Demonicrats now saying Gabbard in "collusion" with Russia

[IM2]

Well, Hillary has officially lost her mind.

I doubt that.

True. It's more likely she's simply a lying propagandist.

No, you are a dumb American that fell for 25 years republican propaganda.

Tulsi Gabbard is a scrub. She gets props here because white supremacists love her. But she's making no inroads with democrats.

 

[IM2]

FYI. crazy Hillary attacked Tulsi. You seem to think it was the other way around.

Gawd almighty, Gipper, you just documented Gabbard's tweet, to which I was just referring.

If you put a paper bag on your mouth and calm down for a while, and read again what Hillary actually said, you may find another picture emerging. Hillary spoke about a Russian disinformation campaign targeting and boosting someone to build up a third-party candidate. There wasn't even a hint of an allegation that Gabbard would be in on that plot, and there appears to be evidence that Russian botnets are boosting Gabbard's campaign.

Now, once you've calmed down for a while, and bear in mind that Hillary was the target of a Russian disinformation campaign, you may eventually realize that she very, very understandably speaks up to prevent a repetition targeting whoever the next Democratic nominee will be. She has every right to do so, just as every other citizen concerned about the integrity of elections.

You, however, seem to be a dumb goof in the Buttercup mold, and with the same Hillary affliction, but entirely unconcerned with elections meddled with so as to further Russian interests. But hey, you have your "crazy Hillary" talking point properly memorized. Have a pat on the head, gipper!

What? Hillary attacked Tulsi FIRST. The warmongering ***** claimed Tulsi is a Russian asset. Would you not agree, that is a damning accusation? A very damning accusation. Tulsi responded in kind.

Why do you have a problem with this?

Hillary Clinton is a far superior mind than Gabbard. Gabbard spoke some dumb shit in response. Hillary was never convicted of any crime, zero corruption, and this dumb woman actually repeated some fact less shit.

 

[buttercup]

That's the most hatefully dishonest reply I've seen here in a long time.

Being opposed to unconstitutional needless wars based on lies is not "isolationism." When did Democrats become the pro-war party? You act as if it's a bad thing to not be a warmonger.

Second lie, she doesn't have a "penchant" for any of those people. Those are the same lies that people told about Ron Paul. And the reason some conservatives like her is because she's not a warmongering, amoral blind partisan... unlike the others, she appears to actually think for herself, and calls the others out on corruption and their hate and divisiveness.

Oh, cool your jets, willya, buttercup? I spoke about the rightards' perceptions and what has allure to them, dripping with sarcasm. I actually thought that was obvious. But yes, if you're getting praise from both Ron Paul, the racist crackpot, and David Duke, the neo-Nazi, while you find yourself holding hands with the Butcher of Damascus, a bit of soul-searching would be quite a propos, don't you think? ... and I am saying that while liking her not fitting into any mold - just to clarify.

Nice Doublespeak.

Why should she do some "soul-searching" while at the same time I don't hear anything from you or others about warmongers like Hillary, who literally laugh at the prospect of "taking out" entire countries and getting into WW3? No soul-searching needed for those with a long sordid history of corruption, but only for someone who actually appears to be principled and against unjust unnecessary wars?

Hillary Clinton did not have a long history of corruption. She had a long history of being accused of things that never turned out to be true. Tulsi Gabbard is polling low and she's out there campaigning like everybody else. So her ideas just aren't reasonating with the people.

Yeah, and Al Capone was 98% pure as the driven snow, because his only conviction was tax evasion.

As for Tulsi's ideas not resonating with Democrats, that baffles me. I mean, on nearly all positions, she is very much a typical liberal Democrat. The only thing she is against is unconstitutional unjust wars... and I thought Democrats were mostly against war, especially imperialist wars? It's odd and very sad that Democrats have become the party of imperialist warmongers.

Conservatives are all about war. Conservatives supported the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and whatever we have to do to fight ISIS. They have never shut up about Obama pulling the troops out of Iraq despite the fact that date was set by Bush.

Ron Paul was a racist piece of trash. And the Democrats running aren't warmongers. Gabbard is the only one talking about the military all the time. Gabbard is out there talking to the people and her poll numbers are low. So it is apparent her vision is not resonating.

And I asked you to name a crime Hillary Clinton was indicted for. Talking about Al Capone is not the answer.



And you fell for this okie doke bullshit.

Now tell me what crimes Clinton was indicted for.

I'm not for war, and the conservatives I know aren't. You're talking specifically about neocons. As for Ron Paul, you're believing the lies from the ESTABLISHMENT who obviously were against him, because he's not a corrupt globalist establishment sellout like most of them are at the higher levels.

As for what you said about the Democrats running not being warmongers, I was not speaking about the candidates running, I said that it's baffling to me that Democrats (in general) seem to have become the pro-war party. I don't see any protests like there were in the past, I don't see anyone calling out people like Hillary or other known warmongers, and - by your own admission - they don't like the one candidate who is speaking out against the neverending unconstitutional wars based on lies. Are we living in upside-down land?

As for Hillary and indictments, what you and a few others here don't seem to grasp is that the entire system is corrupt, and when you have a corrupt government, there is no actual justice, they may go through the motions but ultimately they protect their own. That's why you have to stop believing the establishment politicians and media, and seek the truth on your own. If you care. I hope you do.

 

[Olde Europe]

What? Hillary attacked Tulsi FIRST. The warmongering ***** claimed Tulsi is a Russian asset. Would you not agree, that is a damning accusation? A very damning accusation. Tulsi responded in kind.

Why do you have a problem with this?

So, calming down was not an option, eh? Isn't a spluttering apoplexy of that duration a health risk - at your age?

Hillary didn't even mention Gabbard. She cannot, therefore, have called her a "Russian asset". Goes without saying, she did not. That's merely what your propaganda handlers shoved down your throat, and that's what you are regurgitating here.

Again, you memorized the rightarded talking point well. Want another pat on the head?

 

[IM2]

Nice Doublespeak.

Why should she do some "soul-searching" while at the same time I don't hear anything from you or others about warmongers like Hillary, who literally laugh at the prospect of "taking out" entire countries and getting into WW3? No soul-searching needed for those with a long sordid history of corruption, but only for someone who actually appears to be principled and against unjust unnecessary wars?

As usual, "Nice Doublespeak" is another way to express "nuance beyond my comprehension". Not that there's any surprise in that.

Otherwise, seek help with your weird Hillary obsession. We all understand she frightens you to death, the "evil witch", but you really, really need to get over that. It sure is unhealthy.

Wrong on all counts. She doesn't frighten me at all, but what is a bit disturbing to me is that so many Democrats are horrible judges of character, and seem to gravitate to the worst possible politicians, while throwing out the very rare decent ones. But I guess it's not just Democrats who do that, Republicans did the same thing. I'm getting tired of the whole situation, I'm getting to the point of thinking people get the government they deserve.

Again, Tulsi Gabbard is out on the trail. She is polling low. The people are listening to her and her message is not what people want. She is not the only vet running who is against war. And when it came to that discussion, she got chewed up by Buttigieg and a couple of others. She is not a viable candidate.

 

[BluesLegend]

Hillary Clinton is a far superior mind than Gabbard.

I'm sure you're right ^^^

 

[IM2]

Oh, cool your jets, willya, buttercup? I spoke about the rightards' perceptions and what has allure to them, dripping with sarcasm. I actually thought that was obvious. But yes, if you're getting praise from both Ron Paul, the racist crackpot, and David Duke, the neo-Nazi, while you find yourself holding hands with the Butcher of Damascus, a bit of soul-searching would be quite a propos, don't you think? ... and I am saying that while liking her not fitting into any mold - just to clarify.

Nice Doublespeak.

Why should she do some "soul-searching" while at the same time I don't hear anything from you or others about warmongers like Hillary, who literally laugh at the prospect of "taking out" entire countries and getting into WW3? No soul-searching needed for those with a long sordid history of corruption, but only for someone who actually appears to be principled and against unjust unnecessary wars?

Hillary Clinton did not have a long history of corruption. She had a long history of being accused of things that never turned out to be true. Tulsi Gabbard is polling low and she's out there campaigning like everybody else. So her ideas just aren't reasonating with the people.

Yeah, and Al Capone was 98% pure as the driven snow, because his only conviction was tax evasion.

As for Tulsi's ideas not resonating with Democrats, that baffles me. I mean, on nearly all positions, she is very much a typical liberal Democrat. The only thing she is against is unconstitutional unjust wars... and I thought Democrats were mostly against war, especially imperialist wars? It's odd and very sad that Democrats have become the party of imperialist warmongers.

Conservatives are all about war. Conservatives supported the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and whatever we have to do to fight ISIS. They have never shut up about Obama pulling the troops out of Iraq despite the fact that date was set by Bush.

Ron Paul was a racist piece of trash. And the Democrats running aren't warmongers. Gabbard is the only one talking about the military all the time. Gabbard is out there talking to the people and her poll numbers are low. So it is apparent her vision is not resonating.

And I asked you to name a crime Hillary Clinton was indicted for. Talking about Al Capone is not the answer.



And you fell for this okie doke bullshit.

Now tell me what crimes Clinton was indicted for.

I'm not for war, and the conservatives I know aren't. You're talking specifically about neocons. As for Ron Paul, you're believing the lies from the ESTABLISHMENT who obviously were against him, because he's not a corrupt globalist establishment sellout like most of them are at the higher levels.

As for what you said about the Democrats running not being warmongers, I was not speaking about the candidates running, I said that it's baffling to me that Democrats (in general) seem to have become the pro-war party. I don't see any protests like there were in the past, I don't see anyone calling out people like Hillary or other known warmongers, and - by your own admission - they don't like the one candidate who is speaking out against the neverending unconstitutional wars based on lies. Are we living in upside-down land?

As for Hillary and indictments, what you and a few others here don't seem to grasp is that the entire system is corrupt, and when you have a corrupt government, there is no actual justice, they may go through the motions but ultimately they protect their own. That's why you have to stop believing the establishment politicians and media, and seek the truth on your own. If you care. I hope you do.

I think I know plenty about the system. Hillary has never been indicted of any crime and she has undergone extensive investigations. Hillary's corruption is made up. And as Gabbard is a candidate then you talking about non candidates is irrelevant. I don't know any democrat that supports pre emptive war. Why in the **** is anyone going to call out Hillary?

All the candidates have spoken out against unjust wars.

Last, you are the one falling for things. So I suggest that YOU stop believing amateur fake news conspiracy peddling online idiots.

 

[gipper]

What? Hillary attacked Tulsi FIRST. The warmongering ***** claimed Tulsi is a Russian asset. Would you not agree, that is a damning accusation? A very damning accusation. Tulsi responded in kind.

Why do you have a problem with this?

So, calming down was not an option, eh? Isn't a spluttering apoplexy of that duration a health risk - at your age?

Hillary didn't even mention Gabbard. She cannot, therefore, have called her a "Russian asset". Goes without saying, she did not. That's merely what your propaganda handlers shoved down your throat, and that's what you are regurgitating here.

Again, you memorized the rightarded talking point well. Want another pat on the head?

You aren’t paying attention. Why?

Do you like Crazy Hillat?

 

[IM2]

Hillary Clinton is a far superior mind than Gabbard.

I'm sure you're right ^^^

Let me know when Gabbard has achieved what Clinton has.

 

[BluesLegend]

Hillary has never been indicted of any crime and she has undergone extensive investigations.

The State Department just released an investigation that found 600 Hillary email violations.

 

[BluesLegend]

Hillary Clinton is a far superior mind than Gabbard.

I'm sure you're right ^^^

Let me know when Gabbard has achieved what Clinton has.

LMAO go ahead list Clinton's career accomplishments in her government jobs. I'll just laugh at you know to save time

 

[peach174]

What? Hillary attacked Tulsi FIRST. The warmongering ***** claimed Tulsi is a Russian asset. Would you not agree, that is a damning accusation? A very damning accusation. Tulsi responded in kind.

Why do you have a problem with this?

So, calming down was not an option, eh? Isn't a spluttering apoplexy of that duration a health risk - at your age?

Hillary didn't even mention Gabbard. She cannot, therefore, have called her a "Russian asset". Goes without saying, she did not. That's merely what your propaganda handlers shoved down your throat, and that's what you are regurgitating here.

Again, you memorized the rightarded talking point well. Want another pat on the head?

Gabbard has been accused by Dems of wanting to go independent, so yes she meant her without using her name.

She's not one of them so they think she might run as an independent after the primary. Even though she has said she's not.
She fought to get on that 4th debate.That's how biased they are.
Like no one but their far left radical ideology is allowed to run for the Democratic party.

 

[Lakhota]

You Democrats should take it as God-spell too, just as you always do.

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

I agree with Hillary! Gabbard loves Assad and Putin. She should move to Syria or Russia.

Tulsi Gabbard Rips Hillary Clinton In Twitter Tirade As A ‘Rot’ Sickening Democratic Party

 

[IM2]

Hillary Clinton is a far superior mind than Gabbard.

I'm sure you're right ^^^

Let me know when Gabbard has achieved what Clinton has.

LMAO go ahead list Clinton's career accomplishments in her government jobs. I'll just laugh at you know to save time

Gabbard has worked for the government.

Why do you nuts think that working for the government is so easy to do?

And do you laugh at me now or know?

 

[IM2]

What? Hillary attacked Tulsi FIRST. The warmongering ***** claimed Tulsi is a Russian asset. Would you not agree, that is a damning accusation? A very damning accusation. Tulsi responded in kind.

Why do you have a problem with this?

So, calming down was not an option, eh? Isn't a spluttering apoplexy of that duration a health risk - at your age?

Hillary didn't even mention Gabbard. She cannot, therefore, have called her a "Russian asset". Goes without saying, she did not. That's merely what your propaganda handlers shoved down your throat, and that's what you are regurgitating here.

Again, you memorized the rightarded talking point well. Want another pat on the head?

Gabbard has been accused by Dems of wanting to go independent, so yes she meant her without using her name.

She's not one of them so they think she might run as an independent after the primary. Even though she has said she's not.
She fought to get on that 4th debate.That's how biased they are.
Like no one but their far left radical ideology is allowed to run for the Democratic party.

Wrong. She had to qualify to get into that debate. The people in those debates are there because they meet qualifying standards. You can't qualify as a candidate when you're at zero percent in the polls.

The more right wingers who show support for her, the less support she will get from democratic voters.

 

[Olde Europe]

So, calming down was not an option, eh? Isn't a spluttering apoplexy of that duration a health risk - at your age?

Hillary didn't even mention Gabbard. She cannot, therefore, have called her a "Russian asset". Goes without saying, she did not. That's merely what your propaganda handlers shoved down your throat, and that's what you are regurgitating here.

Again, you memorized the rightarded talking point well. Want another pat on the head?

Gabbard has been accused by Dems of wanting to go independent, so yes she meant her without using her name.

She's not one of them so they think she might run as an independent after the primary. Even though she has said she's not.
She fought to get on that 4th debate.That's how biased they are.
Like no one but their far left radical ideology is allowed to run for the Democratic party.

You know, Peach, read my posting as often as necessary to understand why the discombobulated nonsense you've been scribbling doesn't address my point.

Just in short, Hillary still didn't call Gabbard a "Russian asset". No way, no how.

That low-polling candidates have no guarantee of participation in the debates isn't proof of bias. Just a result of low poll numbers - if you can't mount a viable campaign, you're out, and some were out. And that's still not "bias".

Arguably, in terms of war and peace, Gabbard runs slightly to the left of the field. There is no one in the field who would remotely qualify as "far left radical".

In short, it's hard to see how you could be more wrong. Was that deliberate?

 

[JustAGuy1]

So, calming down was not an option, eh? Isn't a spluttering apoplexy of that duration a health risk - at your age?

Hillary didn't even mention Gabbard. She cannot, therefore, have called her a "Russian asset". Goes without saying, she did not. That's merely what your propaganda handlers shoved down your throat, and that's what you are regurgitating here.

Again, you memorized the rightarded talking point well. Want another pat on the head?

Gabbard has been accused by Dems of wanting to go independent, so yes she meant her without using her name.

She's not one of them so they think she might run as an independent after the primary. Even though she has said she's not.
She fought to get on that 4th debate.That's how biased they are.
Like no one but their far left radical ideology is allowed to run for the Democratic party.

You know, Peach, read my posting as often as necessary to understand why the discombobulated nonsense you've been scribbling doesn't address my point.

Just in short, Hillary still didn't call Gabbard a "Russian asset". No way, no how.

That low-polling candidates have no guarantee of participation in the debates isn't proof of bias. Just a result of low poll numbers - if you can't mount a viable campaign, you're out, and some were out. And that's still not "bias".

Arguably, in terms of war and peace, Gabbard runs slightly to the left of the field. There is no one in the field who would remotely qualify as "far left radical".

In short, it's hard to see how you could be more wrong. Was that deliberate?

The to whom was she referring?

 

[peach174]

What? Hillary attacked Tulsi FIRST. The warmongering ***** claimed Tulsi is a Russian asset. Would you not agree, that is a damning accusation? A very damning accusation. Tulsi responded in kind.

Why do you have a problem with this?

So, calming down was not an option, eh? Isn't a spluttering apoplexy of that duration a health risk - at your age?

Hillary didn't even mention Gabbard. She cannot, therefore, have called her a "Russian asset". Goes without saying, she did not. That's merely what your propaganda handlers shoved down your throat, and that's what you are regurgitating here.

Again, you memorized the rightarded talking point well. Want another pat on the head?

Gabbard has been accused by Dems of wanting to go independent, so yes she meant her without using her name.

She's not one of them so they think she might run as an independent after the primary. Even though she has said she's not.
She fought to get on that 4th debate.That's how biased they are.
Like no one but their far left radical ideology is allowed to run for the Democratic party.

Wrong. She had to qualify to get into that debate. The people in those debates are there because they meet qualifying standards. You can't qualify as a candidate when you're at zero percent in the polls.

The more right wingers who show support for her, the less support she will get from democratic voters.

Yes and she fought to get those qualifications.

Right wingers will never ever vote for Dems.
You're confusing praise with support.

 

[Olde Europe]

The to whom was she referring?

Somebody.

“I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians,” Clinton in an interview with former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe."

Savvy now?

Still, no mention of "Russian asset". Not a hint of it.

BTW: "The to whom..."

You shouldn't start drinking that early.

 

[JustAGuy1]

The to whom was she referring?

Somebody.

“I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians,” Clinton in an interview with former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe."

Savvy now?

Still, no mention of "Russian asset". Not a hint of it.

BTW: "The to whom..."

You shouldn't start drinking that early.

LOL, you're a twit.
You can Parse shit with the weak minded not me.