US politics - When the Barr's so low.

[Zorral]

22 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

The attacks by Clinton against Gabbard seem petty and stupid to me., and the evidence in support of the accusations is very, very thin right now.   Gabbard has about a zero percent chance of winning the nomination, and bringing this up now just helps Trump by siphoning attention away from the latest idiotic things being done by the Trump administration, like Mulvaney's quid pro quo admission.  Can the Democrats just focus on impeaching Trump and pause the intraparty squabbling for a bit?  If Gabbard really runs as a third party candidate, which I find doubtful given her poor fundraising and polling numbers, then fine, bring it up then.  But now isn't the time.  

The bolded is the relevant part, because, well, you are you!t IS the point of being the spoiler candidate, to siphon votes away from another of the two candidates. Gabbard is supposed to be a third party spoiler candidate like They Say Perot was in the Clinton - Bush election.  It's either your lack of memory or your lack of experience to not understand this.  Perot could bankroll his own campaign. Gabbard can't, so -- well, increasingly They Are Saying, Putin.

But where does Putin get all that money -- beyond klepting everything in the former Soviet Union and etc.?

[Mudguard]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

1. Word.

2. If she does that, her career is over. Why would anyone commit career suicide with no clear benefit to themselves? 

Well, according to Clinton, it's because she's Putin's stooge and will be doing his bidding during the general election.  As to what benefit Putin could give her that would make career suicide worth it?  No idea.  The whole allegation is bizarre.  We'll see soon enough though.  I don't think her campaign is going to last that much longer, and presumably, she would announce her third party candidacy shortly after dropping out of the race of the democratic nomination.

Does anyone know how safe her position is in Hawaii?  If she's lost support of the Democratic party in Hawaii and was planning on running as an independent in the next election, I guess running as a third party candidate might make sense.  But if her job is safe in Hawaii, then running as an independent would be career suicide.

[Mudguard]

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The bolded is the relevant part, because, well, you are you!t IS the point of being the spoiler candidate, to siphon votes away from another of the two candidates. Gabbard is supposed to be a third party spoiler candidate like They Say Perot was in the Clinton - Bush election.  It's either your lack of memory or your lack of experience to not understand this.  Perot could bankroll his own campaign. Gabbard can't, so -- well, increasingly They Are Saying, Putin.

But where does Putin get all that money -- beyond klepting everything in the former Soviet Union and etc.?

If, and it's a very big if right now, Gabbard runs as a third party candidate, I would be much more willing to believe that she's somehow a Putin stooge.  But until that happens, I'm filing this along with all the other conspiracy theories.  There's virtually no evidence providing a direct link between Gabbard and Putin/Russia.  Twitter bots and mentions on RT news and meeting with Assad isn't close to enough proof to establish that she is Putin's stooge.

[sologdin]

it is an uncommonly silly and reckless accusation, the defamatory charge that a sitting member of congress is a foreign operative.  it is a common thematic among the xenophobic; those seeking to unseat the president should decline to endorse it. 

[DanteGabriel]

29 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Does anyone know how safe her position is in Hawaii?  If she's lost support of the Democratic party in Hawaii and was planning on running as an independent in the next election, I guess running as a third party candidate might make sense.  But if her job is safe in Hawaii, then running as an independent would be career suicide.

It's been a while since I looked into it, but I read some time ago that the local Dems were seriously considering a primary effort on her. She's long struck me as a Republican who ran as a Dem because that's the only way to get elected in Hawaii.

[DMC]

Yeah Clinton's comments are quite perplexing.  Casually referring to Jill Stein as "a Russian asset" and her insinuations about Gabbard reveal how bitter she still remains, and while I haven't heard the interview, I have a hard time believing David Plouffe in any way provoked the comments.  Was the million-vote increase in Stein's support from 2012 to 2016 aided by Russian bots on social media?  Sure.  But it was also aided by the fact many leftists that voted for Obama did not like Clinton (and assumed she'd win so their "protest" votes didn't matter).  And I've yet to see any credible evidence that Stein bears any responsibility for the receiving such aid from the Russians.  Moreover, Johnson had far more of an increase in support from 2012 to 2016, and that was much more costly to Clinton's campaign than Stein's increase.

But even if Clinton is intent on publicizing her bitterness and baseless speculation, she should know better and understand all her comments on Gabbard serve is to give Gabbard the attention she's so desperately seeking.  Really dumb, and confusing, stuff from Hillary.

[Jace, Extat]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah Clinton's comments are quite perplexing.  Casually referring to Jill Stein as "a Russian asset" and her insinuations about Gabbard reveal how bitter she still remains, and while I haven't heard the interview, I have a hard time believing David Plouffe in any way provoked the comments.  Was the million-vote increase in Stein's support from 2012 to 2016 aided by Russian bots on social media?  Sure.  But it was also aided by the fact many leftists that voted for Obama did not like Clinton (and assumed she'd win so their "protest" votes didn't matter).  And I've yet to see any credible evidence that Stein bears any responsibility for the receiving such aid from the Russians.  Moreover, Johnson had far more of an increase in support from 2012 to 2016, and that was much more costly to Clinton's campaign than Stein's increase.

But even if Clinton is intent on publicizing her bitterness and baseless speculation, she should know better and understand all her comments on Gabbard serve is to give Gabbard the attention she's so desperately seeking.  Really dumb, and confusing, stuff from Hillary.

Bitch can't just be bitter??? Gimmie a motherfucking break. Givet her a break, bitch.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Bitch can't just be bitter??? Gimmie a motherfucking break. Givet her a break, bitch.

I prefer she be bitter in private.  And if she's truly concerned about Gabbard, complaining about it in public only helps Tulsi achieve her apparent nefarious aims.

[Mudguard]

6 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

It's been a while since I looked into it, but I read some time ago that the local Dems were seriously considering a primary effort on her. She's long struck me as a Republican who ran as a Dem because that's the only way to get elected in Hawaii.

In the 2018 Democratic primary election, Gabbard faced two Democrats and won in a landslide by getting 83.5% of the vote.  She went on to beat the Republican in the general election by a 77 to 23 margin.  So she's super popular in her district, and doesn't appear to be in any danger of getting primaried.  Makes zero sense to run as a third party candidate.  

I'm very surprised that the New York Times ran their piece on this, and also surprised that Clinton would engage is such a conspiracy theory.  If they have real evidence, they should put it up or shut up.  As Solo mentioned, accusing a sitting member of Congress of being Putin's stooge is a highly defamatory and reckless charge unless there is very strong evidence, which no one has produced.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Clinton can say whatever she wants but it's a shame the media gives her any attention.  I agree with most of the criticism of Gabbard -the islamophobia, the nationalism, the shaky  LGBTQ support.  But the Russian asset claims are kind of ridiculous, and I think it's a huge jump to think that Gabbard would run a spoiler campaign.  

Gabbard's response was pretty funny, though.  

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

14 hours ago, felice said:

However you label it, there's no need to increase taxes on the lower-middle class at all, even by $200 a month - it's just not enough money to be worth doing. The vast majority of income in the US is earned by people in the top 50% of earners, so that's where tax increases to cover healthcare should come from. Personally I think a better definition of middle class would be the people who earn the middle third of total income - so in the US, the upper class would be about the top 2%, and the middle class would about the next 20% below that.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree, the money isn't going to come from the majority of Americans. I make the point only to say that the majority of those Americans who worry about this increase taxes need to realize they will save elsewhere, and substantially so.

[DMC]

Thinking about it, considering his central role in defeating her in 2008, I'm surprised Hillary didn't accuse Plouffe of being a Russian asset.

[Mudguard]

My concern that by setting the bar for evidence so low where twitter bot support and mentions on RT news is sufficient to prove to some democrats that one of their own members is a Russian/Putin stooge, it will be all too easy to make the same charge against a serious Democratic candidate in the primary or against the democratic nominee in the general.  All Putin needs to do is get some of his bots to support one of the candidates and have RT news put out some puff pieces, and then start putting out pieces that "connect the dots."  Hey, we've found another Putin stooge!  It's been well proven that people fall for this crap all the time, and the New York Times and Clinton aren't even random low information idiots. 

If the economy holds, it's probably going to be a close election, and stupid things like this could potentially be used to suppress democratic turnout.  It could be another close election.  I'm certain that the Russian disinformation effort will be in full force for the general election, if not before.  I'm really confused by Clinton.  Does she want Trump to win again?  Maybe she just doesn't give a fuck at this point who wins.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

I'm really confused by Clinton.

Indeed.  And 100% agreed with your concern.  Fortunately, as far as I can tell, all the Dem candidates have ignored this thus far (well, except Booker's tweet, which was pretty damn funny).  Hopefully they continue to and refuse to take the bait whenever they're inevitably asked about this.

[Serious Callers Only]

Can't the woman speak the truth? Tulsi *is* a russian/Gop spoiler. And Yang too probably though probably more as a target of opportunity.

[DMC]

Anybody see how much money Mark Kelly has raised?

Quote

The former astronaut, gun control activist and husband of Gabrielle Giffords has established a veritable cash gusher in Arizona, raising nearly $14 million this year, including $5.6 million in the last three months alone. Combined with his compelling biography, Kelly, a Democrat running for elected office for the first time, has laid the groundwork for a serious bid to unseat GOP Sen. Martha McSally in a critical battleground for Senate control.

Wowzers.

[Larry of the Lawn]

41 minutes ago, Serious Callers Only said:

Can't the woman speak the truth? Tulsi *is* a russian/Gop spoiler. And Yang too probably though probably more as a target of opportunity.

Evidence?  I mean just because the alt-right and fringe elements like her doesn't make her a Russian asset or a spoiler.

Still laughing at the idea Gabbard thinks this primary is now between her and Clinton.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

23 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Evidence?  I mean just because the alt-right and fringe elements like her doesn't make her a Russian asset or a spoiler.

Still laughing at the idea Gabbard thinks this primary is now between her and Clinton.

She strikes me as far too intelligent for that. 

...but I just can't see her angle on that comment about her and Clinton. Is she perhaps calling Clinton as inconsequential as herself?

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

She strikes me as far too intelligent for that. 

...but I just can't see her angle on that comment about her and Clinton. Is she perhaps calling Clinton as inconsequential as herself?

Maybe?  The whole thing is stupidly funny.  And apparently she went on Tucker Carlson's show to talk about all this?  

 

[ThinkerX]

Need I remind the boarders here that Clinton was so disliked by many in her party that a significant percentage of democratic voters stayed home rather than vote for her?  And that furthermore, they had ample reason for their dislike.