spy on EVERYTHING and EVERYONE close to Trump, but on Biden you have evidence of a SPECIFIC crime and you don't want to investigate that SPECIFIC crime..." That's what your argument actually is...

POTUS Trump didn't tell the Ukrainians spy on Biden and EVERYONE close to him... But Obama/Biden/Hillary/the DNC/the left-wing media have been using lie after lie, which ironically came mostly from the Russians, to spy on a Presidential candidate and everyone close to him without any evidence of wrongdoing...