Incorrect. I pointed out that Clinton's actual claim was that she was being groomed to run third party by Republicans and that she was a favorite of Russia. I said that those two claims were correct.
No, we're not even discussing whether she's a Russian asset. I'm saying that the claims that Clinton actually made were correct.
The side issue is his desire to change the subject. Clinton made two correct, and uncontroversial statements about Gabbard. Then, as these things go, people who took offense to the statements tried to misrepresent them to be more controversial (still very much justifiable, but the key point here is that it's a dishonest argument tactic to shift like that). If I said, "I don't think the death penalty is appropriate for shoplifting," and you responded, "you think the death penalty is always bad, but it's good sometimes because X," that's a dishonest argument tactic--and that's true even if I do happen to oppose the death penalty in general. Are you understanding this? I think I've made the point a few times, and you keep responding as if I haven't.
Incorrect, as I've demonstrated.
I cannot see how you can make this claim given that you quoted the two posts that clearly contradict it. Here they are again:
"I mean Hillary calling her a Russian asset was pure BS, but there is no way Tulsi is winning that lawsuit."
"Well, Clinton said that Gabbard was being groomed by Republicans to run third party and that she's a favorite of Russia, both of which appear to be true statements."
Key point seems to be that you don't understand this. Clinton did not, in fact, call Gabbard a Russian asset, but she did say that she was being groomed by Republicans to run third party and that's she's a favorite of Russia. Both of those two statements--that were not calling Gabbard a Russian asset--are true. Do you understand? Utah brought up the Russian asset thing, and I pulled the discussion away from that and toward the actual claim. Then he responded first to ask for evidence, which I provided, and then acted as if the clarification never happened.
I don't care to, really. Previous discussion were bogged down around semantics so in this one, I specifically kept the focus on the substance while avoiding using the term. But it turns out that people *want* to bog it down because the substance isn't really in dispute, but people want to muddy the waters.
I call your attempts at that dishonest. It's baffling to me that you actually quoted the exchange that definitively refutes your claim and then you continue to make the claim.
