Agent = one who acts on behalf of. Not agent = spy. If you can say that Gabbard's policies, as stated on her campaign website, and as she has said in speeches and debates, and as she votes in the House (or refuses to vote as in the recent House vote on Syria), are not acting on behalf of Russia, i.e. forwarding Russian interests in the Middle East, but instead accurately reflect the views of her constituents in Hawaii, then, you know, you do you.
I'm not really defending her. When something becomes this toxic I try not to jump in the middle of it until I hear all the facts. Up until now I viewed the Tulsi accusations as low level noise. But HRC now escalated this to the point where you can't just ignore it. The truth needs to be flushed out. Either Tusli needs to be convicted or exonerated. You can't just let something like this linger indefinitely over an election. You can argue that the DOJ is compromised, so if they have dirt on Tulsi, you can make a case that Trump is hiding it. But we also have the House. If there is credible evidence of wrongdoing, we have the power to investigate.
Adjacency is a shitty basis for condemnation. Just because her policy outlook overlaps with Putin's interests, does not make her a Russian agent. This is a false binary choice. Putin is naturally interested in fewer American forces in his backyard. Part of promoting a less interventionist foreign policy naturally means that Putin may end up with fewer American forces in his backyard. I mean this is so blatantly obvious to me, that I can't believe that people would use this as their "evidence". By this standard, anyone in America who promotes a non interventionist foreign policy is potentially in the firing line. As someone who is somewhat of a purist in military non interventionism, this is a problem for me. My position has nothing to do with Putin. My position is firmly in my self interest as a taxpayer. I don't want my tax dollars going to fund bombs, wars, occupations etc .... If this position makes me a a suspect of being an agent, I have a problem with that. That would be McCarthyism 2.0 in its purest form.
You're the one who called her a spy. Zero people here have used the word "spy" to conflate "Tulsi Gabbard acting in the interest of a foreign government" with "what James Bond does for England", until your post today. If her goal is to be non-interventionist, she can do that without going on Tucker Carlson and running down Democrats. She can do that without attacking Hillary Clinton a thousand times harder than she's ever attacked Donald Trump or George W. Bush. Russia benefits not just from America pulling out of areas where Russia wants more interest, but also from America fighting against itself. Russia funded "CalExit" (a bogus California secession idea - don't worry, we're not going anywhere, we will continue to lead this country in the right direction). Russia pushed Jill Stein in 2016 and are pushing Gabbard in 2020 for the same reasons - to cause division among Trump's opponents.
Tulsi is an alternative voice but also likes to appear on fox white nationalist channel At 7:35 pm, it was reported that Tulsi Gabbard was over an hour late for a press event in Iowa and that her aides weren't telling people what was going on.She just went live on Tucker Carlson's show. pic.twitter.com/xghHURSu10— jordan (@JordanUhl) October 19, 2019
Exactly this. If her primary goal was to damage the eventual dem nominee how would it be any different to what she is doing today?
You know what inflames regional divides? Being told your vote matters less because you live in a certain part of the country. Be better.
You can bellyache all you like on behalf of rural and small state voters, but they're the one with the objective upper-hand. Their votes literally matter more, and I don't think that's fair. Or do you need me to bring out the parable of the calculator, the political strategist, and the toddler to explain why that's the case again?
Spare me the condescending talking points on why only coastal residents and those living in large cities matter more than others.
I never said a damn thing about them mattering more. My position has always been clear; make everyone's vote matter equally. We've been having this conversation long enough for you not to misrepresent my position.
Stanger will never agree that giving coastal voters an equal say is fair. He will always respond that is too much for them, and that their votes should matter proportionately less. So my suggestion is to concede this argument. He wants a rigged system because his people benefit from that. Well, OK. I can understand that.
I don't know if this does anything for you but the Russian embassy just posted a full-throated defence of Tulsi on their Twitter. I don't know that I would use the term "asset" nor do I know that we aren't already talking about Gabbard too much, but it's clear they view her as some sort of ally. Bellingcat's @EliotHiggins is spam-attacking US Presidential candidate @TulsiGabbard for posing questions to the MSM-propelled narrative on the alleged #Douma incident. #ThoughtPolice & #ElectionMeddling irony aside, Ms Gabbard visited 🇸🇾#Syria herself, unlike certain bloggers... pic.twitter.com/Yn1N7KAajH— Russian Embassy in South Africa 🇷🇺 (@EmbassyofRussia) August 5, 2019
If you're waking up on Saturday morning to see #IamTulsi trending, it's because the Russian bots were busy last night trying to push Jill Stein 2.0 on us.We DON'T need a repeat of 2016.If she TRULY cares about America, Tulsi Gabbard should drop out.#TaintedTulsi— BrooklynDad_Defiant!☮️ (@mmpadellan) October 19, 2019
OMG, SHE'S A WHITE NATIONALIST!!!! BECAUSE TUCKER!!! (...and you'll reply, "no, see, the concept of adjacency allows us to collectivize and dismiss while maintaining the moral high ground as we see it"...or you would if you had a speck of honesty regarding this subject)
Dot directly, but you want their opinion to matter less, to make them insignificant because they don’t have a population center that can have an effect on the vote total.
I want their opinion to matter as much as anyone else's. Look; no matter what, someone's getting ignored. Campaigns have finite resources to target in certain areas, so let's dispense with the fairy tale that the current system allows every vote to be battled over. Right now, people in states that aren't competitive are getting ignored. According to you, in theory, people in rural areas would get ignored under a popular vote. Those two cancel out, and we're left with a system that inarguably privileges individual voters in certain states over others, as opposed to a system that doesn't. The latter is the better system for allowing every vote to matter in the exact same way. You clearly think that matters, given that you incorrectly claimed that every vote matters the exact same under the current system as a point in favor of it. But you seem to conveniently back away from it in favor of pure "you want my vote to matter less" bullcrap tribalism when I demonstrated that your initial claim was false. I do want your vote to matter less; I want it to matter the same as everyone else's. It pisses me off when more people objectively wanted Hilary Clinton to be President, but Donald Trump got to be President because his voters were located in the right spots. If I were politically active in 2000 I'm sure it would've pissed me off then too. It presumes that people in Wyoming, Ohio, etc. are inherently worth more than people in California. Shouldn't every vote matter the same? Or is that principle just not worth anything?
Our elections are a collection of smaller elections encompassing an extremely diverse populace. Removing the EC would remove the diversity and only cater to urban population center needs and wants. You think our country is divided now, imagine what would happen then. Also, my vote is one vote, as is yours.