Well said (and memed).  My two cents is Clinton was just looking to get some attention (sell some books, get a few speaking engagements).  There are probably a few reasons to pick Gabbard, but the main is she is polling so low it won’t really change the race anyway.

edit: after reading the Taibbi article, the context sounds like she was riffing during a podcast, so maybe this is more a reflection of Clinton’s inner thoughts than a planned media attention grab.  Either way, should be seen as a non-story imo, needs evidence.

Polling isn't absolute. I've said it before, but I do think you guys put too much stock in the polls. The methodology is outdated for the most part and on top of that most people don't even answer numbers they don't know. Especially the younger folks. That's why you see Bernie outperforming polls non stop. She's definitely having an impact exposing people 1 by 1. Even if we look at polling, she's beating Biden in some polls in NH. I'm just saying.

I disagree. While polling has it's weaknesses, the failability of polls shouldn't be overstated. Especially if you look at aggregated polling (polling averages). The better pollsters work on improving their methodology and a project like 538 pollster rating helps to identify good and bad pollsters. Even as you have systematic errors, they are not too big. A few percent maybe, but not 10% or even 5%.

Yet we still had Bernie outdoing one by over 20 points. That's why I say you all put too much stock in it. Small sample sizes are one thing but the methodology is still outdated. Also as good as 538 is supposedly, it doesn't help that one of the persons in charge is Nate Silver who seems to hate Bernie for some reason. All I'm saying is, I personally don't believe polls regardless of what they say right now as they've been wrong and will continue to be wrong. Especially cause here in America Non voters are never polled and a good amount of independents aren't also and them coming out or not usually determines where the election goes, and that's where not only Bernie has appeal, but Tulsi also. On top of that, polling this far out has never been accurate.

First, an asset doesn't need to be directly colluding with Russia and Putin. You just need a useful idiot that parrots their talking points, and Gabbard fits that mold.

Second, you need to look no further than her previous debate. While other candidates - including Sanders - talked about their core policy points such as healthcare, she used her time to: slam the media, slam the party, slam the impeachment process, and spread foreign policy points and phrases such as "regime change wars" that come straight out of the Kremlin's phrasebook. According to her, all foreign intervention is wasteful and a regime-change war. What is the alternative? Let Russia take charge. Surely that isn't something Putin wants or doesn't put American security interests in jeopardy. Now tell me this isn't a candidate Russia isn't interested in propping up, even if they only take advantage of her being an idiot.

Third, it's funny you talk about right-wingers, considering she's the far-right conspiracy-minded Republican's favorite Democrat - look no further than out friend DarthMetalliCube here. She constantly shows up in Fox News to slam Democrats, she acts as she was the perpetual victim of a smear campaign, she is willing to oppose impeachment for political attention, and she has utter disdain for the media. She supports far-right anti-muslim nationalist dictators like Modi, muslim-massacring dictators like Sisi, she has yet to cut ties with her fervent anti-LGBT past.

People act offended, outraged and sensitive when I compare her to Trump, but the rhetoric, talking points are exactly the same. The thread has become such a shitshow, when anti-system hate burns so brightly people are willing to defend garbage, despicable people like Gabbard until the bitter end and well beyond.

You guys are in for a rude awakening when the median here is more supportive of Gabbard than Warren.

So, then Hillary Clinton must be a russian asset. Because she currently creates division in the democratic party and stokes inner-party fights, which clearly helps Trump getting reelected. This helps the russian agenda, therefore Hillary Clinton is a russian asset.

Gotta love when VGC randomly logs me out during a response.

1st: Regime change wars are a thing, they've de-stabilized the middle east and we're the ones doing them. Waging war (illegally since we don't get congresses approval) and sending in troops to a country to remove their democratically elected leader and install a puppet is what regime change war is. Russia has nothing to do with the phrase you're making that up cause you don't like gabbard and she's right. Oh and the alternative is simple, DIPLOMACY. Maybe instead of flinging troops at every situation and instead talking to people we wouldn't be in this mess in Syria, but hey... regime change right? You need to talk to allies and non allies and work out deals to stomp out terrorism and protect lives. so to your first point this is not a russian talking point.

2nd: Being anti intervention is the right way because look at history. the US goes in, they make things worse and de-stabilize a country. Now on to the media. MSNBC/CNN are propaganda arms of the democratic party and fox news is the same for the republicans. Calling out the media for smearing her isn't wrong. She didn't oppose impeachment for political gain, she opposed it cause it is being used as a distraction from the issues and because the entire ukraine thing was more about defending biden than going after trump. Its "oh you're going for an elite, you've crossed the line". And apparently, being on the foreign affairs committee and talking to Modi and his opposition is being supportive of Modi. You need to understand diplomacy means talking to not just allies and "good" people. Omg she met with Modi (and his opposition) so she must support him -_-. Apply that to Assad as well and this is where nothing gets done. You're trying to say there is no alternative to endless war without trying diplomacy because you don't want to talk to people you don't like. That's not how the world works.

She's not a right winger at all, calling out the media for smearing you and lying is a thing.(quick edit: If you're looking for right wingers in the dem party, check your boy Biden, and Pete and Amy, They are all socially on the left but otherwise than that, looking at their non social policy they fit right in with republicans, funny how that works huh. Pretty sure we had this talk before about now i have the image too.) The media acts as propaganda arms for the political parties / government. They push debunked fake news all the time you know. There's a reason why Trump's fake news shtick lands. Its cause its not exactly wrong. Sure he pulls it out for everything he dislikes but at the same time some of those things are legit fake news. Tulsi isn't calling the entire thing fake news she's calling out the lies and propaganda. Let's look at what the media has done. They helped lie the people into supporting the iraq war and refused to bring on people who opposed the war to speak, they've doctored pictures of Bernie to make him look extra red and even put in spots in his face, they've mus-represented Yang's policies and they've smeared Tulsi non stop. MSNBC/CNN will not allow her to defend herself or give her the air time to do so, but because FOX news knows she'll hit the Dems for calling this out they'll put her on. Also on the LGBT thing, she has a 100% pro voting record in congress, so please.

The talking points aren't the same because context matters, you just hate Tulsi and you believe the media even after they've lied to you, reported on stories that have already been debunked as if they are true and continue actively lie and screw over the american people with this nonsense. Fun fact btw, most americans hate the media. That's why independent media is on the rise and that's why CNN etc went after Youtube to try to strangle independent media by making most of their videos demonetized, and changing the algorithm so that instead of auto playing indie media if I left it on auto play the next video would be some CNN/MSNBC nonsense. They've even made finding them in the search harder, this is what the media did. The people do not trust or like it and when politicians (even if one is only doing it to things he dislikes) is calling them out, the people tend to rally because they don't like the media. In fact, if you're not angry at the media for manufacturing consent on wars etc then you're not paying attention.

Edit: This is the image I was referring to with left and right btw That's how the overton window has shifted in America:

I always find that people make these statements like Tulsi until they get into the President seat.  Its like Universal healthcare and other topic that appear to be easy talking points but hard to implement.  I wonder if Tulsi get into the President seat would her position change or evolve based on information and intelligence you get as President compared to a regular citizen.

Says the baseless hypocrite but go off I guess lmfao

Edit: it should be noted that you're okay with Tulsi being hailed as a "Russian asset" which is a baseless smear btw but wouldn't call Hillary a Russian asset... Hmm strange??? I don't like either Tulsi or Hillary to be frank but at least Tulsi isn't trying to divide our party with smears and to some degree of success to boot.

Right.. You don't have to *directly* be involved with the Russian gov. All you merely need to do is to hold policies/rhetoric/ideals that MIGHT benefit Russia or resemble the kremlin in some vague, unspecified way...

So basically the Russia smears mean jack shit.

Jesus christ dude, wtf do you want us to do, nuke the gd country out of existence? Russia exists. And occasionally there might be a bit of overlap in common interests with certain stances (oh noes! God forbid!). It doesn't inherently make those stances wrong. And I do not get the fear of these guys, it's laughable. They're essentially a non entity compared to the US when it comes to their economy, GDP, and military might. China and India are far more influential and powerful on the world stage at the moment, not freaking Russia.. Where's the hysteria over these nations? 

This is nothing but NeoMacharthyism designed to intimidate and shut everyone up who doesn't toe the Neolib/Neocon line. It's utter nonsense and pure idiocy. Pro war, xenophobic, as I said - just a slightly more left-leaning version of the republicans..

Just because you happen to be anti-intervention/war does not automatically make you a Russian asset. So the US should just be locked in our never ending wars killing countless thousands of innocent people oversees and dismantling governments because if we don't it might benefit Russia? Come on dude, that is insane nonsense and you know it. Were liberals against the war in Iraq also Russian assets too?

Lol the fact that you call her or me "far right" in any capacity show you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and are entirely discredited with everything following that statement. Gabbard is probably the most liberal, progressive candidate currently in the running outside of Bernie Sanders. It's rich that you mention "far right conspiracies" when that's basically what this bs Russia plant hysteria thing is. And why does conspiracy automatically = "far right?" Lol like there are no far-left conspiracies? Back in my day conspiracy defaulted to "left wing".. How fast things change XD. 

And stop with the anti-LGBT past too. She can't help the way she was rasied. Gabbard is 100% in support of LGBT and her policies demonstrate that full stop. Hillary and Obama were anti-gay marriage until mere years ago. People change.

Republican's favorite democrat? That would be the Neocon Hillary Clinton. A few socially liberal policies/ideals aside, she's basically Dick Cheney.