Hillary Clinton says Tulsi Gabbard is a 'Russian asset'

What in Rasputin's name are you blabbering about? Don't tell me what I know. I meant what I say and I say what I mean.



At worst, the usage changed. That's how language works. People have been using the word "asset" in that way for years. Don't act like this is some shock for you.


Stop spamming and deliver what Kelly asked about: A usage of "asset" in the way it is used in economics and not in intelligence before this recent smear campaign. For someone who unknowingly and unwillingly furthers the goal of a third party entity.
 
Stop spamming

Heal thyself.

and deliver what Kelly asked about: A usage of "asset" in the way it is used in economics and not in intelligence before this recent smear campaign. For someone who unknowingly and unwillingly furthers the goal of a third party entity.

I don't need to. Kelly provided one for me in her fourth linked post.
 
At worst, the usage changed. That's how language works. People have been using the word "asset" in that way for years. Don't act like this is some shock for you.

People forget one simple fact.

Words don't have fixed meanings, they only have usages.
 
People forget one simple fact.

Words don't have fixed meanings, they only have usages.


Your problem though is that changing "usages" of words by those who form your thinking are more and more transparent. Wrong, it isn't your problem, your problem is that you don't see through the narrative. "Fun" (if you see through the narrative) piece by the forum's favorite writer Caitlin Johnstone from that big empty island:

Russian asset if there ever was one said:
[...] The “Russian asset” smear has given the establishment narrative managers the ability to make incredibly inflammatory and scandalous accusations about anyone who opposes the US establishment foreign policy consensus, without ever having to back them up with facts. It’s no obstacle for me if I can’t prove that you have any connection to the Russian government, because I can still smear you as a Russian asset by saying your views align with Moscow’s interests, or by noting that Russian news media has done news reporting on you as our friend Neera Tanden does here:

Tulsi is definitely NOT backed by Russia. https://t.co/4mQFLg0PLC

— Neera Tanden (@neeratanden) October 19, 2019

Never mind the fact that there are many, many reasons to oppose the US establishment foreign policy consensus which have nothing to do with Russia. Never mind the fact that the US establishment foreign policy consensus has been an unmitigated disaster that has only made the world worse and is pushing the US-centralized power alliance toward a point where a direct military confrontation with Russia, China and their allies becomes inescapable. Never mind the fact that Russia is far from the only country in the world that wishes America would scale back its aggressive military expansionism. It has been firmly established beyond any doubt that it is now literally impossible for an American political figure to vocally oppose US warmongering without being labeled a Russian asset.

In reality, “Russian asset” is nothing more than a completely meaningless noise that war pigs make with their face holes, no more coherent and communicative than the barking of a dog or the chattering of a squirrel. If we were to come up with a definition for that term which reflects the way it is actually being used in modern political discourse, that definition would be something like, “An incantation which magically makes political dissent look like something treasonous and Machiavellian.”

Establishment narrative managers are getting more and more aggressive with the psychological bullying tactics they are using against political dissidents. Applying a ridiculous, meaningless pejorative to anyone who disagrees with mainstream US foreign policy views is just one more ugly tool in their infernal toolbox. It is not normal, healthy or acceptable to accuse someone of being a Russian asset just because they disagree with the authorized commentators of the American political/media class, and when they make such accusations they should be publicly shamed for it.
 
I'm pretty convinced that the accusation was mostly driven by spite. Clinton is still pissed that Gabbard endorsed Bernie in 2016. This doesn't discount the possibility of russian trolls floating internet ads and memes in support of Gabbards, they might be just to cause trouble. That's kind of what they do.

As to the meaning of "Asset" am I the only one who thinks its vague enough to mean either a witting or unwitting asset? Thus, its use by Hillary is....not great but vague enough, I'm not going to say she mean "literally working for the Russians"?

Edit, of course, I have age related hearing loss, its makes dog whistles pretty hard to hear.
 
Last edited:
Just for the record: Nobody has established that "asset" meant someone who without own knowledge furthered the goals of another country before this recent smear campaign.

You are still free to educate us, and even if you do that successfully, Tulsi Gabbard could still be an asset of Putin (get logic 1.0).
 

Whatever.

You've demonstrated your position that you think Russia and it's dictator Putin are angels. That they didn't invade the Crimea. That they haven't been trying to influence and cause chaos in the West by involving themselves in our democracy.

But the facts overwhelmingly prove the opposite. I can believe you, or the United States FBI, the CIA, the UK's MI-6 or the other intelligence services.

I think you're lying and they are telling the truth.
 
I'm pretty convinced that the accusation was mostly driven by spite. Clinton is still pissed that Gabbard endorsed Bernie in 2016. This doesn't discount the possibility of russian trolls floating internet ads and memes in support of Gabbards, they might be just to cause trouble. That's kind of what they do.

As to the meaning of "Asset" am I the only one who thinks its vague enough to mean either a witting or unwitting asset? Thus, its use by Hillary is....not great but vague enough, I'm not going to say she mean "literally working for the Russians"?

Edit, of course, I have age related hearing loss, its makes dog whistles pretty hard to hear.

Yes, a useful idiot can be just as much (even more) an asset as someone that is on the payroll.
 
Your problem though is that changing "usages" of words by those who form your thinking are more and more transparent. Wrong, it isn't your problem, your problem is that you don't see through the narrative. "Fun" (if you see through the narrative) piece by the forum's favorite writer Caitlin Johnstone from that big empty island:


Did Caitlin Johnstone actually want to add a link to RT? Those comments are pretty funny.

https://twitter.com/rt_com/status/1185306710019313664

I like El Duderino's!


...In reality, “Russian asset” is nothing more than a completely meaningless noise that war pigs make with their face holes, no more coherent and communicative than the barking of a dog...


:sdl:
 
Wow, all this fuss over a spat between somebody whose political career is over, and somebody whose chances of getting the nomination are around zero.
 
Unwitting people doing what?

Being asshats ... eh ...assets.


From the original OP link:
..."She is a favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she is also a Russian asset...

Hillary called Jill Stein a Russian asset but also implied that Tulsi was an asset too.

However, it was actually the failing New York Times that called Tulsi a Russian asset.

In Tuesday's Democratic debate, Gabbard accused the New York Times of calling her a "Russian asset."
 
However, it was actually the failing New York Times that called Tulsi a Russian asset.
Can you provide a citation for that? BTW Your quote, which is unsourced, doesn't actually say that.


ETA: Clicking back through all the links I find in the OP links leads to an NYT article that doesn't use that phrase either.
 
Last edited:
Can you provide a citation for that? BTW Your quote, which is unsourced, doesn't actually say that.


ETA: Clicking back through all the links I find in the OP links leads to an NYT article that doesn't use that phrase either.

The first one is a podcast (Apparently).

OK, my mistake, Tulsi herself said the failing New York Times accused her of being a "Russian Asset".


@1:17


Here's the link from the OP to the Washington Examiner.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...w-york-times-during-their-presidential-debate

The New York Times article mentioned by Tulsi.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard.html

The original OP link:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...groomed-to-ensure-trump-re-election?_amp=true
 

Then you should have your answer already:

Do not even know they are being used (so called "useful idiots"). Assets can be loyal to their country, but may still provide a foreign agent with information through failures in information safety, such as using insecure computers or not following proper OPSEC procedures during day-to-day chatting.

That's one of several possible examples.
 
I think a major question with Gabbard is why David Duke, the leader of the Ku Klux Klan, continues to back her despite her rejecting his support. She has said:
“I have strongly denounced David Duke’s hateful views and his so-called ‘support’ multiple times in the past, and reject his support,” she told The Post in a statement [last week]. Link

How does she explain Duke continuing to support her?
David Duke Tweets
Tulsi Gabbard in 2020. Finally a candidate for President who will really put America First. Link

She was asked recently how she explains it on "The View" TV show but she sidestepped the question. One obvious explanation is, he sees in Gabbard an opportunity to sow division in the Democratic Party. Calling Hillary Clinton a warmonger. Accusing the party of "rigging" the 2020 primary process. With friends like that you don't need enemies. Is that what Duke sees?
 
CJ Hopkins with another scary look at pre$$titute "reality": The Putin-Nazis Are Coming (Again)!

CJ Hopkins said:
[...] The Times piece goes on to list an assortment of unsavory, extremist, white supremacist, horrible, neo-Nazi-type persons that Tulsi Gabbard has nothing to do with, but which Hillary Clinton, the Intelligence Community, The Times, and the rest of the corporate media would like you to mentally associate her with. Richard Spencer, David Duke, Steve Bannon, Mike Cernovich, Tucker Carlson, and so on. Neo-Nazi sites like the Daily Stormer. 4chan, where, according to The New York Times, neo-Nazis like to “call her Mommy.”

In keeping with professional journalistic ethics, The Times also reached out to experts on fascism, fascist terrorism, terrorist fascism, fascist-adjacent Assad-apologism, Hitlerism, horrorism, Russia, and so on, to confirm Gabbard’s guilt-by-association with the people The Times had just associated her with. Brian Levin, Director of the CSU Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, confirmed that Gabbard has “the seal of approval” within goose-stepping, Hitler-loving, neo-Nazi circles. The Alliance for Securing Democracy (yes, the one from the previous paragraph) conducted an “independent analysis” which confirmed that RT (“the Kremlin-backed news agency”) had mentioned Gabbard far more often than the Western corporate media (which isn’t backed by anyone, and is totally unbiased and independent, despite the fact that most of it is owned by a handful of powerful global corporations, and at least one CIA-affiliated oligarch). Oh, and Hawaii State Senator Kai Kahele, who is challenging Gabbard for her seat in Congress, agreed with The Times that Gabbard’s support from Jew-hating, racist Putin-Nazis might be a potential liability.

“Clearly there’s something about her and her policies that attracts and appeals to these type of people who are white nationalists, anti-Semites, and Holocaust deniers.”​

But it’s not just The New York Times, of course. No sooner had Clinton finished cackling than the corporate media launched into their familiar Goebbelsian piano routine, banging out story after television segment repeating the words “Gabbard” and “Russian asset.” I’ve singled out The Times because the smear piece in question was clearly a warm-up for Hillary Clinton’s calculated smear job on Friday night. No, the old gal hasn’t lost her mind. She knew exactly what she was doing, as did the editors of The New York Times, as did every other establishment news source that breathlessly “reported” her neo-McCarthyite smears. [...]
 
I think a major question with Gabbard is why David Duke, the leader of the Ku Klux Klan, continues to back her despite her rejecting his support.


David Duke is not the leader of the Ku Klux Klan. You are again carried away by junk you've read and put a load of crap on top of it, like recently when you made the Crimea "annexation", if one wants to call it that, into a violent invasion with thousands lives taken and 1.5 million fleeing. Total nonsense.

Duke was some "grand wizard" or something in the KKK half a century ago, and might be a terrible person (I dunno), but Tulsi Gabbard is incapable of doing something against him endorsing her. It is the dumbest form of "contact guilt" imaginable, one that doesn't even contain contact. Why do you claim to think it is "a major question"?
 
Last edited:
Right, he's the former Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan. My bad! Nowadays he's mostly described as a neo-nazi, anti-semitic conspiracy theorist.
 
Right, he's the former Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan. My bad! Nowadays he's mostly described as a neo-nazi, anti-semitic conspiracy theorist.


Great post. I endorse it completely with the full power of my St. Petersburg troll factory assessment card. You're screwed now, newyorkguy,
 
Right, he's the former Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan. My bad! Nowadays he's mostly described as a neo-nazi, anti-semitic conspiracy theorist.


So he's the same Alpha Hotel; he just does not wear the Halloween costumes anymore?
 

Back
Top Bottom