What is with Hillary Clinton what is she doing?

[_Jersey Girl]

What is Hillary Clinton's deal with accusing Tulsi Gabbard (and Jill Stein) of having ties to Russia and/or being Russian assets? Tulsi is Russian's favored candidate? Why does she say this? How would she know?

What is she thinking? Why's she doing this?

Gabbard now ties Hillary Clinton to the rumors about her relationship with Russia.

What's going on? Anyone?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

A hot take from Reddit:

[–]Portarossa

[+3]'probably the worst poster on this sub' - /u/Real_Mila_Kunis 4460 points 1 day ago*6

Answer:

Tulsi Gabbard has been kind of a divisive figure this election cycle. She's never been near the top of the Democrats running for the Presidency; Gabbard has a history of saying things that make her troubling for a lot of Democrats. (For example, historically she was in favour of a constitutional amendment against same sex marriage, although she came around on the issue after serving in the Gulf; however, she was also one of Obama's staunchest critics when it came to dealing with ISIS, which put her at odds with the Democratic establishment, and is troublingly close to the Assad regime in Syria for a lot of Democrats.) Some people think that makes her more electable, or that it might help to woo Trump 2016 voters to the Democratic side in 2020. On the other hand -- as we saw with Bernie Sanders in 2016 -- the DNC doesn't exactly like people who rock the boat, and it can be difficult to gain a national platform if the DNC is against you. Gabbard has been very vocal about the fact that she feels as though she's being pushed down by the DNC, but how true that is is... still up for debate, let's say. Again, a similar complaint often emerged from Sanders supporters in 2016; the crucial difference there is that Sanders eventually managed to pull together more than 40% of the vote against Hillary Clinton, the DNC's favoured candidate. Gabbard has been consistently polling at about 1%, and didn't even qualify for the third debate. She did, however, qualify for the fourth, as it had the same qualification requirements but a greater time period in which to qualify.

Recently Hillary Clinton has spoken out to heavily, heavily imply that Gabbard is being groomed by the Russians as a sort of spoiler vote:

“I’m not making any predictions but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary, and they’re grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” the former secretary of state told David Plouffe in his “Campaign HQ” podcast without providing evidence.

“She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”

The idea, through Clinton, is that -- like Jill Stein (allegedly) in 2016 -- Gabbard will run as a third party and 'steal' votes away from the Democrats, allowing a Trump victory; it might be hard to get Democrats to vote for Trump, but getting them to vote for Gabbard (again, according to Clinton's idea) would be easier, and almost equally damaging. On paper at least, Gabbard has a lot going for her, especially as far as voters who might oppose a more mainstream DNC candidate (such as Biden) might be concerned: she served in the military (and describes herself as 'hawkish' on terrorism, but not on foreign intervention in general), she was an early supporter of Bernie Sanders (himself, as we've seen, not exactly a DNC darling), and she was one of the first people to suggest that she might work with the Trump administration if the offer came in (important for centrists and swing voters). Considering that a large part of the reason Clinton wasn't elected in 2016 was that Democrats, dissatisfied with her as a candidate, just stayed home -- and it was a close-run thing; if only 107,000 Trump voters had not voted (or 55,000 of them had switched their votes) in the right districts, Clinton would have taken the electoral college as well as the popular vote -- the idea of the often-cited (but largely overblown) Perot effect is a significant concern for the DNC going into 2020.

This is a pretty big accusation, given the fact that that part of the reason -- and yes, it's part of the reason; however much you believe it is generally depends on which side of the aisle you're on, but it's a pretty well-attested fact at this point that there was at least some meddling by the Russian government in the 2016 election and it was designed to benefit the campaign of Donald Trump -- Trump is in the White House as we speak is because of precisely the kind of election interference that Clinton is warning about. Gabbard, understandably, isn't happy about it, hence the angry tweets calling out Clinton:

Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.

Again, that's probably a stretch: just as Clinton doesn't seem to have any evidence that Gabbard is being groomed as a spoiler candidate by Russia, Gabbard also doesn't seem to have any evidence that Clinton is singlehandedly behind some enormous inter-organisational coalition with the media to bring down a campaign that, it bears repeating, is still only hitting about 1% in the polls.

Gabbard's supporters are going after Clinton for her record. Clinton's supporters are going after Gabbard for her record. Twitter is going pretty hot and heavy, and it's fair to say that the base -- both for and against Gabbard -- is pretty riled up. It's getting her attention that she might not otherwise have had, but whether it has any significant upwards or downwards effect on her polling is up in the air.

Tl;dr - Gabbard is a DINO (Democrat in name only) who couldn't get elected in Hawaii without being a registered Dem. She comes from a political family and is considered too Trump friendly by Dems based on her historical behavior.

Doc Cam's hot take:

She's more or less a centrist, which makes her a Nazi to most Dems these days. I've never been big on her, mostly because she's a non-starter for a Presidential run. Supporting her would be akin to supporting any of the other candidates who are polling at or around 1%. Even as I say that I feel hypocritical because I like Mayor Pete and would vote for him in a NY second.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Here's another hot take I just saw on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comme ... m/f4b0zqm/

[–]Preech

New York 3528 points 18 hours ago*75

Here are some things people need to know about Tulsi Gabbard:

Tulsi Gabbard comes from a family of conservative activists, most famous for their opposition to gay marriage in Hawaii: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tuls ... atic-party

Tulsi Gabbard has said her personal views on LGBT equality haven't changed as recently as 2015: https://www.ozy.com/rising-stars/tulsi- ... inet/62604

Tulsi Gabbard is rated "F" by Progressive Punch for voting with Republicans, despite the strong progressive lean of her district: https://imgur.com/wDhVNKq
Tulsi Gabbard was nearly a part of Trump's cabinet at Steve bannon's suggestion: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democra ... d=43696303 https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... rd-meeting

Tulsi Gabbard has also been praised multiple times by Steve Bannon, Trump's former strategist and prolific white nationalist propagandist: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/3635 ... interview/

Tulsi Gabbard declined to join 169 Democrats in condemning Trump for appointing Steve Bannon to his cabinet: https://mauitime.com/news/politics/why- ... en-bannon/

Tulsi Gabbard isn't anti-war. She's a self-described hawk against terrorists. Her narrow objections center around efforts to spread democracy: "In short, when it comes to the war against terrorists, I'm a hawk," Gabbard said. "When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I'm a dove.": https://www.votetulsi.com/node/27796

Tulsi Gabbard copies the rhetoric of Republicans: Gabbard voted against condemning Bashar al-Assad, president of Syria, and was praised by conservative media for publicly challenging President Barack Obama over his refusal to use the term "Islamic extremism" when discussing terrorism: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... -islamic-/

Tulsi Gabbard also copies the policy of Republicans, voting with them to block Syrian refugees: https://medium.com/@pplswar/tulsi-gabba ... 463d0a7a5a

Tulsi Gabbard has multiple connections to Hindu nationalists: https://www.alternet.org/civil-libertie ... si-gabbard

Tulsi Gabbard frequently repeats Russian talking points and works to legitimize Assad: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -democrats

Tulsi Gabbard was one of only 3 representatives to not condemn Assad for gassing Syrian civilians and the only Democrat: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con ... n/121/text https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... a-backlash

Tulsi Gabbard has introduced legislation pushed by GOP-megadonor, Sheldon Adelson: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... BJ20140326

Tulsi was later awarded a "Champions of Freedom" medal at Adelson's annual gala in 2016: https://www.thedailybeast.com/tulsi-gab ... s-can-love

Senator Mazie Hirono from Hawaii did not endorse Tulsi's 2020 bid due to concerns of Tulsi's lack of a progressive record. Senator Hirono said she would be "looking for someone who has a long record of supporting progressive goals" when asked if she will support Gabbard in the Democratic primary.

Tulsi Gabbard was born into a cult called the Science of Identity. It was created in the 1970's and is led by a white man named Chris Butler, but he calls himself Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa. Tulsi's own aunt has come forward and called it the “alt-right of the Hare Krishna movement”. To this day she is an active member and some of her campaign staff come directly from that cult. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06 ... paign.html

- Doc

[_moksha]

I have read stories on how Jill Stein's 3rd party candidacy was part of the initiative to put the Kremlin candidate in the White House.

I knew the Kremlin had the ear of Republican Dana Rohrabacher in Congress but did not realize they had purchased anyone else.

[_honorentheos]

I think by grooming they mean tilting the field to get her to run as a third party candidate. As Cam said above, it's a much closer race than some people seem to think with the electoral college being what it is, and a third party candidate would be one of any number of factors that could put Trump back in the White House on the slimmest of victory margins. If Ohio isn't purple but likely red, Pennsylvania and Florida could decide the election, and micro-targeted campaign messages at voters in those two states the get just enough Dem voters to stay home out of disgust with the DNC or vote third party could be all that's needed to win the election.

Clinton, though, was about as strategic as a bronco with a hornet caught under its saddle. I'm sure the thinking was that putting it out in the open would help counter it. But she made it look like the DNC is trying to keep Gabbard down which probably just helped make the message appear credible that could justify Gabbard running as a third party.

[_Icarus]

It just means Russia sees her as an asset, and that wouldn't require her compliance. They're using her as an asset the same way they did Jill Stein by trying to help her get votes as a third party candidate.

[_EAllusion]

Stein was overtly groomed by Russia. The entanglement was deep. Gabbard seems oddly pro-Russian interests in her views, but there isn’t the same level of connection that you can make with Stein (or Trump). She’s boosted heavily by Russian disinformation sources and is clearly preferred by them in the way Stein was as.

Gabbard is beloved by the alt-right partly because of her alt-right friendly views and partly because Russian propaganda has a lot of pull on the views of that crowd.

Clinton is just stating what a lot of people know. It reminds me of the 2016 election to watch her get dragged for stating the obvious, but she should be cognizant if how much the beltway media hates her and how her comments refract through that lens. This should not have been its own media cycle.

[_EAllusion]

Gabbard has more Russian connection than just being a their preferred candidate to vote split. Russia backed Bernie for that reason too and he doesn’t have any connection to the Putin government. Gabbard, on the other hand, has met with Russian cut outs and actively sought to promote their military interests even when they’ve diverged from the US’s. She is Trumpesque in that respect. And like Trump, she has an unearned reputation for being anti-war, when in reality she’s quite hawkish in a way that just differs from standard DC views.

The uniting theme for her is she despises Muslims and tends to ally with people seeking to crush them. This ends up having her allied with the global illiberal movements.

[_Dr Exiled]

Stein was overtly groomed by Russia. The entanglement was deep. Gabbard seems oddly pro-Russian interests in her views, but there isn’t the same level of connection that you can make with Stein (or Trump). She’s boosted heavily by Russian disinformation sources and is clearly preferred by them in the way Stein was as.

Gabbard is beloved by the alt-right partly because of her alt-right friendly views and partly because Russian propaganda has a lot of pull on the views of that crowd.

Clinton is just stating what a lot of people know. It reminds me of the 2016 election to watch her get dragged for stating the obvious, but she should be cognizant if how much the beltway media hates her and how her comments refract through that lens. This should not have been its own media cycle.

Could you point me to the proof that Stein was overtly groomed by Russia? Are there emails, video or written documents showing this? Are there eye-witnesses? The Green Party denies it (just like the Russians would do???) https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/green-party-hillary-clinton-jill-stein-russian-asset-901008/.

It seems the democratic party establishment wants to push the silly idea that anyone who disagrees with them is a russian asset or a conservative captive.

Is anyone who disagrees with Hillary a possible russian asset or conservative captive in your opinion? Is it that black and white?

As an aside, I thought the Comey caused the defeat was the better, more reality based excuse for Hillary's loss. If we can recall, Trump was pushing a lock her up meme in the last phase of the 2016 election and scored some points in one of the debates, and then Comey did his about-face right before the election. I know the the Clinton campaign operatives with whom I watched the election returns back in 2016 were fuming at what Comey did. They blamed him for the loss (excited utterance anyone?). It seemed logical at the time to blame him. HOWEVER, this would have opened up Hillary to further investigation/questioning in the media and/or population of the lost emails/private foia evading server issue. So, I can see how the Russia made me lose meme was the better choice. It's that it is so devoid of proof and assumes that people cannot view information and decide for themselves.

Do you think that it is possible to independently disagree with Hillary and/or the consensus of the donor class/war-mongers? Or is the russian influence/fox news influence so great that it is impossible to disagree with Hillary without being a putin puppet or conservative captive?

[_honorentheos]

Do you think that it is possible to independently disagree with Hillary and/or the consensus of the donor class/war-mongers? Or is the russian influence/fox news influence so great that it is impossible to disagree with Hillary without being a putin puppet or conservative captive?

How would one know the difference, and at this point could there be such a person who could claim to be both informed and not have a significant amount of the evidence counter Russian interference not come from, well, Russian and Russian/Trump-friendly sources?