Hillary Clinton says Republicans are grooming Tulsi Gabbard for a 3rd party run (edit: not Russians)

[Professor Emeritus]

So this is the NYT's fault now. Crappy Newspaper and crappy person(s) collide. We all lose.

What is you preferred newspaper?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

This completely vindicates everything Tulsi has been saying about Hillary's media proxies

You trust a racist alt-right hack to "vindicate" Tulsi.

You've been warned about him before and you STILL trust him and take his word as gospel?

He's fukking lying:

The New York Times ran this correction Wednesday night: “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.”

The Associated Press said: “In a story Oct. 18 about Tulsi Gabbard and Hillary Clinton, The Associated Press reported erroneously that Hillary Clinton said she believes the Russians have ‘got their eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary and grooming her to be the third-party candidate.’ She was referring to Republicans, not Russians, according to an aide.”

And even if Tim Pool had been right....why would it be Clinton's "media proxies" who would misquote her to make her look bad and then stealth-edit a week later without vindicating?

The paper of record y'all. I bet they thought the Russian thing would play better in the court of public opinion.
Instead you got multiple presidential candidates defending Tulsi and no one coming out to defend Hillary as a war monger/corrupt politician.

Believe Tim Pool without even checking Tulsi fans.

 

[Unknown Poster]

All this fuss over a woman who can't even poll over 2% and is going to be a complete non-factor in the 2020 elections.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

You're scrambling.

John Kerry isn't claiming to be some anti-interventionist, anti-war dove. Tulsi sounds like your run-of-the-mill neoconservative. It's no wonder she gets invited to their little conferences. It's no wonder she's a regular on Tucker Carlson. It's no wonder she's supported by David Duke. It's no wonder she's propped up by Breitbart.

And you're upset.

But she said she's not anti-war she is anti-interventionist. So does that make the meetings OK now?

 

[AnonymityX1000]

You trust a racist alt-right hack to "vindicate" Tulsi.

You've been warned about him before and you STILL trust him and take his word as gospel?

He's fukking lying:



And even if Tim Pool had been right....why would it be Clinton's "media proxies" who would misquote her to make her look bad and then stealth-edit a week later without vindicating?





Believe Tim Pool without even checking Tulsi fans.

I believed the NYT without even checking as well. Some of us have a real life to live.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I believed the NYT without even checking as well. Some of us have a real life to live.

And by "real life", you mean writing about right-wing lies on message boards is a better use of your time than checking whether or not they were lies?

It was a Twitter post by Tim Pool that was being quoted by newworldafro. Three MAJOR red flags right there, but you spent your time promoting it instead of checking it because it fit Tulsi's narrative better.

 

[the next guy]

What is you preferred newspaper?

Chicago Tribune and the LA Times.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

And by "real life", you mean writing about right-wing lies on message boards is a better use of your time than checking whether or not they were lies?

It was a Twitter post by Tim Pool that was being quoted by newworldafro. Three MAJOR red flags right there, but you spent your time promoting it instead of checking it because it fit Tulsi's narrative better.

Yeah, I'm not verifying information posted and it is due to time constraints not because it doesn't fit a narrative. But thank you for correcting the record.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Chicago Tribune and the LA Times.

I can't say I'm very familiar with the Tribune (were they the paper with some writers had crazy beef with Obama since before he was president?). But I lived half my life in LA and consistently read the LA Times and it don't even touch the New York Times. A lot more fluff pieces and not nearly as much deep investigative reporting.

I could list out many times when I think the NYT has let the country down, but I could also list a lot of amazing pieces. For me it's still the premier city paper in the USA for national and global news.

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

And you're upset.

But she said she's not anti-war she is anti-interventionist. So does that make the meetings OK now?

She's neither. You're just gullible.

Yeah, I'm not verifying information posted and it is due to time constraints not because it doesn't fit a narrative. But thank you for correcting the record.

There's always time to exercise due diligence. You just didn't want to.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

New York Times: "We simply made a mistake.

We have corrected the simple mistake.

Don't worry about the consequences of this incident, which we repeat, was merely a mistake.

Ignore the fact that it's election season and we're in the propaganda business."

 

[AnonymityX1000]

She's neither. You're just gullible.




There's always time to exercise due diligence. You just didn't want to.

And you're still upset. lol
More people ran with the Russian narrative in here presented by NYT and it was false but you trying to reprimand them is nowhere to be found? Seems like a lot of people are running with misinformation to fulfill their biases.

 

[the next guy]

I can't say I'm very familiar with the Tribune (were they the paper with some writers had crazy beef with Obama since before he was president?). But I lived half my life in LA and consistently read the LA Times and it don't even touch the New York Times. A lot more fluff pieces and not nearly as much deep investigative reporting.

I could list out many times when I think the NYT has let the country down, but I could also list a lot of amazing pieces. For me it's still the premier city paper in the USA for national and global news.

Tribune is very centrist, I think that was the sun times. (but they have good DC coverage). The NYT and Post, along with USA Today are the national newspapers so they will always be a step above but it's just too many incidents like this for me imo.

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

And you're still upset. lol
More people ran with the Russian narrative in here presented by NYT and it was false but you trying to reprimand them is nowhere to be found? Seems like a lot of people are running with misinformation to fulfill their biases.

It's weak that your only defense is "what about xx."

You really exposed yourself in this thread as someone with no real principles. Damn.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

Thread was going flat then it picked up

Like I said...bookmark for later