2020 US Election - Let The Games Begin!

alkhemst said:
To my surprise, a far left FB friend posted about it from a far left news site, which was favourable to Tulsi: Van Jones: Hillary Clinton Is Playing A 'Dangerous Game' With Tulsi Gabbard Remarks
Click to expand...

Van Jones is the same pundit who was secretly recorded saying that CNN's coverage of "Russiagate" was a big nothing burger.

The clip of Jones making these unusually critical statements of Hillary Clinton are included in the following video which seems to be a really astute analysis of Killary's recent statements against Gabbard. The host believes that Clinton's egregious smears could very well backfire on her:

 
I know that many of us here like Tulsi Gabbard, and I like her too. She gives the appearance of an adult and says all the right things we want to hear. She's 'against the elite', stands her ground and even openly scolds Hillary. What could be better? Well, I may be thinking too conspiratorially here, but I'm keeping an open mind for the possibility that this is some kind of 'PSYOP'. I'm seeing some discussions about Tulsi being a 'Trojan horse' etc. on Twitter, but those are not based on convincing evidence. And those could just be 'Hillary's bots' doing the talking. One detail that is thrown around is that she appears to have quite classical socialist values and ideas. Another one is that she was endorsed a few years ago by John Podesta (Wikileaks has leaked emails where this can be seen). Then there's the thing that she's a Hindu and a some kind of member of a Krishna movement, but I'm not sure if that's a problem. Frankly, I don't know enough about the Krishna-people to say how 'bad' they are, but I do find the things she says in this video from 2015 surprisingly 'New Agey':

https://twitter.com/x/status/1185563718630957056

Then there was the thing where she suddenly flipped and supported Trump's impeachment. I thought that was weird. This one vlogger had a theory that she will be propped up as a popular 'alternative' and 'anti-elite' candidate just to steal some votes from Trump. For this to happen, if I've understood this correctly, would require that she'd left the Dems and present herself as an independent candidate. We'll see if this will happen.
 
aragorn said:
This one vlogger had a theory that she will be propped up as a popular 'alternative' and 'anti-elite' candidate just to steal some votes from Trump. For this to happen, if I've understood this correctly, would require that she'd left the Dems and present herself as an independent candidate. We'll see if this will happen.
Click to expand...

It's somewhat possible, doesn't sound convincing so I'm doubtful. For example, if it was planned that way, why choose someone who's religion would raise suspicion with many Trump voters? This would make it harder to steal Trump votes. Why choose someone that's constantly calling out the main contenders for DNC nominees? This would make it harder to attract votes towards the DNC and candidate chosen. Perhaps it's more likely these theories are from actual conspiracy theorists and/or a ploy against Tulsi gaining positive attention?

To add, on the flipping on impeachment, I heard Tulsi talk about this. She said she was for investigating wrongdoing and then impeach if the facts support it. I feel that was smart, a real investigation would expose the corruption that took place under Obama, Biden, Clinton etc. And at the same time, on the surface she could be perceived to be against Trump.
 
Last edited:
Ennio said:
Van Jones is the same pundit who was secretly recorded saying that CNN's coverage of "Russiagate" was a big nothing burger.

The clip of Jones making these unusually critical statements of Hillary Clinton are included in the following video which seems to be a really astute analysis of Killary's recent statements against Gabbard. The host believes that Clinton's egregious smears could very well backfire on her:
Click to expand...
I enjoyed this commentator, Mr. Reagan, a good one. I was VERY SURPRISED to see CNN have negative commentary on Clinton!!! What??? :shock: :shock: :shock: :huh:. What the heck is going on?


 
Body language analysis on Tulsi Gabbard. In summary: the BL lady thinks she's not giving straight answers, just prepared political speeches avoiding the questions. And she gets very stressed at the mention of the Bidens and Ukraine. Makes one curious...

 
aragorn said:
Body language analysis on Tulsi Gabbard. In summary: the BL lady thinks she's not giving straight answers, just prepared political speeches avoiding the questions. And she gets very stressed at the mention of the Bidens and Ukraine. Makes one curious...

Click to expand...

That was poor form and weird. What's behind being so unrestrained when calling out Hillary Clinton's corruption but so restrained and dodging calling out the Biden's? .

The picture with Antifa leader and Tulsi above was at that Dakota pipeline protest. So doesn't mean much. Some of the other claims on those Twitter feeds are interesting, but not that compelling in terms of evidence to say she's definitely a plant. But I could be wrong.
 
I've been also wondering what kind of 'super treatment' Killary has been given, as she appears to date to be in pretty decent shape, at least compared to how she was in 2016 (trouble walking, coughing, almost fainting etc.). I guess when you're very high up in the 'cabal' no expenses or (evil) methods are spared. It sure is starting to look like she's going for a rematch with Trump, saying things like "She can beat him again". This cackling witch will never go away, it seems!

The conspiracy theory regarding Tulis is, that Tulsi's mission as a third party candidate is to chip away as many votes from Trump supporters (having them vote for her) so that Killary can secure her victory – divide and conquer. This theory doesn't still appear too plausible, but as we've seen at least some evidence, or indications, are starting to appear that things are not quite what they seem with Tulsi.
 
aragorn said:
I've been also wondering what kind of 'super treatment' Killary has been given, as she appears to date to be in pretty decent shape, at least compared to how she was in 2016 (trouble walking, coughing, almost fainting etc.). I guess when you're very high up in the 'cabal' no expenses or (evil) methods are spared. It sure is starting to look like she's going for a rematch with Trump, saying things like "She can beat him again". This cackling witch will never go away, it seems!
Click to expand...
Probably stem cell therapy? It's reported to have lots of regenerative effects: https://link.medium.com/oFYQgnuf50

Wouldn't surprise me too if those stem cells are sourced from abortions. She probably would see that a bonus prize.
 
alkhemst said:
To my surprise, a far left FB friend posted about it from a far left news site, which was favourable to Tulsi: Van Jones: Hillary Clinton Is Playing A 'Dangerous Game' With Tulsi Gabbard Remarks

Might be wishful thinking, but what if the writing is on the wall for these outlets and they are starting to dip their toes in actual news coverage? Would be nice.
Click to expand...

I think, for the main part, the people are "calling out" these mainstream media outlets, that, and the fact they are also losing readership. They need to 'get back into the game', or die. It's that simple, and they know it.
 
Sargon of Akkad is an admirer of the 'Goddess of War', and no, it's not who you think it is.... (Clinton). I thought this YouTube was very amusing.


One of my other interests is astrology. It's actually quite interesting to note that Tulsi Gabbard has a stellium Aries apposing a stellium in Libra. That is very unusual.

Astrology and natal chart of Tulsi Gabbard, born on 1981/04/12

Horoscope and natal chart of Tulsi Gabbard, born on 1981/04/12: you will find in this page an excerpt of the astrological portrait and the interpration of the planetary dominants.
www.astrotheme.com www.astrotheme.com
 
Thank you for that Ruth! I agree with that guy. I like Tulsi Gabbard. Yes, I watched the analysis of her interview on Fox. She obviously didn't want to go negative on Hunter Biden but can we really deduce anything about that for sure? For one thing she's a Democrat. If you worked for a company and you knew the higher ups were up to no good and you were being questioned about it in a public venue, you probably wouldn't be to candid in answering either. Now I realize it's not an exact analogy but the point is we don't know exactly why she didn't want to 'go there.' As far as the charge of her being fake, she's utilizing a strategy, I'm mean, duh. Every person uses strategy to get from where they are to the 'desired future,' to use Peterson's terms.

Now I could be wrong about her, but so far I like what I see. She's poised, articulate, and clearly has 'picked her battle' which is regime change wars. Which is very smart. You can't realistically go after that and the CIA and Israel/ Mossad, and 911 truth and (fill in the blank)
Regime change wars is the best choice because it's so damn obvious, or at least it should be. If it wasn't for mainstream news and the military infected entertainment industry brainwashing the American people into believing that "freedom isn't free" so we need this ridiculously oversized military doing crazy sh*t all across the globe, then it would be obvious to a lot more people.

Being suspicious of people and coming up with stuff to back up those suspicions is fairly easy, but so far I haven't seen anything to change my mind about her.
 
As you might have noticed, Tulsi was among those democrats who voted for the impeachment resolution today. That the whole impeachment circus is a total scam is a no-brainer for anyone with two firing neurons. As I don’t think Tulsi is brain-dead, this can only mean that she’s compromised, bought off or deceptive, or all of the above. And she’s supposed to be someone who advertises being a ‘freedom fighter’ and ‘anti-elite’. The old motto stands: by their fruits shall you know them.

I often wonder, how is it possible that all the democrats you see, and the talking heads on the msm (which is their extension) are such obvious liars. The dishonesty is just oozing out of them as you watch them talk. They are like robots or clones, and I wonder what is the connection they share - have they all been abducted and reprogrammed, or what?
 
One thing I remember is that Tulsi said that ""there's no disputing the fact" that Bashar Al-Assad is a "brutal dictator" who "has used chemical weapons" against his people, but adds that amid the US's "regime-change war," the "lives of the Syrian people have not been improved"." (Feb 20, 2019)

But then she also said: “Asked whether Assad is an enemy of the United States, Gabbard responded, ‘No.’” Gabbard added she did not believe chemical weapons were used in Syria." (Politico, February 6, 2019)

So some things are a bit contradictory... Which I suppose is not unusual with politicians. Some independent journalists, such as Eva Bartlett, are not convinced that she's the 'real deal'. I'm not entirely sure either, though I do appreciate what she said about Killary, that was on point!

Of course, you can't expect anyone to act right on all topics, or to be knowledgeable about them, but I wonder how different her approach would be compared to Trump's if she was the President. I wonder if she'd be able to truly face the war industry people/CIA/Swamp.

Just a few thoughts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom