Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

__Biy5dQFWA

Hillary is scared that Tulsi Gabbard might become the first woman President - so she's trying to sabotage her by making up the same bullshit lie she made up against Trump.

This backfired and has exposed the fact that Hillary might have been full of shit the entire time to Liberals and Independents alike.

Now CNN and the Democrat Party have to decide whether Hillary's crazy antics are still an asset or a liability.

Hillary still hasn't forgiven her for endorsing Bernie in 2016.

this is already being discussed in the 2020 elections thread, as super-important as your opinion is.

It is true it was already slapped down as ridiculous in another thread.

Originally posted by Surtur
It is true it was already slapped down as ridiculous in another thread.

indeed, since she actually was suggesting that gabbard was being groomed by the republican party, and not russia. I know, it's very confusing since republicans have their noses so deep in putin's ass that it's tough to see the difference between the two. I experienced the same confusion myself on the matter

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/oct/22/hillary-clinton-and-whether-she-called-tulsi-gabba/

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
indeed, since she actually was suggesting that gabbard was being groomed by the republican party, and not russia. I know, it's very confusing since republicans have their noses so deep in putin's ass that it's tough to see the difference between the two. I experienced the same confusion myself on the matter

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/oct/22/hillary-clinton-and-whether-she-called-tulsi-gabba/

No she wasn't doing that, she said "russians are grooming". Her spokes person trying to back track failed.

nope, that's a deliberate misquote. facts>>>>your fee-fees

Incorrect spin, my son.

The link you gave doesn't even say it's true she was referring to the GOP. It cites her spokesman and says people can decide for themselves.

you posted a misquote. have fun lying, I guess.

Paraphrased what she said kid. Anything else you got?

And you just lied when you acted like your link is irrefutable evidence. Poor form.

"They're also going to do third party again. And I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate. She's 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, 'cause she's also a Russian asset."

So if this is just all about Republicans, explain what she means by "do third party again". When did they do it before? Oh...now is it gonna be claimed the Republicans groomed Stein?

that was a lie and a miquote, not a paraphrase.

in the future, refrain from using quotations. quotations are for quotes, which is why they're referred to as such. So your sentence should have been worded something like:

"Clinton said that Gabbard was being groomed by the Russians",

...Although that would also be a lie because the podcast transcript provides context (also more important than your fee-fees in such matters), which shows that the original quote in question was referring to their present conversation about republican strategy.

The context is them lying and saying one reason he was able to win was because of a third party vote. That is not true, conspiracy number 1. She then goes on to say they will do a "third party run again". They being Russians, not Republicans.

If she means Republicans, when did they do the third party run the first time? Is it now being claimed Jill Stein was groomed by the GOP? Would you like to trade one conspiracy theory for another? Because it all looks bad.

Originally posted by Surtur
No she wasn't doing that, she said "russians are grooming". Her spokes person trying to back track failed.

She really didn't say that I listened to the podcast. She spoke ALOT about Russia and inferred Tulsi is a Russian asset and that if stein would step down from that roll tulsi could step up essentially.

Hillary was alluding that Tulsi was a russian asset like Stein, that's the piece. The rest is noise.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/18/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard-russias-050991

Originally posted by CaveDude33211
__Biy5dQFWA

Hillary is scared that Tulsi Gabbard might become the first woman President - so she's trying to sabotage her by making up the same bullshit lie she made up against Trump.

This backfired and has exposed the fact that Hillary might have been full of shit the entire time to Liberals and Independents alike.

Now CNN and the Democrat Party have to decide whether Hillary's crazy antics are still an asset or a liability. Hmmm, good show Nuke or Riv or Fly or Star.

Originally posted by Surtur
Paraphrased what she said kid. Anything else you got?

And you just lied when you acted like your link is irrefutable evidence. Poor form.

Sorry, Surt, I have to get behind BT on this.


https://www.snopes.com/ap/2019/10/18/hillary-clinton-implies-gabbard-is-favored-by-russia/







Because I wouldn't trust if Snopes says the sun is hot.

Originally posted by Surtur
It is true it was already slapped down as ridiculous in another thread.


Yep. Slapped down as being a baseless, crazy ass conspiracy theory; just as her claiming Trump was as well.

@CDTM: Snopes? lmao.


They are a left-wing biased joke and everyone knows it.

WHOEVER she's accusing, without hard evidence, she will only serve to marginalize herself.


The "Russian agent" accusation is played out, and I doubt many on the left will credit her using it on her own brethren.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
@CDTM: Snopes? lmao.


They are a left-wing biased joke and everyone knows it.


They're pretty biased, no question. It's all in the labeling, one article will say "Mostly false", while another will say "partly true" for similar evidence.


There was an editorial (Forget the site) where a center left writer who trusted them tried digging into their vetting process, only to discover they really don't have one. Some of the people they hire COULD be unbiased. Or, they could be VERY biased.



But no one is "peer reviewing" these people.

Originally posted by snowdragon
She really didn't say that I listened to the podcast. She spoke ALOT about Russia and inferred Tulsi is a Russian asset and that if stein would step down from that roll tulsi could step up essentially.

Hillary was alluding that Tulsi was a russian asset like Stein, that's the piece. The rest is noise.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/18/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard-russias-050991

The word grooming was definitely used, now the excuse is she meant the republicans. She said they are gonna go third party "again". Remember: in the past Jill Stein was pushed as a Russian shill stealing votes from Hillary. I do not recall it ever being "The GOP groomed Stein to take votes away from Hillary". Yet if she meant republicans and not russians when saying they will "go third party again". Which means she is saying not only are they grooming Tulsi, but that they groomed Jill Stein lol.

Which still leaves us with an unhinged conspiracy theory with no evidence. And the word "grooming" suggests active cooperation. If a person runs for office and I donate money to them...I'm supporting them, but I'm not "grooming" them unless I have some sort of relationship with them. So I'd ask what the basis is for the claim whether she meant russians or republicans lol.

Why do I get the feeling the answer from some will be stuff like "she went on fox"?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
that was a lie and a miquote, not a paraphrase.

in the future, refrain from using quotations. quotations are for quotes, which is why they're referred to as such. So your sentence should have been worded something like:

"Clinton said that Gabbard was being groomed by the Russians",

...Although that would also be a lie because the podcast transcript provides context (also more important than your fee-fees in such matters), which shows that the original quote in question was referring to their present conversation about republican strategy.

Wow...

But why do we want Clinton to have said that or not have said it?

Originally posted by cdtm
WHOEVER she's accusing, without hard evidence, she will only serve to marginalize herself.


The "Russian agent" accusation is played out, and I doubt many on the left will credit her using it on her own brethren.

This brings up another point, is the attempt to go "she meant republicans!" just trying to set the record straight or is it being pushed because the gullible somehow think it's more acceptable to aim unhinged conspiracies at republicans than it is russians?

Cuz at the end of the day I still see a bitter old lady lying and pushing unhinged conspiracies, making herself look like a damn fool. And I see those trying to justify the conspiracies as almost as bad.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wow...

But why do we want Clinton to have said that or not have said it?

It's damage control. They think it's more acceptable with their spin. Which should tell us a lot about them.

But then again these are the same people that think our own media has more of a right to manipulate us and lie to us than some russians do to post some gay bernie sanders coloring books on facebook.

okay, so are you suggesting that the full podcast transcript is a fabrication, or are you behaving like those woodstock hippies who tried to chant the rain away?

I'm certainly open to interpreting it the way you do. So...the claim is indeed that republicans groomed Stein in 2016 then, correct? That surely had to be what she meant when she said they'd go third party, if she meant repubs.

And btw in your interpretation: is she somehow less unhinged?

vD94dVu8lqQ

tbh I took it at face value as well when all network news parroted the same lie. at least one of us learned our lesson and I allowed critical thinking to save me from the jaws of ignorance. godspeed surt. chant more and stop the rain.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
tbh I took it at face value as well when all network news parroted the same lie. at least one of us learned our lesson and I allowed critical thinking to save me from the jaws of ignorance. godspeed surt. chant more and stop the rain.

Oh man the very concept of self awareness just blew its brains out.

And I'm guessing I'm not gonna get any valid answer on if you feel your interpretation somehow makes her appear less unhinged...?

Originally posted by Surtur
The word grooming was definitely used, now the excuse is she meant the republicans. She said they are gonna go third party "again". Remember: in the past Jill Stein was pushed as a Russian shill stealing votes from Hillary. I do not recall it ever being "The GOP groomed Stein to take votes away from Hillary". Yet if she meant republicans and not russians when saying they will "go third party again". Which means she is saying not only are they grooming Tulsi, but that they groomed Jill Stein lol.

Which still leaves us with an unhinged conspiracy theory with no evidence. And the word "grooming" suggests active cooperation. If a person runs for office and I donate money to them...I'm supporting them, but I'm not "grooming" them unless I have some sort of relationship with them. So I'd ask what the basis is for the claim whether she meant russians or republicans lol.

Why do I get the feeling the answer from some will be stuff like "she went on fox"?

I've said it on this thread and the other thread, it wasn't about the grooming it was about Hillary crying Russia again and pointing a finger at Tulsi and Stein, she absolutely did that.

I listened to the podcast so that I could blow past all the media trash, her mssg was clearly russia and assets. It's fairly ridiculous because no one can choose those sort of events behind the scenes, then to call it out is clearly one of those "dog whistles" (lulz.)

Okay but the word grooming is used by her that is even in the link Bash gave. So if she was referring to republicans grooming, it means she is now saying they groomed Jill Stein too.

IMO this wasn't merely an attempt to correct the record, I think some think it paints her in a better light if she meant republicans, but it really doesn't. It's like if someone tells their friend they think aliens from mars are spying on them via implants in their fingertips and the friend repeats it, but says saturn instead of mars. It doesn't magically become less crazy.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
tbh I took it at face value as well when all network news parroted the same lie. at least one of us learned our lesson and I allowed critical thinking to save me from the jaws of ignorance. godspeed surt. chant more and stop the rain.

Seems I'm guilty of that crime too. Fault is mine, should have researched it.

Originally posted by snowdragon
I've said it on this thread and the other thread, it wasn't about the grooming it was about Hillary crying Russia again and pointing a finger at Tulsi and Stein, she absolutely did that.

I listened to the podcast so that I could blow past all the media trash, her mssg was clearly russia and assets. It's fairly ridiculous because no one can choose those sort of events behind the scenes, then to call it out is clearly one of those "dog whistles" (lulz.)

Your interpretation is what I took away, as well. It should seem obvious to anyone not coming into the situation with a bias (which both PVS and Surtur have).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your interpretation is what I took away, as well. It should seem obvious to anyone not coming into the situation with a bias (which both PVS and Surtur have).

I mean I'm more than willing to say she meant republicans were doing the grooming, but I'm curious if any of the usual suspects here will answer me when I ask if they think it somehow paints her in a better light. One already dodged that repeatedly.

Cuz for me the bottom line is spouting off about insane conspiracy theories.

EDIT: And I'm waiting for the fact checkers the media love so much to fact check her claims about Stein being one of the reasons she lost.

Originally posted by Surtur
I mean I'm more than willing to say she meant republicans were doing the grooming, but I'm curious if any of the usual suspects here will answer me when I ask if they think it somehow paints her in a better light. One already dodged that repeatedly.

Cuz for me the bottom line is spouting off about insane conspiracy theories.

EDIT: And I'm waiting for the fact checkers the media love so much to fact check her claims about Stein being one of the reasons she lost.

I'll be honest:

I think Clinton is too stupid to have over 400 people murdered over the course of 30 years.

Politicians are like legal mobsters, at least in this country. They rarely need to have people killed because their power and money gives them plenty of other options.

To answer Surt's silly question: Yes, saying Gabbard is being groomed by Republicans to possibly run as a 3rd party candidate as a means to siphon some votes away from the Democrat nominee in 2020 is far more sensible than the narrative of Clinton saying Gabbard is a secret Russian asset.

The reason I call his question silly, is because he'll deny the common sense logic I just noted and insist he's right.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
tbh I took it at face value as well when all network news parroted the same lie. at least one of us learned our lesson and I allowed critical thinking to save me from the jaws of ignorance. godspeed surt. chant more and stop the rain. Thought I was the only one who did that Bash, but you too

Originally posted by Robtard
To answer Surt's silly question: Yes, saying Gabbard is being groomed by Republicans to possibly run as a 3rd party candidate as a means to siphon some votes away from the Democrat nominee in 2020 is far more sensible than the narrative of Clinton saying Gabbard is a secret Russian asset.

The reason I call his question silly, is because he'll deny the common sense logic I just noted and insist he's right.

Yes, that was the demonstrably proven false narrative that Hilary put forth for her loss in 2016: Stein took away her votes. But actual fact checking of that claim made it obvious that Stein didn't come anywhere close to stealing votes from Hillary enough for Trump to edge her out in key states.

However, it should be noted that a healthy number who voted for Bernie also switched parties and voted for Trump.

A lot of them.


But still not enough in key states to change the outcome of the election.

What's more believable:

Facts you can check rather easily and prove Clinton wrong.

Conjecture by Clinton based on facts you can prove wrong?




Clinton can try to push the blame of on anyone except for her terribleness and her party's terribleness. It works because many moronic Democratics eat it up. But most people don't buy it.

Originally posted by Robtard
To answer Surt's silly question: Yes, saying Gabbard is being groomed by Republicans to possibly run as a 3rd party candidate as a means to siphon some votes away from the Democrat nominee in 2020 is far more sensible than the narrative of Clinton saying Gabbard is a secret Russian asset.

The reason I call his question silly, is because he'll deny the common sense logic I just noted and insist he's right.

So basically "I win if you disagree with me". Do better.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, that was the demonstrably proven false narrative that Hilary put forth for her loss in 2016: Stein took away her votes. But actual fact checking of that claim made it obvious that Stein didn't come anywhere close to stealing votes from Hillary enough for Trump to edge her out in key states.

However, it should be noted that a healthy number who voted for Bernie also switched parties and voted for Trump.

A lot of them.


But still not enough in key states to change the outcome of the election.

What's more believable:

Facts you can check rather easily and prove Clinton wrong.

Conjecture by Clinton based on facts you can prove wrong?




Clinton can try to push the blame of on anyone except for her terribleness and her party's terribleness. It works because many moronic Democratics eat it up. But most people don't buy it.

Yup, the Jill Stein thing has actually been debunked and they still insist, crying "republican grooming!" is just as silly as crying about russians. The republicans just love it when the democrats fight among themselves.

And if you were a betting man, would you wager Hillary also probably thinks the republicans are in cahoots with the russians?

Originally posted by Surtur
So basically "I win if you disagree with me". Do better.

Wasn't my point (you know this) and no, there is no winning or losing here. You should really know that by now.

Originally posted by Robtard
Wasn't my point (you know this) and no, there is no winning or losing here. You should really know that by now.

Lol the final line of your post boiled down to "if you disagree with me I'm right".

I'm not gonna debate you over it. Try it on someone else.

What happened: I said something reasonable and logical, but that reason/logic didn't cast Clinton in the worst possible light, so therefore it's unacceptable to you. You won't accept this either

Anyways, I will note these two do have kind of a history. There was bitterness when Tulsi decided to endorse Bernie in 2016.

Originally posted by Surtur
Anyways, I will note these two do have kind of a history. There was bitterness when Tulsi decided to endorse Bernie in 2016.

And that makes much more sense than any of the tinfoil hate conspiracies.


Tulsi doesn't like Clinton for obvious corruption reasons. Clinton doesn't like Tulsi for obvious "she's against me but from the same party and that's not how Democrats are supposed to work" reasons.