LogFAQs > #928958817

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic 244: All Presidents of the Last Century are Criminals
ChaosTonyV4 10/19/19 3:27:02 AM #224:	Nrrr posted... Tulsi and her campaign are completely incoherent, but it's certainly believable she would carry a grudge after Tulsi endorsed Bernie last time. If you recall, after losing to Obama in 08, Hillary had a giant list of betrayals sorted by the level of betrayed she felt. That seems a bit vindictive. And it is wildly stupid to be fear mongering about Jill Stein, who is not even a candidate for the green party this year, it will almost certainly be Howie Hawkins. And if 'American assets' tell us we have to keep doing forever wars and universal healthcare will never ever happen, then the only rational answer is eat all the rich regardless of nation. They are useless and do not have any of our interests in mind. Nrrr posted... Tulsi has like 1% support and more people like her who aren't Dems than who are because she is basically a paleoconservative. Her main proponent has been Joe Rogan and Jimmy Dore, not Russian bots. You all seem completely deranged. Almost all regular people get their opinions from the mainstream media and mainstream news sources and Russian bots have minimal reach, and there is zero evidence to support that Russia is using bots to support Tulsi Gabbard, and if they are it isn't working. The biggest press she has gotten so far besides Joe Rogan is Hillary Clinton's accusations. You think Cyclo unironically supports Tulsi while calling her incoherent and a paleoconservative? Russian bots are a thing, but Tulsi literally has two pretty wide-reaching people publicly in her corner. When you essentially say her support is entirely Russian, you look foolish, because A) Those two people exist B) She has less than 2% support, so what is Russia even doing? All Hillary did by saying Tulsi is a Russian asset is make an undetermined amount of news cycles about Tulsi, and with her epic clapback. And while I think Tulsis response was corny and weak af, I see a lot of people who I know arent Russian bots taking her side because of reason A above. Again I ask: Wheres the benefit? --- Phantom Dust. "I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:928958817] in Politics C... [t:78093278]...</cite> <quote><cite>Nrrr posted...</cite> <quote>Tulsi and her campaign are completely incoherent, but it's certainly believable she would carry a grudge after Tulsi endorsed Bernie last time. If you recall, after losing to Obama in 08, Hillary had a giant list of betrayals sorted by the level of betrayed she felt. That seems a bit vindictive. And it is wildly stupid to be fear mongering about Jill Stein, who is not even a candidate for the green party this year, it will almost certainly be Howie Hawkins. And if 'American assets' tell us we have to keep doing forever wars and universal healthcare will never ever happen, then the only rational answer is eat all the rich regardless of nation. They are useless and do not have any of our interests in mind. </quote> <cite>Nrrr posted...</cite> <quote>Tulsi has like 1% support and more people like her who aren't Dems than who are because she is basically a paleoconservative. Her main proponent has been Joe Rogan and Jimmy Dore, not Russian bots. You all seem completely deranged. Almost all regular people get their opinions from the mainstream media and mainstream news sources and Russian bots have minimal reach, and there is zero evidence to support that Russia is using bots to support Tulsi Gabbard, and if they are it isn't working. The biggest press she has gotten so far besides Joe Rogan is Hillary Clinton's accusations. </quote> You think Cyclo unironically supports Tulsi while calling her incoherent and a paleoconservative? Russian bots are a thing, but Tulsi literally has two pretty wide-reaching people publicly in her corner. When you essentially say her support is entirely Russian, you look foolish, because A) Those two people exist B) She has less than 2% support, so what is Russia even doing? All Hillary did by saying Tulsi is a Russian asset is make an undetermined amount of news cycles about Tulsi, and with her epic clapback. And while I think Tulsis response was corny and weak af, I see a lot of people who I know arent Russian bots taking her side because of reason A above. Again I ask: Wheres the benefit? --- Phantom Dust. "I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1