I don’t think they put out any colouring-books with swole Trump, either. Laundering sums of money into small transactions is a yuge part of what botnets are actually used for, so maybe small-dollar Bernie has some dirt on him, too?
More seriously, I’m not trying to deny or diminish Russian attempts at interference. I just think it’s wildly disproportionate to make it a central feature of planning and strategising electorally. It’s narrow in its scope and difficult to police - other factors like voter suppression seem both more pervasive and more tractable.
As for the showing strength stuff, I mean sure, fine. That’s a foreign policy question a long way away from HUACing Gabbard for ostensibly not caring very much what Russia Today says about her.
I did not, I’ll confess. Saw through that careerist shill the second he became more than an unusual name. I mention this only because I don’t actually book too many wins in this regard.
This is a politics discussion site right? It’s absolutely bizarre that various people keep saying things like “why are we taking about Pete he’s polling at 4%” “why are we talking about Biden he’s never going to win” etc.
This isn’t a campaign HQ where we need message discipline. It’s a place where we argue with each other and refine those arguments (and vent) by having them over and over again. For a lot of people it’s just a place to vent. Various people discuss the race in terms of practicalities and reading the mood of the people, and a lot of other people discuss it in terms of who has the plans that, in a perfect world, would be best.
This place isn’t quite what the old politics forum was, mostly because we don’t have a right wing presence and so we’re forced to argue against tweets and articles that we find and post. That’s obviously going to end up with us dunking on disingenuous arguments pretty often. But with that said this place is still the most intelligent place on the internet to talk politics, in my opinion, and I think that’s largely because we don’t accept stuff like “well Pete has concerns about how we’ll pay for it” and move on.
Anecdotally I think Pete has the most support among my social circle, which isn’t particularly surprising given the fact that they’re mostly yuppie white people, and this thread makes it easier for me to give a one minute summary of why I’m not so hot on him.
Grunch. Sometimes this attack is not fair as many of these donations are just regular donations (could be $20, but less than $2800 for sure) from anyone who works in the industry. So it could just be the most progressive of the grunts who are afraid of losing their jobs if they vote for Bernie or Liz.
SuperPacs, lobbyist money, paid speaking gigs, etc, anything directly from the corporations, is much more damning.
He doesn’t take corporate money. I don’t know where this keeps coming from. The “lobbyist” money he took then returned was individual donations from LGBT people. Media and people who say this are talking about individual contributions taken from the FEC filings because that’s all there is.
This is why I post here. This is a shitty false narrative that has no basis in reality. Here let me post a screenshot from his site
This is the same kind of thing attack people are using against Warren because she “takes twice as much big tech money” as Biden. It’s bullshit. The fucking janitor at Cigna has to say he works there, so oooooh big pharma money!
I misspoke, the 500k he’s received came from insurance industry executives. He did receive PAC money, but he’s said he’s given it back, however I wonder who paid for the anti M4A ads he has running right now.
I say that because SuperPacs are notorious for buying advertising for candidates without being completely transparent on where the money originated.
I’m on Flynn’s side in the Tulsi debate. There is some pretty damning stuff indicating she’s in Putin’s pocket if you squint one eye and blink the other real fast, but the simpler explanation is that she is a one-issue candidate–stop the endless regime-change wars ™–and that’s the perfect issue / candidate to back if you’re Putin and you want to sow discord. (Greatly helped by the fact that she also parrots GOP talking points like 'Mueller actively found NO COLLUSION WITCH HUNT!)
She could be a Putin Nesting Doll. But she could also just be a wacky former conservative cult member who retained some wacky ideas who thinks her path to victory is one issue that Putin would love the US to enact.
Surely you can find an example in Ireland of something related to outside influence that would make you feel similarly about Tulsi to how people feel about her here.
Tulsi is a fraud. If she were running for the GOP, no one would care. I wouldn’t call her an ‘asset’. I’d call her a fraud Democrat/isolationist and that she’s Putin’s choice for the White House. That’s really all that needs to be said, and it’s quite accurate.
