-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Now Tulsi sues Hillary for $50 million for calling her a "Russian asset"
- Thread starter Deleted member 31923
- Start date
Sure, Gabbard deserves plenty of criticism for endorsing Kremlin-linked policy over the last 6 years, but my argument was that the links to "Russia!" are not "unfounded allegations,." like you wrote. They're clear and following a similar playbook to how Kremlin-backed sources and agencies supported Jill Stein in 2016, who herself has held similar positions as Gabbard.
MOD EDIT: Don't post fake tweets as if they were real
BWHAHAHA it's her claming CLinton might have her killed and make it look like a suicide.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lol, you believed a Michael Malice post?!?!?!? Are you serious?
Just to be 100% clear, that is not in the actual lawsuit. That is photoshop.
Fair enough, I should have said "unproven" rather than "unfounded".
Her "endorsing Kremlin-linked policy" would be on the bottom of my list of criticisms. Her support for Modi, for instance, is both well-known and unconscionable.
They have an interest in deliberately playing both sides of the coin- it's why they set up those fake opposing rallies. Russia's a right wing authoritarian mafia state that props up right wing governments worldwide. They're not interested in multiculturalism or fighting white supremacy.
Your point is really that you and others are still holding a grudge over anti-communist efforts and are still treating Russia as though it's a nominally communist state and not an explicitly authoritarian oligarchical mafia state. This stuff is not "crazy" to anyone who's been following international and domestic politics for the past decade.
A little research before you use "they got black friends defense"
That makes more sense.
I don't know every stupid Twitter meme whatever guy so sorry,
lmao this is an incredibly projecting post, thanks for discussing in good faith!
Please feel free point to anything in my post history that would support your trenchant hypothesis.
edit: not sure why I'm compelled to pledge my loyalty, but for the record I think Putin is one of the most destructive forces in global politics today. I just don't think he's the magical all-powerful demigod that some like to think of him as
Not sure if this is disingenous or a seriously ignorant misread of my post, but I wasn't defending RT
Like clockwork, too. Tulsi habitually pulls stunts like this the moment she starts sliding into obscurity.
This thread will serve as a great barometer for which posters I need to take less seriously, though.
I have a feeling this is about keeping Tulsi relevant by using Clinton as a foil. Republicans have been doing it for 20 years.
What a stupid comparison. Jesus.
Tulsi told an interviewer that her views haven't actually changed and never challenged any of the details of that interview. The Hawaii LGBT caucus dropped their support for her reelection campaign because she wouldn't actually sit down for an interview to clarify her position. Also, the Human Rights Campaign's endorsement means little when they stood by their endorsement of a blatantly racist Republican over Tammy Duckworth.
We already know her political career has largely been funded by members of the fascist RSS:
Wow.
So, there's video footage of her with several family members, including her husband and her father in law as well as multiple staff members from 2018 at a devotional event that features an alter with radical homophobic cult leader Chris Butler but you're going to write that off as "Pizzagate"?
Tulsi is a piece of shit and her being a member of a homophobic cult is just one piece in that puzzle. Her recent voting record doesn't change that she's a member of this cult. And that's on top of her history of homophobia and homophobic rhetoric.
Enough with this gaslighting of queer people, thanks.
It's not "projection", it's that when you talk about Russia's actions as a "crazy theory", that reads to me as deliberately trying to downplay it in the same way people like Taibibi and Tracey will talk about a "Russiagate Hoax." I'm just generally going to give a more charitable read to it coming from someone who I don't think is a closet right winger, relative to those two.
Roundabout you are, by assiocating them with BLM(which is insulting, but I am not going get into) and using it to legimatizing them. Ignoring how they also ran stories demonizing it. If I promote fire safety one day and talk about the joys of arson the next, I might not be on the up and up.
you need to put words in my mouth to make your point. I said it sounds crazy to a lot of people. I was arguing that there are more effective ways to criticize Tulsi.
If anyone wants to pretend that I'm some big Putin lover I don't really give a shit.
My point was that RT can run stories about whoever they want. I thought it was clear in my post that it didn't reflect on BLM as an organization.
The spokesperson did not confirm it was what she said or meant to say, and in fact after the NYT corrected it, he retracted his comment. He was asked while the misquote was still being touted, and gave a reaction to it in support of Hillary. There's nothing indicating he spoke to Hillary after the initial quote when the question came up. He wasn't issuing a formal statement for Hillary at all, nor would it matter since he was wrong in his first reaction anyway and Hillary wouldn't be responsible for his reaction to the same edit that anyone on her staff was likely also sent at the moment of publication.
You're probably right, I should take the concerns of a random Slate article over the largest pro-LGBTQ organization in the world.
I'm not saying the HRC is infallible but this isn't a singular endorsement, this is her grade for her entire voting record throughout her whole history in Congress.
So that excuses her being an active member of a cult fronted by a radical homophobe or...?
You're both a bit inaccurate imo. She did indeed work to "protect traditional marriage" and related legislation with her father but she also said last year she was sorry for believing things in the past that were hurtful to LGBT people.
Oh well if she apologized then the fact that she went on TV here and said gay people are basically child molesters is no big deal
It's a dumb hypothetical, because Bernie is not stupid, but no, lol, Bernie should not pick a homophobic cultist as his vice president
Like I said, there is literally zero reputable evidence that is true.
There is 100x more evidence that Hillary Clinton associated with and knew about the scum of the earth that she did and people are still in denial about that. I'm just looking for a consistent standard here in what we're willing to believe.
I was just stating a fact, she did apologize. Don't snap on that alone. I don't care if people accept her apology personally. I think she's trash and doubt she changed, so I don't accept it as genuine.
There's been widespread reporting on Russian bot support for organizations such as BLM. I'm sorry if my posts offended you.
So video of her at a cult ceremony in 2018, interviews with people who grew up with her in that environment and have since left it, and Tulsi's own statements talking up the cult leader Chris Butler over the past decade are all "not reputable" because..... reasons? https://www.resetera.com/threads/ne...-anti-lgbt-religious-leader-unearthed.142240/
The Gabbards literally don't deny that they belong to Chris Butler's cult. Tulsi has admitted it herself. This comment demonstrates that you have so little knowledge about the topic it's hard to imagine you are engaging in good faith.
False.
You wrote this off as similar to Pizzagate, but that doesn't make what you said true at all.
Please stop minimizing homophobia, thanks.
OP
OP
Yeah, Tulsi is so bad that even Biden wouldn't pick her. Though Biden may pick that cop Kamala, but even she is way better than Tulsi.
It's not a question of "If," Russia Today/RT is a fully funded media arm of the Kremlin. It gets it's funding and editorial direction from the Kremlin. This isn't hidden or secretive, RT was a program of the Russian government, is funded by the Kremlin, and Putin takes credit for its creation, execution, and editorial direction.
BUt the question of why Russian trolls, Russian media networks, and more, focused on issues like Black Lives Matter in 2016 is more complex and it's a good question that seems strange on its face. The expert consensus is that it was part of a multi-pronged disinformation campaign to sew discord between Americans, discourage minorities from voting, or encourage minorities to support 3rd party candidates, to help elect Donald Trump.
Russia Today does not have aligned interests in civil unrest, they have an interest in promoting discord amongst Americans. This is part of Russia's coordinated strategy during 2016, and surely continuing into 2020, to try to disenfranchised minority voters and discourage them from going to the polls, or encourage them to vote 3rd party, as they did in 2016. In 2016, Russia ran thousands of bot accounts endorsing Jill Stein, many of them were racially motivated, but here were three good examples:
Woke Blacks posting about Killary, Blacktivist endorsing Jill Stein, and United Muslim America supporting boycotting the 2016 election. All three accounts were run by the Internet Research Agency, a technology wing of Russian army, with the posts written by white people in Russia. There are thousands of accounts like these, and on Facebook alone posts like these reached over 130m American citizens.
Russia didn't just stop at running their own campaigns, by and large they reached out to legitimate social justice activist accounts to help coordinate their messaging, often posing as African Americans, when in fact they were just ... white Russians and members of the FSB:
Russian FSB agents would coordinate protests between pro-gun groups on Facebook and Black Lives MAtter groups on Facebook, to recruit genuine Americans to try to get them to show up at the same day, at the same place, to protest each other. They would simultaneously plan a rally by "The South Unites: Heritage Not Hate" (a white supremacist, gun-rights facebook group) and Blacktivist (A facebook group for civil rights and Black activism).
NYT
This doesn't mean that the message of Black Lives Matter is undermined, it isn't, but that message was co-opted in 2016 by a coordinated effort by the Russian government to get Donald Trump elected president. RT does not have any aligned interest in minority rights activism, at all, it doesn't care about the plight of Black people in America or minorities anywhere else. When Russian military backed Instagram accounts posing as American muslims encouraged Muslims to boycott the election, they weren't doing so for the welfare of American muslims... This is the same military organization that staged fake muslim terrorist attacks in Moscow to justify the utter destruction of Muslims in Chechnya. They don't care about Muslims or Black Americans. Russia Today created a Black Lives Matter documentary to further the cause of White Supremacy in the United States.
Last edited:
I 100% agree with that, before her career in Congress she definitely did things I do not agree with and I'm not supporting her because I believe there are better options, partially because of that.
But she has apologized and has voted in support of LGBTQ rights perfectly the past 10 years so I don't think that the cult fearmongering is accurate or productive.
That's exactly what it is.
Whataboutism. And you're not going to get consistent responses when debating on a forum with thousands of individuals with unique opinions. But you know that.
One of my biggest annoyances with this community is how commonly posters play the victim and act as if Era is a monolith specifically when they need to make disingenuous arguments. "Why is everyone attacking Bernie?" from one person and "Why is everyone ignoring Bernie's issues?" from another a post over. And now, essentially, "why are people giving Clinton a pass?", as if she isn't the most lambasted non-GOP politician on this board. It's exhausting.
He's not. He did the same routine in another thread a couple of months ago.
Reporting the truth about Gabbard isn't "fearmongering." Knowing that Gabbard said one thing, presumably to make herself more palatable as a candidate, while continuing to participate in what is 100% a homophobic cult is actually very productive. It gives a very clear picture of the sort of politician she is.
Please stop minimizing and rationalizing homophobia, thank you.
I think she is unfairly maligned on this specific issue. I don't see how that precludes me from arguing in good faith.
