Hillary Clinton says Tulsi Gabbard is a 'Russian asset'

Belz... said:
Kelly, come on. That was in response to theprestige saying that the term includes useful idiots, with which you disagreed. The wiki link I provided supports his point.



The highlighted is obviously a direct response to same in theprestige's post.

Of course it has something to do with "unwitting" since theprestige wrote "useful idiots" as part of the common definition and you said it wasn't part of it. Who are you trying to fool, here?
Click to expand...

"Asset" and "useful idiots" have NOT been synonymous over the years, and that is what I was disagreeing with theprestige about.

But I sense you're having that reading comprehension problem again, so I'll leave you be.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
IMHO, Gabbard is just someone HRC doesn't like.
Click to expand...

This is going to be an odd point of comparison but I'm reminded of when news breaks that so and so actor or musician or whatever is in a "Twitter feud" with someone else and everyone is trying to figure out the backstory, motive, reason for their "beef" because people have a hard time conceptualization the simple fact that sometime human beings just don't like each other.
 
Childlike Empress said:
This is Kelly's point, so far no evidence against it. Which is a bit like Tulsi's point against the US foreign policy that serves nothing but "Empire". And the guilt-by-association smears are as dumb in the broader Tulsi scenario as they are in the ISF scenario. Kelly is incapable of making me stop endorsing her posts on these obvious falsehoods. Which doesn't make her guilty of my ... the fact that this has to be pointed out on a forum allegedly devoted to critical thinking is sad.
Click to expand...

The ISF subgeniuses, as is is typical of the conformist masses everywhere, like to think that these "connections" (guilt-by-association smears) they're buying into is "nuanced thinking", LoL.
 
Belz... said:
There go those goalposts again. In what way are useful idiots witting?



The issue is not my reading comprehension. It's your lack of honesty.
Click to expand...

useful idiot:
(Originally) a citizen of a non-communist country sympathetic to communism who is regarded (by communists) as naive and susceptible to manipulation for propaganda or other purposes; (more widely) any person similarly manipulable for political purposes.

Assets:
"persons within organizations or countries being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy."

Those are not even remotely close to synonymous.

By the way, since you might need help here:

synonymous:
(of a word or phrase) having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language.
 
kellyb said:
useful idiot:
(Originally) a citizen of a non-communist country sympathetic to communism who is regarded (by communists) as naive and susceptible to manipulation for propaganda or other purposes; (more widely) any person similarly manipulable for political purposes.

Assets:
"persons within organizations or countries being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy."

Those are not even remotely close to synonymous.

By the way, since you might need help here:

synonymous:
(of a word or phrase) having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language.
Click to expand...


:D I love this place!
 
kellyb said:
useful idiot:
(Originally) a citizen of a non-communist country sympathetic to communism who is regarded (by communists) as naive and susceptible to manipulation for propaganda or other purposes; (more widely) any person similarly manipulable for political purposes.
Click to expand...

Which is to say, not a spy. An unwitting asset, if you will.

Assets:
"persons within organizations or countries being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy."
Click to expand...

I love how you just bring back this definition even though we've shown that it's wrong or at the very least incomplete. The very definition of a fringe reset: ignore the correction by focusing on something else, and then come back and act as if nothing happened.

No point in discussing this further, however, since you've shown that there is no place where you won't move the goalposts.
 
Belz... said:
I love how you just bring back this definition even though we've shown that it's wrong or at the very least incomplete.
Click to expand...

Nope to the "wrong" part, and "irrelevant" to the incomplete part.

There are subsets of "assets", but none of them morph into something synonymous with "useful idiot".

Which is to say, not a spy. An unwitting asset, if you will.
Click to expand...
Sure, if you're either unable or unwilling to comprehend the meanings of words.
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
Nope to the "wrong" part
Click to expand...

As I said: you are completely unwilling to admit to being wrong. You said it didn't use to mean that pre-2016 and challenged me to find contrary evidence. Once I did, you suddenly required more AND decided that this wasn't what you had been discussing at all. Talk about dishonest.

Sure, if you're either unable or unwilling to comprehend the meanings of words.
Click to expand...

The entirety of your argument consists of goalpost shifts, evasions, denials and insults. That says a lot about the strength of your convictions.
 
kellyb said:
Nope to the "wrong" part, and "irrelevant" to the incomplete part.

There are subsets of "assets", but none of them morph into something synonymous with "useful idiot".


Sure, if you're either unable or unwilling to comprehend the meanings of words.
Click to expand...

Broadly speaking, anything useful is an asset. A spy is an asset. A useful idiot is an asset. A counterproductive primary campaign is an asset (to those whose interests run counter to the ideals of the campaign). Gabbard is, in this sense, an asset (allegedly, according to Hillary Clinton). She's even, in a broader sense, a "useful idiot". Not because she's sympathetic to Russia and thus willing to promote their propaganda uncritically, but because in her foolishness she's doing things that serve the Russian agenda (allegedly, according to Hillary Clinton).

Your point, as I understand it, is that "asset" has a narrower meaning. It's a literal spy or agent, you say. And you say that Hillary is using the term to unfairly discredit Gabbard, by making it sound like she's an actual spy. I think this is a fair point, but I'm not sure it's true.

I'm also not sure it's useful for you to bog down in an argument about what "asset" actually means. The important thing is how people are actually using it.

And I think that when it comes to usage, about the only practical thing we can do is ask people we're actually talking to, what they mean by it.

Does anyone in this thread agree with Hillary that Gabbard is a "Russian asset"?

Does anyone who agrees that Gabbard is an "asset" think that she's literally a Russian agent?

Does anyone think that's what Hillary is saying when she says Gabbard is an "asset"?
 
Belz... said:
As I said: you are completely unwilling to admit to being wrong. You said it didn't use to mean that pre-2016 and challenged me to find contrary evidence. Once I did, you suddenly required more AND decided that this wasn't what you had been discussing at all. Talk about dishonest.



The entirety of your argument consists of goalpost shifts, evasions, denials and insults. That says a lot about the strength of your convictions.
Click to expand...

I was wanting evidence of the post-Russiagate definition of "asset" as applied to Gabbard, Stein, etc, which basically is something like "useful idiot", used before Russiagate.

It doesn't exist.

You fixated upon the quality of "unwitting", I guess because spies/assets can be unwitting (according to an unsourced wikipedia article, at least), and "useful idiots" are unwitting, making them synonymous (???)

I suppose in the way apples and firetruck are synonymous, since they both sometimes share the quality of "is red".
 
kellyb said:
I was wanting evidence of the post-Russiagate definition of "asset" as applied to Gabbard, Stein, etc, which basically is something like "useful idiot", used before Russiagate.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what you say now that the goalposts have moved, sure. I suppose you don't think assets can also influence adversaries or perform other useful actions for foreign governments. Nope, they can only pass on intelligence! Anything to avoid an admission that you were wrong.
 
theprestige said:
Broadly speaking, anything useful is an asset. A spy is an asset. A useful idiot is an asset. A counterproductive primary campaign is an asset (to those whose interests run counter to the ideals of the campaign). Gabbard is, in this sense, an asset (allegedly, according to Hillary Clinton).
Click to expand...

Right, but that's the whole borrowing from/conflating with the definition of asset as used in economics (as opposed to the VERY different definition as used in intelligence) thing happening there, in what you're saying.

Again, nobody ever called the anti-war Vietnam protesters "soviet assets" unless they specifically thought they were feeding info to the soviets.

If you can find any sort of pre-Russiagate use of the word "asset" where "useful idiots" were considered a type of "asset" I swear I will retract my argument.

Your point, as I understand it, is that "asset" has a narrower meaning. It's a literal spy or agent, you say. And you say that Hillary is using the term to unfairly discredit Gabbard, by making it sound like she's an actual spy. I think this is a fair point, but I'm not sure it's true.
Click to expand...

I don't think she (and her IC buddies, and the journalists going along with this) want or expect people to think Gabbard is an actual spy, but it's a use of the word intended to make someone MUCH WORSE and more dangerous than a mere useful idiot. It kind of psychologically triggers the spy/intrigue/red scare thrilling aspect of post-2016 politics.
You see it in her/their use of the word "grooming," too. What sort of sordid **** does THAT make you think of?

I'm also not sure it's useful for you to bog down in an argument about what "asset" actually means. The important thing is how people are actually using it.
Click to expand...

I think the conflation of something much more mundane (useful idiot) with something genuinely scandalous, if not terrifying (an intelligence asset...or alternatively, someone being groomed by a nefarious power) is what they mean to convey. Some hybrid concept.

And I think that when it comes to usage, about the only practical thing we can do is ask people we're actually talking to, what they mean by it.
Click to expand...

I dunno. I'm going to keep on asking people to stop misusing the word, and stop going along with its NeoMcCarthyite definition.
 
Last edited:
me said:
I was wanting evidence of the post-Russiagate definition of "asset" as applied to Gabbard, Stein, etc, which basically is something like "useful idiot", used before Russiagate.
Click to expand...
Belz... said:
Yes, that's what you say now that the goalposts have moved, sure.
Click to expand...

Nope again. From the very beginning of this rabbit hole:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12863115&postcount=231

me said:
The whole notion that an "asset" means "anyone who says things or does things that might be useful to ____ [whatever country]" is completely new. Or, if it's not, I need someone to show me how this is a longstanding use of the word in intelligence.
Click to expand...

You'd have to be willing and able to read + comprehend to follow this, though. Apparently it ain't for everyone. That's okay.
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
Nope again. From the very beginning of this rabbit hole:
Click to expand...

Don't you have someone else to try to gaslight? It should be obvious at this point that it won't work on me. I've posted the context I was responding to earlier today and you dishonestly pretended that it meant something entirely different.

All of this because you can't bear to use language in any way but your own. Talk about a stupid derail.

You'd have to be willing and able to read + comprehend to follow this, though. Apparently it ain't for everyone. That's okay.
Click to expand...

And you'd have to be able to admit to your mistakes to move on on this topic. Apparently honesty ain't for everyone. That's okay.
 
Belz... said:
Don't you have someone else to try to gaslight?
Click to expand...

Oh, Puddin'!

Being unable to follow conversations makes you feel like a victim of gaslighting?

That would be an awful condition to have.
 
kellyb said:
Oh, Puddin'!

Being unable to follow conversations makes you feel like a victim of gaslighting?
Click to expand...

Your repeated attempts to rewrite past conversations to mean something else in order to avoid any admission of error is what I refer to as gaslighting, as you well know.

That would be an awful condition to have.
Click to expand...

Keep the insults rollin'. That's all you have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom