this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
233 points (96.0% liked)

politics

19091 readers
5016 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Ex-Democrat, reported contender for Trump running mate, sued Clinton for Russia remark but dropped case

Tulsi Gabbard, the former Democratic congresswoman, has repeated a discredited claim about Hillary Clinton that previously saw Gabbard lodge then drop a $50m defamation suit in a new book published as she seeks to be named Donald Trump’s running mate for US president.

Accusing Democrats of making up “a conspiracy theory that [Trump] was ‘colluding’ with the Russians to win the election” in 2016, Gabbard claims: “Hillary Clinton used a similar tactic against me when I ran for president in 2020, accusing me of being ‘groomed by the Russians’.”

Gabbard ran for the Democratic nomination. Clinton did not accuse her of being “groomed by the Russians”.

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AshMan85 74 points 6 months ago (1 children)

"I am repeating this lie cause Russia paid me too." Also Tulsa gabbard

[–] gastationsushi 58 points 6 months ago (1 children)

These "why I left the left" grifters, if their prominences don't lead reasonable people to believe how society engineered to stear us conservative. Then recall James Comey a couple weeks before the 2016 election. Which candidate's investigation did he tell the world about, which did he stay mum on? Which investigation was BS, which one showed strong links to foreign agents?

[–] fluxion 30 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And the leopards still ate his face

[–] thesporkeffect 11 points 6 months ago

Not enough though.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

lodged then dropped 50 mil dollar lawsuit

Someone's afraid of discovery

says it like Happy Gilmore

[–] Fredselfish 13 points 6 months ago (4 children)

What happened to her. In 2015 she was a Bernie Sanders supporter and was a big help in 2016. By 2020 she was a toxic piece of shit.

[–] athairmor 12 points 6 months ago

Russian influence.

Putin hates Clinton. Gabbard was useful as a “progressive” to try to weaken Hilary. Once Hilary was out of the picture, she became more useful as a general “there’s something wrong with the Democrats” Democrat. Now, she’s just whatever shit she can stir to weaken the left of American politics. “Enlightened centrist”, Democrat critic, Trump sycophant—whatever.

Maybe Clinton didn’t say it but I will, she’s been groomed by the Russians.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

She saw she could make more money on the other side.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

What happened to her[?]

I had a thought, but that was Gabby Giffords in 2011 and a better human.

[–] Son_of_dad 22 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Why is she drawing attention to her Russian involvement? I don't think this is gonna work the way they think. And btw Clinton isn't running, so why are they even bothering to go after her?

[–] kescusay 10 points 6 months ago

For several reasons:

  • Few people get the MAGA morons fired up and angry like Clinton.
  • They're desperate to re-litigate the 2016 election, the last time Trump won anything.
  • All the attacks on Biden have comically failed, so they'd rather run against Clinton.
[–] [email protected] 22 points 6 months ago

These women don’t make Hillary look worse that’s for sure. I mean Tulsi and Marjorie and Boebert. What a trifecta of trash.

[–] DigitalTraveler42 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

“Hillary Clinton used a similar tactic against me when I ran for president in 2020, accusing me of being ‘groomed by the Russians’.”

I guess no need to be groomed by Russians when you've already been groomed by fanatical Christian Extremists so your values basically align with the current Russian regime's:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gabbard:

Opposition to LGBT rightsedit

Gabbard became an anti-homosexual activist before the same-sex marriage debate took hold in Hawaii.[3] Between 1991 and 1996, Gabbard founded the organizations Stop Promoting Homosexuality Hawaii (renamed Stop Promoting Homosexuality International), Stop Promoting Homosexuality America, and the Alliance for Traditional Marriage and Values.[10] Gabbard became well-known for his advocacy for Hawaii Constitutional Amendment 2 (1998). This amendment, approved by voters 69.2%–28.6%,[11] gave the state legislature "the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples" under the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed by Bill Clinton in 1996.[12][3][13]

[–] anticolonialist -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Bill Clinton and Co were as homophobic as the rest of them.

[–] DigitalTraveler42 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Of course he was, he's a skirt chasing country boy from Arkansas, however, he was at least compassionate enough to open some of those doors for our LGBTQ allies, DOMA was shitty legislation but after it's passing many other steps were made to help these folks.

I'm not sure how old you were in '96, but I was a Jr in Highschool at the time, most people still used "fag" and "homo" to joke around about stuff still. We only had two completely out gay dudes in my highschool, I was cool with both of them and knew them through some girls that we all were mutual friends with. At one point some of the more "white trash/racist kids that I'd already had a problem with started harassing these gay dudes pretty constantly and pretty aggressively and the girls we were mutual friends with got my friends and I to handle the situation for them, we out numbered the homophobes by quite a bit and they chose not to fight at that time.

Now mind you, this is on Long Island, just a short train ride to NYC, the Village, and Stonewall, and Pride parades happened each year at this point, so while there were only two out gay dudes in my school most likely many of us had a LGBTQ person we knew back then that was out. Now imagine how this situation would have gone down back in '96, in Arkansas, I can tell you exactly how it would go down based on my experiences living in Florida during the early 90's as well, but also by how it would go down even now in Arkansas.

So sure saying Clinton was as homophobic as the rest in 1996 is pretty much saying that water is wet, most people were ignorant, and even worse many of us still believed the HIV based homophobic conspiracy theories, because AIDS was a huge problem at the time.

[–] anticolonialist -3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

In '96 I had already been out for 11 years. Clinton wasn't compassionate, he used my community as props for his election, like Obama did for his reelection

[–] DigitalTraveler42 1 points 6 months ago

Meanwhile the Right loves to call Michelle a man, but both sides are the same amirite? I'm just saying both Clinton and Obama are absolutely more accepting of homosexuality than their right wing counterparts, whatever bias you may feel towards them, that should be clear, because the other side wouldn't want to use you, hell most of them just want to end you, so maybe keep that in mind for some perspective.

[–] CharlesDarwin 7 points 6 months ago

The cons constantly jerk off over the idea of an actual shooting civil war and the worst of them will cackle with glee about the prospect of shoving normal Americans onto trains.

What country(ies) will benefit the most if that were to happen here?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


She penned an op ed in the Wall Street Journal under a headline, I Can Defeat Trump and the Clinton Doctrine, that might now prove an awkward fit with her political ambitions.

Later, after dropping out of the Democratic primary and endorsing Joe Biden, who she said had “a good heart” and would “help heal” a badly divided country, Gabbard sued Clinton for $50m over the “Russian asset” comment, rather than the remark about “grooming”.

Four years on, Gabbard has completed a remarkable journey across the political aisle, from being seen as a rising Democratic star in the US House to hosting on Fox News and speaking at events including CPAC, a hard-right annual conference.

On the page, Gabbard presents a mix of memoir – from growing up in Hawaii to service in Iraq, from entering Congress to her failed presidential run – and pro-Trump screed.

She also accuses Democrats of planting evidence and stories with a compliant press, aided by a “deep state” consisting of “active and retired officials from within the justice department and other national security agencies”.

The deep state conspiracy theory, which holds that a permanent government of operatives and bureaucrats exists to thwart populist leaders, is popular with Trump and followers notably including Liz Truss, a former UK prime minister.


The original article contains 998 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] Reddfugee42 2 points 6 months ago

She sat down and thought about all the things she was actually doing, and couldn't remember if anyone had actually accused her of them yet. Better to head them off at the pass!