Wouldn't be her first frivolous lawsuit. She tried to get $50M out of Clinton because she misunderstood something she said (she dropped that one with no settlement) and $50M from Google for suspending ad account (dismissed by a judge). She's not a big fan of free speech or telling the truth.
Hmm. Can you think of any moderate position between "all women tell the truth all the time" and "no woman can be trusted"? I feel like this one shouldn't be too hard for you.
Whom is she trying to silence in this scenario?
Who. She's not trying to silence anyone in this scenario, but she has a history of using frivolous suits on her perceived enemies.
I have no problem betting on if she's on the terror watch list she's on the terror watch list
Whom.
What does that mean? My claim is that any damages she seeks will not be awarded. My guess here is that if she's facing heightened security, it's for good reasons (e.g., being a high-profile politician) and the claims that she's facing some kind of retaliatory action are silly. No one cares about Gabbard but losers who take manufactured controversies too seriously.
I'm saying she is on the terror watch list you are arguing that she made that up. Grow some balls and go through with your bet. I'll do an account but she's on the terror watch list with you
Are you zebby? He always backtracked like this
*Bet
I made my offer. If we agree that she's probably lying, then what are we still talking about?
I think you're showing that in addition to horrendous grammar, you have really poor reading comprehension.
Please quote me where I said anything other than she's on the terror watch list. Such as she will win a judgment against the biden administration for what happened
We are talking about making a bet about her being on the Terror watch list. You offer the bet if you don't know what I was talking about that's on you
Read my post again.
I have no concern over her winning a judgment nor have I ever posted she would win a judgment. My posts were in regards her being on the terror watch list. Would you like to bet on that or not?
Why would I read a post about betting on something I never stated? This whole thing started with sinister saying there's no proof she's on the terror watch list. I have no idea why you were quoting me if you want to argue anything other than that
The point here is that she may (or may not) be facing heightened scrutiny, but if so, there are almost certainly legitimate reasons for it. And it sounds like we agree about that.
