I'll be honest, I expected her to be smarter than... well, this.
Election 2020 Hillary Clinton promotes theory Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian Agent.
Lightershoulders
Just another, seeking.
Well damn, I wasn't paying too much attention to it but you don't get quite as confirmed as that!
Yeah, whoever is spreading THAT in whitehall is, as you say, choosing to believe the comforting lie, or delusional or deliberately muddying the waters.
Yeah I was about to say... I swear I heard the soundbyte played already...
I think it's probably best to focus on the subject of the OP, not what idiots on some other site are saying. This is supposed to be a discussion forum, not the whitehall peanut gallery.
Lightershoulders
Just another, seeking.
It was relevant to the OP. Hypothetically speaking, if the media faked an edit to frame Clinton that would have been an issue, shit stirring for the sake of shit stirring.
Debunking fake news that was being spread is always worth while.
Edit: It didn't start as a Whitehall thing, that was a Twitter thing that is being spread and someone on SB shared it.
D
Deleted member
Guest
So, @Lightershoulders , essentially it's left-wing fake news.
Lightershoulders
Just another, seeking.
Yes, yes it is, as proven by the video literally having Clinton saying Russians and not Republicans as the Twitter feed is claiming.
Well at least Andrew Yang spoke up about it.
Lightershoulders
Just another, seeking.
Well guys...
It's a tad complicated.
I just listened to the Podcast in question.
www.podbean.com
It requires a download, but meh.
Around 35 mins in is the relevant part.
Right before the video that was presented as proof in this thread, it is made clear in the context that she (Hillary) is saying the Republicans are grooming Tulsi as a 3rd party candidate, and the reasoning (within the video presented as proof) is that she is a Russian assist.
This still shows faulty logic on Hillary's part, but it seems that it really wasn't fake news like I had originally thought, and the NYT's is backing the correction.
Please, I invite you all to look at the podcast to see for yourself instead of relying on he said she said.
It's a tad complicated.
I just listened to the Podcast in question.
Campaign HQ with David Plouffe Podcast | Free Listening on Podbean App
David Plouffe, former President Barack Obama’s campaign manager and White House Senior Advisor, takes a deep dive into key states in the crucial midterm electio
www.podbean.com
It requires a download, but meh.
Around 35 mins in is the relevant part.
Right before the video that was presented as proof in this thread, it is made clear in the context that she (Hillary) is saying the Republicans are grooming Tulsi as a 3rd party candidate, and the reasoning (within the video presented as proof) is that she is a Russian assist.
This still shows faulty logic on Hillary's part, but it seems that it really wasn't fake news like I had originally thought, and the NYT's is backing the correction.
Please, I invite you all to look at the podcast to see for yourself instead of relying on he said she said.
Doesn't require a download but it just seems more contextualized.
I like the bit about flashing videos on the Dark Web that no one ever sees... but everyone sees preceding it.
Hearing it in context makes it sound like she was saying that the Green Party and Tulsi Gabbard are Republican assets... and the former is also a Russian asset... while the latter is merely a Russian favorite (the implication of her being a Russian asset could be construed from the clip but it's still open and I'd lean towards it not being so IMHO).
But yeah still faulty logic. And Hilary Clinton is just awful.
I like the bit about flashing videos on the Dark Web that no one ever sees... but everyone sees preceding it.
Hearing it in context makes it sound like she was saying that the Green Party and Tulsi Gabbard are Republican assets... and the former is also a Russian asset... while the latter is merely a Russian favorite (the implication of her being a Russian asset could be construed from the clip but it's still open and I'd lean towards it not being so IMHO).
But yeah still faulty logic. And Hilary Clinton is just awful.
Well guys...
It's a tad complicated.
I just listened to the Podcast in question.
Campaign HQ with David Plouffe Podcast | Free Listening on Podbean App
David Plouffe, former President Barack Obama’s campaign manager and White House Senior Advisor, takes a deep dive into key states in the crucial midterm electio
It requires a download, but meh.
Around 35 mins in is the relevant part.
Right before the video that was presented as proof in this thread, it is made clear in the context that she (Hillary) is saying the Republicans are grooming Tulsi as a 3rd party candidate, and the reasoning (within the video presented as proof) is that she is a Russian assist.
This still shows faulty logic on Hillary's part, but it seems that it really wasn't fake news like I had originally thought, and the NYT's is backing the correction.
Please, I invite you all to look at the podcast to see for yourself instead of relying on he said she said.
I'll check that podcast when I get home, but from your summary it sounds like she still accused Tulsi of being a Russian asset, it's just that she also said some other stuff on the side about how other people are treating Tulsi.
Lightershoulders
Just another, seeking.
You are correct, but she said she was being groomed by the Republicans first right before that. That's the point of contention.
So instead of one or the other, you get a mix of both horrible and illogical.
ShadowsOfParadox
Well-known member
you do realize that NYT's original story said that it was the Russian doing the grooming right?
if you look at the archive.is version you can find the article. NYT stealth edited their story.
if you look at the archive.is version you can find the article. NYT stealth edited their story.
D
Deleted member
Guest
They do that all the time, if you want to read the NYT, get a print edition..
Lightershoulders
Just another, seeking.
They issued a correction, yes. Yes they kept it quiet that they fucked up.
But the fact is that they did correct it.
Francis Urquhart
Well-known member
You expect logic from the New York Times?????
ShadowsOfParadox
Well-known member
A correction is labeled as such and with a reason. This is straight up gaslighting.
