Elections Is Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset?

[Bald1]

I assure you that he does not lack self awareness in that regard, and is just trolling.

Why do you say that? Not a setup, just interested in your take.

 

[Bald1]

Not sure I agree it’s the single craziest thing said by any candidate, but taking the bait from Hilldawg is at least either a severe lack of judgement or a calculated move to embrace fringe status. Neither is a great look. I am disappoint.

Her comments about it being between her and Clinton and the self important tone of her response was way off. I like Tulsi, but her Tweet came off like an undercard, journeyman fighter chirping at a GOAT contender. No self awareness indeed.

 

[jrams]

Fucking pathetic that you just go along with it. She clearly said "Russians", you despicable hack.

It took her 4 days to clarify lol.

Hillary is one that I'm not going to feel bad about when she dies. She's an awful person and has caused carnage on this world and deserves to leave unceremoniously.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You appear to misunderstand. It contradicts the tweet from "Nick Merrill", which @58miles quoted, which read:

On Friday, the NYT did a piece about a podcast Secretary Clinton did with David Plouffe. They incorrectly quoted her saying that the “Russians” were “grooming” a candidate running in the Democratic primary. They rightfully fixed it to reflect that she was taking about the GOP.

​

Note also that this Nick Merrill fellow has over 54,000 followers and appears to specialize in spreading misinformation.

How does the video contradict what he said, which the Times conceded was accurate?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Why do you say that? Not a setup, just interested in your take.

Anyone who doesn't blindly swallow Republican propaganda gets any manner of personal attacks from you guys because you're not able to intelligently defend your positions.

 

[HereticBD]

Why do you say that? Not a setup, just interested in your take.

Because his holier than thou schtick is very deliberate and disingenuous. Jack's not a dummy. He can't possibly not know that he engages in personal attacks on other posters when arguing a topic on the daily.

His whole self proclaimed "Nicest Guy on Sherdog" moniker is a total troll job. He knows he can be a smarmy cunt, who gets a kick out of getting a rise out of people. If he didn't know that, I'd really question his sanity. He'd have to be a total psychopath not to see it.

 

[Bald1]

Anyone who doesn't blindly swallow Republican propaganda gets any manner of personal attacks from you guys because you're not able to intelligently defend your positions.

You guys? Lol. I criticise Trump constantly, believe in a robust social safety net, think a neither capitalism or socialism by themselves are good models without the other, am all for affordable higher education, am concerned about the environment and think growing wealth inequality is at the top of the list of what will create social unrest.

Speaking of intelligently defending positions - How do you defend your position that it's impossible that Clinton could influence the media?

 

[waiguoren]

How does the video contradict what he said, which the Times conceded was accurate?

There is no logical contradiction, and it's true that HRC claimed that the Republicans/Trump (not the Russians) were "grooming" Gabbard. However:

1) Clinton said that the Republicans were responsible for Jill Stein's third-party run, a claim which seems preposterous on its face and for which Clinton presented no evidence.
2) Nick Merrill's tweets are misleading to non-political junkies, who are likely to read them as "NYT totally misrepresented Clinton's words". Clinton accused Gabbard of being a "Russian asset", but I don't think you're going to find Nick Merrill tweeting about that fact.

 

[Bald1]

Because his holier than thou schtick is very deliberate and disingenuous. Jack's not a dummy. He can't possibly not know that he engages in personal attacks on other posters when arguing a topic on the daily.

His whole self proclaimed "Nicest Guy on Sherdog" moniker is a total troll job. He knows he can be a smarmy cunt, who gets a kick out of getting a rise out of people. If he didn't know that, I'd really question his sanity. He'd have to be a total psychopath not to see it.

Yeah, Jack is undoubtedly one sharp cookie. Yet if you couple that with unshakeable self confidence and an unchecked ego then you could end up like Jack. Some people think it inconceivable they could ever be wrong and I've yet to see him concede a solitary point in WR discussions. Meh, variety is the spice of this sub.

 

[HereticBD]

Yeah, Jack is undoubtedly one sharp cookie. Yet if you couple that with unshakeable self confidence and an unchecked ego then you could end up like Jack. Some people think it inconceivable they could ever be wrong and I've yet to see him concede a solitary point in WR discussions. Meh, variety is the spice of this sub.

Well, I won't comment on whether or not he ever feels he is wrong, but he certainly knows he gets catty on occasion and lets the condescending personal insults fly.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Speaking of intelligently defending positions - How do you defend your position that it's impossible that Clinton could influence the media?

You're asking me to disprove a crazy CT that has no evidence to support it, that Clinton essentially has magic powers. You think if she had the power to control the MSM media that nutters thino, she wouldn't stop a minor violation of State Department email security protocols from being covered more than all policy issues combined in 2016?

 

[Jack V Savage]

There is no logical contradiction, and it's true that HRC claimed that the Republicans/Trump (not the Russians) were "grooming" Gabbard.

That's the point in dispute. So you concede that the correction was accurate.

 

[HereticBD]

You're asking me to disprove a crazy CT that has no evidence to support it, that Clinton essentially has magic powers. You think if she had the power to control the MSM media that nutters thino, she wouldn't stop a minor violation of State Department email security protocols from being covered more than all policy issues combined in 2016?

By "being covered" are you including the Liberal networks that excused and defended it 24/7?

 

[sickc0d3r]

Her comments about it being between her and Clinton and the self important tone of her response was way off. I like Tulsi, but her Tweet came off like an undercard, journeyman fighter chirping at a GOAT contender. No self awareness indeed.

Couldn’t have said it better.

 

[Jack V Savage]

By "being covered" are you including the Liberal networks that excused and defended it 24/7?

I'm talking about news coverage. It was by far the most covered story of the year, and it was generally presented as a major scandal.

 

[58miles]

Fucking pathetic that you just go along with it. She clearly said "Russians", you despicable hack.

Hillary did not call Tulsi a Russian asset she was referring to Stein who in addition to being a 3rd party candidate was also a Russian asset. She said that Tulsi was a favored candidate of the Russians and was being groomed by the Republicans to be a 3rd party candidate.

 

[waiguoren]

That's the point in dispute. So you concede that the correction was accurate.

I don't agree that was the point in dispute. To me, the point is biased framing.

 

[HereticBD]

I'm talking about news coverage. It was by far the most covered story of the year, and it was generally presented as a major scandal.

It was presented as a story. It was also dismissed largely by the Liberal networks as "nothing to see here", despite how much they may have covered it. The context in how it was covered matters, in how damaging it may have been. All the Liberal networks were largely in damage control as to how they covered it, and were rabidly trying to convince people that it was no big deal.

So while it may have been "covered", it wasn't covered in the negative sense across the board, like you're disingenuously trying to convey.

 

[waiguoren]

Hillary did not call Tulsi a Russian asset she was referring to Stein who in addition to being a 3rd party candidate was also a Russian asset

Hillary Clinton:

"[Gabbard] is the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. And, that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she is also a Russian asset."

I see the alternative reading that you're using for the word "also", but I think it's a big stretch. Also, the evidence that Stein is a Russian asset couldn't be flimsier.

 

[58miles]

By "being covered" are you including the Liberal networks that excused and defended it 24/7?

Excused and defended it? The "Liberal" networks made Hillary's emails seem like the 21st century version of Watergate. At the end of the day the official State Department investigation found no systemic or deliberate mishandling of classified information.