-
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
She has continued to participate in a homophobic cult as recently as 2018 but she's being "unfairly maligned"?
it doesn't, you could clearly argue in good faith if you wanted to, but denying the existence of evidence that is publicly available and agreed to by the people you're defending proves that you aren't
Ah, because she apologized and has a good voting record.
Now, let's apply some of that consistency you just complained we lack on this board: Does Hillary's outstanding voting record on women's rights and her various public apologies over the years excuse her actions and behavior?
Good. If she had called her an indian agent that would have actually had some merit, but of course Hillary is playing the washington game, these elite types care nothing about actual facts. So suing clinton makes sense for lying and defaming to stoke the russia hysteria
Hillary never mentioned Tulsi by name. She did that to herself.
So maybe, just maybe, let's try and not make this about Hillary, hmmm?
Pretty much with the Clinton family, but its always nice to see
Why is this nice to see, exactly?
Edit: Actually, feel free to ignore this post. I don't think there's going to be a productive exchange here.
"these elite types care nothing about actual facts."
Well, as long as you want to talk about facts... Y'know... Hillary Clinton never actually called Tulsi a Russian agent. She said Tulsi was being groomed by Republicans for a 3rd party run. That's it. Also, she's right. Tulsi Gabbard is currently being groomed by Republicans for a 3rd party run.
It's the same shit with the people that were hoping that Trump's baseless smears against Biden would be effective.
It's disgusting to see how far some are willing to lower themselves.
I mean, conveniently ignoring Hillary's record while excusing Gabbard's record points to me that good faith isn't your mission in this thread.
Then again, I don't trust anybody who would put themselves out there to defend folks Tulsi Gabbard.
Clinton didn't say Russian at all. She said Republican. Tulsi is misquoting it.
Not much to do with the Clinton family, it's just impossible for Tulsi to meet the burden of proof for defamation here, as it generally is for any public figure. You can't sue somebody for engaging in political rhetoric or exaggeration, any more than Hillary Clinton could sue you for saying she's a convicted war criminal on this board.
I am not really sure why you would be in favor of frivolous lawsuits filed only to harass, but the billionaires and petit bourgeois who take advantage of such tactics appreciate your support in these troubled times.
We're seriously arguing over someone who voted Present on impeachment, a grifter who seriously attempted to both sides Democratic attempts to hold Trump accountable. How does that not utterly shame anyone who'd speak in Tulsi's favor on this forum is beyond me.
No, she literally said tusli "was a favorite of the russians" we have the video. NYT came by and tried to clean up the mess by saying "she meant repubican" but its clear what she said. Like trying to equivocate on supporting the Dem nominee.
User Banned (1 month): dismissing concerns around homophobia
Like I said, if the evidence against Hillary is Mt Everest...this evidence against Tulsi is an ant hill at best.
It needs to be remotely comparable to be whataboutism...Hillary has years upon years of constant association, photos and accepting large donations from Epstein, Weinstein and company. The closest thing to literal slaves in the modern world at the governors house in Arkansas. Tulsi has a handcam video of her at a party and shitty views when she was in her early 20s? Hillary did all this shit as a grown ass woman. Hell, Hillary literally didn't support gay marriage publicly until 2013 at least two years after Gabbard. It's not even close.
Also, in response to your last post...I am not calling Era a monolith. I can give you specific users who are doing this.
I'm getting out of this thread now because this is not remotely the hill I want to die on.
I mean we're talking about two suspect people, including one who's direct intervention actually has actually toppled countries and caused mass suffering and death. Someone who overtly supports war criminals among countless other things. Anyone being defensive of Tuls or clinton should be ashamed of themselves IMO.
But just on the merits of the claims as they stand, Clinton called her a Russian asset and favorite of the russians who they have tons of contacts with and are grooming. Just on the merits of lying and accusing someone of being something they arent, that's grounds for a libel claim.
There are just some people out there who have shitty views. They may try to be slick about it, but they know exactly what they're doing.
Shame doesn't register with them.
But its a literal lie to say that gabbard is a russian plant or contact. Its not a lie to say Clinton is a war criminal. Because she literally is, and she on record supports other war criminals like Kissinger. I dont understand how your comparing these two things.
Excuse me?
Recent evidence has been presented to the contrary repeated times in this thread.
Hate Clinton all you want. That doesn't justify rationalizing or handwaving Gabbard's homophobia and recent participation in a homophobic cult.
Give me the timestamp where Clinton "literally" names Tulsi.
Honestly, I'm not entirely sure you know how libel law works. You can't libel a politician, if you could Obama would have been able to sue Fox News into oblivion. Public figures are incredibly hard to libel.
Tulsi also likes war criminals like Asaad and is extremely close with people like Modi and the RSS organization so I'm not sure why you would single out Clinton in that regard.
Also being an "asset" doesn't necessarily being an active and knowing foreign agent anyway.
Also being an "asset" doesn't necessarily being an active and knowing foreign agent anyway.
You're mixing two thoughts. Her full quote and "they" are referring to Republicans as the ones grooming someone. The "favorite of the Russians" was an additional thought, not the crux of her statements. And Tulsi is a favorite of the Russians, as was Trump.
Tulsi will be laughed out the courtroom. This lawsuit is going nowhere
Nah, i dont care about it. But its worth a one off snarky shot at a politician i really cant stand along with a shot at another politican i also dont like.
Gabbard is corrupt AF with supporting repressive right wing governments directly like Modis. And Clinton is a war criminal neolib elitist sex offender defender who is exactly the kind of person i find reprehensible the most.
Hence why i said that if Clinton had called her an Indian asset and highlighted those ties, i'd actually be giving her credit for calling out Tulsi's record despite the hypocrisy.
Its just funny that Clinton folks specifically have issues with me calling her out and not gabbard
Required reading for anyone thinking Tulsi Gabbard's lawsuit has a chance:
www.resetera.com
TL;DR - A public figure (Vic Mignogna, long-time voice actor and creepy pedo) was publicly outed on Twitter by several people he had victimized over the years. He sued for defamation and lost on all counts. He is currently appealing and simultaneously sinking that appeal by lashing out in video form, inadvertently admitting again (as he did during deposition) to all the creepy behavior he was accused of.
Vic Mignogna Lawsuit |OT| Hold My Beard (Update: Appeal lost, Mignogna must pay attorney fees to defendants)
Over the past few weeks with the release of Dragon Ball Super: Broly, accusations and stories have piled up mainly from convention goers about Mignogna's alleged antisemitic comments, general unease with LGBTQ+ elements in anime and fandom, and sexual misconduct with young, presumably starstruck...
www.resetera.com
TL;DR - A public figure (Vic Mignogna, long-time voice actor and creepy pedo) was publicly outed on Twitter by several people he had victimized over the years. He sued for defamation and lost on all counts. He is currently appealing and simultaneously sinking that appeal by lashing out in video form, inadvertently admitting again (as he did during deposition) to all the creepy behavior he was accused of.
Literally no one is tapping Tulsi to be their VP, hell she'd be fucking lucky anyone other than alt-right trolls will remember who she is after 2020.
Completely wrong, and what you shared does not corroborate the statement you made in your last post.
Hillary Clinton implied that Tulsi Gabbard was being groomed by Republicans to run as a 3rd party candidate. She also said Gabbard is a favorite of the Russians. Your statement is that Clinton said that Tulsi is "A [Russian] agent." You actually said "Indian" agent but substituting Indian to make a comparison about Hillary calling Gabbard a Russian agent. Later, Clinton suggested that Jill Stein was a Russian asset, which is not a controversial statement, it's a widely held belief that Jill Stein has been a useful idiot of Russian intelligence for years.
SO, as long as you bring up "facts that the elites hate" or whatever you said, let's stick to the facts:
Fact: Hillary Clinton did not say that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian or Indian Agent. So your statement that she did is factually wrong.
Fact: Tulsi Gabbard is a favorite of the Russians, she's seen widespread beneficial social media influence from Russian-origin bots and Russian army run Social media accounts
Fact: None of these statements are libelous or slanderous.
Also, side-fact "the video" you're referencing is an audio clip from the podcast that this interview took place on, which I posted on page 2 of this thread. The "video" shows a still image of Hillary Clinton with the audio from the podcast running over it. If you watched "The video" you would have noticed this.
Also side-fact because I think you just don't have much background on any of this, "Asset" and "Agent" have different meanings when it comes to intelligence services. An "Asset" is someone who is wittingly or unwittingly run by a foreign intelligence service. This could be someone like, say, Donald Trump, Jill Stein, or infamously, someone like Michael Foot, the Labor MP from the 1980s. An "Agent" is someone who is actually working for the foreign intelligence service knowingly, also called "A spy." Clinton is not suggesting that Jill Stein was a spy for the FSB, but that she's a useful idiot for Russian intelligence -- an asset. Likewise, while some may assert that Donald Trump could be an actual agent of Russian intelligence, it's more likely that he's an asset -- if anything.
Last edited:
Less than 2 weeks away from voting in IA/NH and the only way she's able to stay relevant is to keep bringing up Clinton. Can't stay relevant with her policies so just like Trump the only thing she has is attack Clinton. Maybe the undercover Tulsi supporters here on this board can remind her she's running against Trump.
That Dril tweet has never been more relevant...I really, really, REALLY hope she gets voted out of her district in HI. I donated to her Dem opponent a while back and I don't even live in Hawaii.
Unfortunately she won't be.
Because she quit her re-election campaign rather than lose the primary, which was almost certainly going to happen.
There are some incredibly serious events happening in American politics at the moment. I actually don't find much amusement from watching Tulsi Gabbard, the very same homophobic grifter who argued against going after Trump and smeared the validity of his impeachment, now attempting to distract from Trump's trial with spurious bullshit designed to keep her name relevant.
"Present."
Even if Hillary named her by name. She has no case. Tulsi is a public figure. She would have to prove Hillary was knowingly lied with malicious intent. .
As in when Hillary made the statement, she had already determined the statement was false, was 100% sure it was false and then said in anyways
Even if Hillary says "I believed it at the time it was true" Tulsi loses.
As in when Hillary made the statement, she had already determined the statement was false, was 100% sure it was false and then said in anyways
Even if Hillary says "I believed it at the time it was true" Tulsi loses.