Tulsi Gabbard Claims Biden Wants Russia to Invade Ukraine

submitted by Drewski from (mediaite.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BravoVictor 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I don't know about that. The Bush wars arguably cost the GOP virtually all leadership in DC for years. George W started out with a ~90% approval rating after 9/11, and that rating went down every year until it was in the low 20s by 2008. If he hadn't run against Kerry, arguably one of the least charismatic candidates in history until Biden, he probably wouldn't have been re-elected.

[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Are any of those who were "cost" leadership any less wealthy, any less powerful even if they are not the figureheads atop any power? The Dems in charge LOVE the Bushes and Cheney, and any friendly competition they might get into during elections is just that: a game between friends.

Was the nomination of Kerry not part of the plan? Bush was re-"elected" in a room in ... Ohio I think where the county was under a high one of the color-coded terror threats as they counted the ballots that gave him the win. The discrepancies in that election in 3 states that I was aware of at the time were ignored by Kerry (Skull and Bones'man just like W) but lead some, including me, to conclude that Bush did not win that election fairly at all. A recount done by newspapers (OK, yes, consider the source. I agree) concluded that Gore won Florida and his legal strategy of wanting only some of the state to be recounted was a bad strategy. None of that would have mattered I do not thing though. But I don't think Bush "won" either if his election. Not that the alternatives would have been any better.

Bush' 90% approval ratings were because of 9/11, his failures made him sympathetic I guess. Or, the media spin on them did. His invasion of Iraq was hugely unpopular until, if polls are to be believed, the day after he did it. But his unpopularity on 9/10 was a real problem. 9/11 and his wars did for his presidency, even if you see his popularity waning, what nothing else could. War on behalf of the newest incarnation of "far-right" movements in Ukraine (which has amazingly deep roots now over a couple of decades and has its own neo-paganism to go along with it) for the natural gas Russia controls is everything Biden needs to please his masters.

What it does to political parties in terms of their win/lose columns does not matter. That's just show for us. They both win every time when they are the only options we have, and ignoring them is also not seen as an option.

[–]BravoVictor 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I generally agree with everything you wrote. My point was that it wasn't the wars that gave him that initial popularity. Like you said, it was his leadership immediately after 9/11. Attacks on a country do that, especially behind a leader. They make people rally together. However the wars, and ultimately the lies and corruption that lead to them, are what again destroyed his popularity.

But like you said, it's doubtful that Gore or Kerry would have been any better.

[–]FlippyKing 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I did not say anything about his leadership on 9/12, he made a speech that was probably written while 9/11 was being plotted and an empty suit would have enjoyed the same poll numbers. He got a boost in polls from the war, as polling for support of the invasion went way up immediately after the invasion. His father pulled the same stunt and it boosted his poll numbers briefly. War's for business first, but to manipulate the polls is a nice secondary purpose. Both wars were for oil. Obama's clusterfuck in Syria was about a pipeline, one of two competing ones. They both, all really, work for the same evil entities. Reagan probably benefited in the polls from Granada, but I don't know.

I think if Gore or Kerry would have been any better, they would never have been allowed to get that close. In 00, Gore ran basically unopposed except for an empty run from Bill Bradley which was like choosing between supermarket brand vanilla extracts, or literally choosing between Princeton or Harvard (I think Gore went there. If not then Yale). Kerry, ... well look at his career since that election to see how much of a change he would have been.