Tulsi Gabbard Russian asset!

[hollodero]

(10-21-2019, 04:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is what I think.  I might actually be agreeing with you, but just disagree on the semantics.

Gabbard has made some comments and taken some positions that the Russians like.  Those comments and positions are assets that the Russians can use even if Gabbard does not really want then to.  So those would be "assets" to the Russians.

But I don't think Gabbard is being "groomed" because I don't think the Russians really control her.  In fact I don't think the Russians really even support her.  They can just use her comments and positions to sow discord among the Democrats and divide them.

Hillary is just hyper-sensitive to Russian meddling because she was the victim last time.  If she really thought that Tulsi was working with the Russians she should have talked to her first instead of bring this out in the media.

To give a really late response: You might be right, this is not my prime language after all. To me, being an "asset" contains being willfully on team Russia. Getting groomed would mean (to me) they might support her, but she does not ask for it.

As for Hillary, claiming the left is obsessed with her seems odd. Republicans allegedly asked Taylor about her emails and not much else, and they pretty much asked every witness about Hillary and her emails and her Fusion GPS connection in the open sessions I saw. Kavanaugh claimed the allegations against him are revenge on behalf of the Clintons. Trump's favorite outlet Breitbart has a Hillary article every other day. Now that is what I'd consider an obsession.

[GMDino]

(10-23-2019, 08:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Hmm so Hillary said Russians, but meant Republicans...
Kinda like her whole campaign. says one thing, but really meant something else.
Billy even warned her she's gonna lose, but she's a stubborn one.

I had thought we had seen the last of her, but guess she just won't stop. She'd like the energizer bunny.

But I don't care about her, nor am I obsessed she was a waste of Dem time then and is even worse now.

Hills needs to take a lesson from Queen Elsa and let it go.

What I read (and posted above) was that Clinton said Republicans and the Time wrote Russians and then changed it without announcing the correction.

[GMDino]

(10-23-2019, 09:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: What I read (and posted above) was that Clinton said Republicans and the Time wrote Russians and then changed it without announcing the correction.

So here it is:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-hillary-clinton-russia.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fmaggie-astor&action=click&contentCollection=undefined®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection

Quote:Correction: Oct. 23, 2019

An earlier version of this article described incorrectly an element of Hillary Clinton's recent comments about Representative Tulsi Gabbard. While Mrs. Clinton said that a Democratic presidential candidate was "the favorite of the Russians," and an aide later confirmed the reference was to Ms. Gabbard, Mrs. Clinton's remark about the “grooming” of a third-party candidate in the 2020 race was in response to a question about the Republicans’ strategy, not about Russian intervention.

So the entire premise for the "outrage" from Gabbard and the right is based on the Times getting it wrong and making a correction five days later.

[BmorePat87]

(10-23-2019, 09:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: So here it is:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-hillary-clinton-russia.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fmaggie-astor&action=click&contentCollection=undefined®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection



So the entire premise for the "outrage" from Gabbard and the right is based on the Times getting it wrong and making a correction five days later.

Just to be clear, her spokesman confirmed that she was implying that Gabbard and Stein are assets to Russia, they’re just suggesting it’s unwittingly.

[GMDino]

(10-23-2019, 09:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: So here it is:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-hillary-clinton-russia.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fmaggie-astor&action=click&contentCollection=undefined®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection



So the entire premise for the "outrage" from Gabbard and the right is based on the Times getting it wrong and making a correction five days later.

And apparently they changed the story Friday the 18th...and didn't make a citation about it until a few hours ago on the 23rd.

Cool.

We’ve added a correction to the article to make clear that the initial version incorrectly described Clinton’s remarks on the “grooming” of a 3rd party candidate. We noted the change Friday in the article, but we took the additional step today of adding a formal correction line.

— Patrick Healy (@patrickhealynyt) October 23, 2019

 

[GMDino]

(10-23-2019, 09:42 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Just to be clear, her spokesman confirmed that she was implying that Gabbard and Stein are assets to Russia, they’re just suggesting it’s unwittingly.

Sure, but the Times corrected the story and left the narrative that "Clinton said Gabbard was a Russian operative" out there.

Lots of folks have lots of preconceived notions about Clinton and a "poorly written article" just added fuel to the fire.  She is what she is but she doesn't say "stupid" things.  She is careful with her words.  That's all.

[BmorePat87]

(10-23-2019, 09:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: Sure, but the Times corrected the story and left the narrative that "Clinton said Gabbard was a Russian operative" out there.

Lots of folks have lots of preconceived notions about Clinton and a "poorly written article" just added fuel to the fire.  She is what she is but she doesn't say "stupid" things.  She is careful with her words.  That's all.

The article corrected that she said the GOP was grooming her to be a 3rd party candidate, not Russia.

She still called her a Russian asset. 

[GMDino]

(10-23-2019, 10:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The article corrected that she said the GOP was grooming her to be a 3rd party candidate, not Russia.

She still called her a Russian asset. 

And I won't play the semantics game about it.  I'm just saying the initial reporting was wrong. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-23-2019, 11:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: And I won't play the semantics game about it.  I'm just saying the initial reporting was wrong. 

As was your assessment of the correction.  No semantics needed. You're still using the word "semantics" incorrectly btw.

[BmorePat87]

(10-23-2019, 11:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: And I won't play the semantics game about it.  I'm just saying the initial reporting was wrong. 

It's not semantics. Two claims were lobbied:

1. Groomed by GOP
2. Russian asset

NYT got the first one wrong but the second one right. The "narrative" of her being an asset was still true. 

[GMDino]

(10-24-2019, 01:10 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's not semantics. Two claims were lobbied:

1. Groomed by GOP
2. Russian asset

NYT got the first one wrong but the second one right. The "narrative" of her being an asset was still true. 

The initial argument I saw was that she said Gabbard was an asset who was being groomed by the Russians.  That wasn't what was said.

Either way I think Clinton had a point that what Gabbard talks about and says is loved by the Russians/Republicans.  

[Dill]

(10-23-2019, 07:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Dill Wrote: 2. Who are the "right people" who have a problem with Hillary, if not "the Right"? 

1. Folks making comments such as these

I urge everyone NOT to vote for Hillary in the upcoming election. Smirk

No chance of locking her up though. Unless 30,000 deleted emails turn up in the Ukraine, the Benghazi bonus has been put to bed.


2. Maybe folks that think popular vote counts for anything. 

LOL you aren't responding to my posts because I have problem with Hillary.

[Dill]

(10-23-2019, 08:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Hmm so Hillary said Russians, but meant Republicans...
Kinda like her whole campaign. says one thing, but really meant something else.
Billy even warned her she's gonna lose, but she's a stubborn one.

I had thought we had seen the last of her, but guess she just won't stop. She'd like the energizer bunny.

But I don't care about her, nor am I obsessed she was a waste of Dem time then and is even worse now.

Hills needs to take a lesson from Queen Elsa and let it go.

If you were watching Laura last night, she had a segment on the "return of Hillary" with two guests.  

She and Trump want Hillary to throw her hat into the primary race. 

Democrats just won't let go . . . .

[BmorePat87]

(10-24-2019, 09:08 AM)GMDino Wrote: The initial argument I saw was that she said Gabbard was an asset who was being groomed by the Russians.  That wasn't what was said.

Either way I think Clinton had a point that what Gabbard talks about and says is loved by the Russians/Republicans.  

This is goal post moving. 

You just said the narrative was "Clinton said Gabbard was a Russian operative". I explained that Clinton still called her an asset so you responded with: "[Clinton] said Gabbard was an asset who was being groomed by the Russians".

The NYT was wrong in saying that Clinton said Russia was grooming her. They and no one else is wrong in saying that Clinton implied that she was a Russian asset. Clinton's spokesman's response was "well if the nesting doll fits" and then explicitly stated that she believes Gabbard is "an asset to Russia".

[GMDino]

(10-24-2019, 09:27 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is goal post moving. 

You just said the narrative was "Clinton said Gabbard was a Russian operative". I explained that Clinton still called her an asset so you responded with: "[Clinton] said Gabbard was an asset who was being groomed by the Russians".

The NYT was wrong in saying that Clinton said Russia was grooming her. They and no one else is wrong in saying that Clinton implied that she was a Russian asset. Clinton's spokesman's response was "well if the nesting doll fits" and then explicitly stated that she believes Gabbard is "an asset to Russia".

Saying she is "an asset to Russia" implies differently than "she is a Russian asset"...but I really don't even care. 

Clinton wasn't wrong and Gabbard and the Russian bots showed that...so I'll grant that I didn't understand the initial hubbub about what Clinton said and I'm wrong in how I am presenting that the story was changed in the wording to make it seem like Clinton was saying Gabbard was working for Russia to undermine the Democrats and still say that it's funny that the Right can't get over the 2016 election and are still running against Clinton.  

And now I've said I was wrong and misunderstood something so I'll wait for the wet noodle lashing....

[Dill]

(10-23-2019, 09:25 PM)hollodero Wrote: To give a really late response: You might be right, this is not my prime language after all. To me, being an "asset" contains being willfully on team Russia. Getting groomed would mean (to me) they might support her, but she does not ask for it.

As for Hillary, claiming the left is obsessed with her seems odd. Republicans allegedly asked Taylor about her emails and not much else, and they pretty much asked every witness about Hillary and her emails and her Fusion GPS connection in the open sessions I saw. Kavanaugh claimed the allegations against him are revenge on behalf of the Clintons. Trump's favorite outlet Breitbart has a Hillary article every other day. Now that is what I'd consider an obsession.

To the bolded--by your definition, CIA handlers in counter-intel operations could not call their HUMINT sources "assets."

The rest is all good points.

[BmorePat87]

(10-24-2019, 09:53 AM)GMDino Wrote: Saying she is "an asset to Russia" implies differently than "she is a Russian asset"...but I really don't even care. 

Clinton wasn't wrong and Gabbard and the Russian bots showed that...so I'll grant that I didn't understand the initial hubbub about what Clinton said and I'm wrong in how I am presenting that the story was changed in the wording to make it seem like Clinton was saying Gabbard was working for Russia to undermine the Democrats and still say that it's funny that the Right can't get over the 2016 election and are still running against Clinton.  

And now I've said I was wrong and misunderstood something so I'll wait for the wet noodle lashing....

Attacking someone for admitting they misread something or for correcting themselves only serves to encourage people to never correct themselves. 

[GMDino]

I don't know why anyone would think the GOP wants her to run? I think the Republicans would LOVE her. 

Tulsi Gabbard appears on Hannity and criticizes the impeachment inquiry process by saying she doesn’t know what’s going on behind closed doors and that she wants transparency pic.twitter.com/au4Zyyhv0B

— Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) October 25, 2019

[BmorePat87]

(10-25-2019, 07:53 AM)GMDino Wrote: I don't know why anyone would think the GOP wants her to run? I think the Republicans would LOVE her. 

Tulsi Gabbard appears on Hannity and criticizes the impeachment inquiry process by saying she doesn’t know what’s going on behind closed doors and that she wants transparency pic.twitter.com/au4Zyyhv0B

— Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) October 25, 2019

She just announced that she won't seek reelection to Congress because she's committed to running for President...

[GMDino]

(10-25-2019, 08:32 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: She just announced that she won't seek reelection to Congress because she's committed to running for President...

But she said she would NOT run as a 3rd party/independent!!!

Who CAN we trust?!?!