You are definitely an alarmist. You are interpreting these things in the worst possible way. This is a more connected world and sometimes our interests will align with other nations. It's not some grand conspiracy.
In Tulsi or Jill Steins case they are assets if they understand they are taking support from a foreign nation knowing that that nation is trying to accomplish. In Trumps case he’s not an asset he’s a full fledged partner.
Low information voters aren't following the primaries, let alone stories about Tulsi Gabbard. They likely don't even know who she is. I have no real opinion of Gabbard and Russia, but this isn't true. A manchurian candidate, for example, is an asset even if they don't know it. If you can manipulate or exploit someone to your benefit, they can be an asset for you without actively participating.
This is a great table. According to this, Gabbard voters hate Tom Steyer (-73%), but Tom Steyer voters like Tulsi Gabbard (+10%). Look at the candidates who get the lowest favorability out of Tulsi supporters: Biden (-79), Steyer (-73), Kamala Harris (-64), Booker (-64), Castro (-60). And who they like the best (relatively): Warren (-5), Yang (-10). Seems like a pretty passionate bunch. And it paints the picture of Tulsi as the protest vote. The next most disaffected seem to be supporters of Michael Bennet and Marianne Williamson (who also seems to be the most reviled). Most of her "progressive" viewpoints are just DNC tablestakes and do not differentiate her at all. The only real policy differences I can detect is her aversion to foreign wars and her embrace of wikileaks. But there's more to vote on than just policy. I don't think she's being dishonest, not genuine, or being opportunistic (or any more so than any of the other of the 17 candidates who are still around even though they have no hope to win). In fact, I think she genuinely wants to change our foreign policy posture. But she's not even 40, doesn't have much of a resume, doesn't have an argument (that I've heard) about why she will be a good executive, her differentiating policy idea sounds naive and unwise and could be damaging even if executed well, and she's combative and unhelpful in interviews when she has a chance to explain herself. It would probably make more sense to hear why she should even be granted an audience than to explain all the myriad ways she doesn't deserve one. Even with great policy ideas, how do you overcome being too young, too inexperienced, and a bad campaigner?
Why are you ignoring the other counter arguments that are out there and in this very thread? And what does this have to do with republicans in purple districts?
To be clear, the reason she is liked by the right wing (right now) is because she is attacking democratic front runners, has flip flopped on impeachment specifically to appeal to right wing viewers, holds a position on Syria that can be held up as "See, bipartisan people support Trump's policy!" and because she's attractive.
So she said this on Hannity. Gabbard then echoed Republican complaints about the "transparency" of the House impeachment inquiry. "I don't know what's going on in those closed doors, we in Congress don't have access to the information that is being shared," said Gabbard, who isn't among the 59 Democrats and 48 Republicans who do have access. Why would she say this ? https://theweek.com/speedreads/8742...inquiry-secretive-says-not-seeking-reelection
Maybe. But I have a suspicion that the real, real reason some right wingers (and whatever left wingers she has) like her is because of her embrace of Snowden and Assange. I suspect the profile are people who think the federal government is rotten at its core and needs an "outsider" to come in and shake things up and stick-it to the Deep-State/Illuminati who are making a fortune and worshiping Moloch on Pedo-Island by manipulating the sheeple into waging unjust and foolish wars. Some patriot or hero like Snowden or Assange or Trump or the Joker or... Tulsi Gabbard.
Well remember that the right hated Assange before Trump. And the right doesn't want Tulsi to be president, they just find her to be a convenient foil for other democrats. They don't have to hold up a Republican saying impeachment is wrong, here's a democrat running for president! See! The Fox News version of the Republican party is a Trump defense cult right now, that's it. You have their approval and support right now entirely based on how your views reflect on Trump. Hannity would give Satan a primetime interview to espouse his view that the murder of Jesus was justified if he would defend Trump in the process.
I was initially big on Tulsi because she did not come off as someone who had all the answers to big complex problems. However once she entered the race, she did very little to start addressing problems and instead copy and pasted other candidates ideas (not to be confused with solutions). Anyone can criticize the problems and its just as pointless as the 'trickle-up tax' solutions.
I think the appeal of wikileaks cuts across party lines. Maybe it catches more liberals than conservatives, but there's paranoid anti-establishment types in both parties that were into them.
I think initially I liked Wikileaks even after Trump. It wasn't until they got caught lying and altering the release of materials to serve an agenda that I turned against them. The United States currently regards them as a hostile foreign intelligence agency.
Gabbard has an op-ed in today's WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-can-...linton-doctrine-11572389508?mod=hp_opin_pos_3
Yeah I’m no longer interested in her Hopefully she drops out soon . At this point she is wasting her donors money
I think she explained her reasoning quite well. She supports the inquiry, but thinks the American people are better served if the entire impeachment process is done transparently. Call it politically naive or too idealistic, but I don't read that as her being pro-Trump.
Pro-Trump... not the correct way of looking at it. She absolutely 100% is targeting Trump base voters though in her tactical primary plan. Which is why she’ll never trash the guy like every other Dem will. She looks to be trying to recreate his success in 16 by running the primary as a protest candidate who runs on trashing their party. Worked for Trump and got him voters who don’t normally vote who hate politics and want to blow up DC. I think that’s the most charitable way of making sense of her campaign. She has had a pretty decent bump though the past couple weeks so maybe it is starting to work late in the game. Just don’t think the Dem party and base is as nearly as broken as the GOP was in 16 for Trump to do what he did.
