|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 10 2016 22:44 xM(Z wrote:
well, tables being turned and all that, you do look like a conspiracy theorist nut job now.
i could pull a kwizach out of my rear and shower you in statistics and studies proving the opposite then ask you to show me the e-mail you have that would prove your claim but that would be to much work for no gain at all.
so, enjoy what you became.
He's being facetious, but he has a point, and it's the one I was making the whole time. This "prove there's something illegal" stance to government officials is coming full circle.
On December 10 2016 22:49 farvacola wrote:Frankly, if xmz is calling you a nut job, you're doing something right. In other news... Show nested quote +The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign drew on, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Donald Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night on condition of anonymity.
Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Washington Post reported on Friday that intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday.
Obama's homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters the report's results would be shared with lawmakers and others.
"The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," she said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win White House
Probably wise to take reports from unnamed "US officials briefed on the matter" with a grain of salt, whether they are from the left or from the right. Not sure why they would leak it anyway?
|
On December 10 2016 22:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 22:44 xM(Z wrote:
well, tables being turned and all that, you do look like a conspiracy theorist nut job now.
i could pull a kwizach out of my rear and shower you in statistics and studies proving the opposite then ask you to show me the e-mail you have that would prove your claim but that would be to much work for no gain at all.
so, enjoy what you became. He's being facetious, but he has a point, and it's the one I was making the whole time. This "prove there's something illegal" stance to government officials is coming full circle. that is exactly why i made that post; thought it's obvious given the latest arguments.
different standards for different sides.
|
On December 10 2016 22:44 xM(Z wrote:
well, tables being turned and all that, you do look like a conspiracy theorist nut job now.
i could pull a kwizach out of my rear and shower you in statistics and studies proving the opposite then ask you to show me the e-mail you have that would prove your claim but that would be to much work for no gain at all.
so, enjoy what you became.
well how about some other lists one could make?
A list of people owning a gun... oh wait that's bad because government could abuse a list like that and target people they don't like.
Does that mean that's okay now after all?
|
On December 10 2016 22:49 farvacola wrote:Frankly, if xmz is calling you a nut job, you're doing something right. In other news... Show nested quote +The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign drew on, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Donald Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night on condition of anonymity.
Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Washington Post reported on Friday that intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday.
Obama's homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters the report's results would be shared with lawmakers and others.
"The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," she said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win White House can you not get that that looks like they're sore losers for being caught?.
at this point i don't think it matters who caught them; hell, some will praise russians for sure for helping the justice system in US.
|
On December 10 2016 22:57 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 22:44 xM(Z wrote:
well, tables being turned and all that, you do look like a conspiracy theorist nut job now.
i could pull a kwizach out of my rear and shower you in statistics and studies proving the opposite then ask you to show me the e-mail you have that would prove your claim but that would be to much work for no gain at all.
so, enjoy what you became. well how about some other lists one could make? A list of people owning a gun... oh wait that's bad because government could abuse a list like that and target people they don't like. Does that mean that's okay now after all? public figures and whatever they do for public benefit(at their job or whatever) is far game for any list but as i said, i only made that post to emphasize a double standard which GH felt it needed to be restated ...
|
On December 10 2016 23:03 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 22:57 Toadesstern wrote:On December 10 2016 22:44 xM(Z wrote:
well, tables being turned and all that, you do look like a conspiracy theorist nut job now.
i could pull a kwizach out of my rear and shower you in statistics and studies proving the opposite then ask you to show me the e-mail you have that would prove your claim but that would be to much work for no gain at all.
so, enjoy what you became. well how about some other lists one could make? A list of people owning a gun... oh wait that's bad because government could abuse a list like that and target people they don't like. Does that mean that's okay now after all? public figures and whatever they do for public benefit(at their job or whatever) is far game for any list but as i said, i only made that post to emphasize a double standard which GH felt it needed to be restated ...
In what way is the question wether something might be a problem and the question wether someone did something wrong comparable?
I'd say it's pretty normal that there are different standards for those two different things.
I haven't accused Trump of having done something to those people, I'm saying he could (along the lines of harass those people / get them fired because he disagrees with them). How would I be able to prove something having happened that's strictly speaking in the future?
|
On December 10 2016 22:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 22:49 farvacola wrote:Frankly, if xmz is calling you a nut job, you're doing something right. In other news... The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign drew on, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Donald Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night on condition of anonymity.
Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Washington Post reported on Friday that intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday.
Obama's homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters the report's results would be shared with lawmakers and others.
"The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," she said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win White House Probably wise to take reports from unnamed "US officials briefed on the matter" with a grain of salt, whether they are from the left or from the right. Not sure why they would leak it anyway?
CIA declined to comment so it looks like the direct source for that article is... WaPo. I'm sure we all have infinite faith in the credibility of such an upstanding outlet like WaPo.
|
On December 11 2016 00:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 22:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 farvacola wrote:Frankly, if xmz is calling you a nut job, you're doing something right. In other news... The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign drew on, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Donald Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night on condition of anonymity.
Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Washington Post reported on Friday that intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday.
Obama's homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters the report's results would be shared with lawmakers and others.
"The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," she said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win White House Probably wise to take reports from unnamed "US officials briefed on the matter" with a grain of salt, whether they are from the left or from the right. Not sure why they would leak it anyway? CIA declined to comment so it looks like the direct source for that article is... WaPo. I'm sure we all have infinite faith in the credibility of such an upstanding outlet like WaPo.
Their sources when they slandered all of alternative media as tools of the Russians were also essentially anonymous. The tone deafness is hilarious. Either they have a serious cognitive dissonance problem or they are legitimately going crazy.
|
|
|
On December 10 2016 21:05 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 18:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 10 2016 16:37 LegalLord wrote:
Frankly, there really isn't any joy to be found in rehashing the gripes people has with the presidential election loser by going over allegations of foul play. Not only has it lost all relevance but it just leads so directly into a game of "show proof" "here" "no that's not proof enough give me real proof" "that was real proof" and so on game that really just gets on people's nerves and has no purpose.
It ends up being a game of semantic deflection that some are convinced is a real argument but really is just annoying and best avoided. I am unsure if emails existing that don't talk about what a person is accused of can be called proof, and I doubt records of communication talking about unrelated topics can be called semantics. But I get your point. Some old guy no one voted for outside of facebook is considered to have had a movement by people who posted about him on facebook. I honestly think that the support for Bernie was probably about as well hidden from you as the support for Trump was, and that is why you can't see what happened with Bernie and the DNC was such a disgustingly vile act that reeks of corruption and subversive of the will of American (Democratic) voters. You can't deny that the people who were working at the DNC made an effort to prop up Hillary as their candidate as opposed to letting the process of finding the best candidate run its own course. Or was the "vote for Hillary or we won't help you fund your campaign" e-mail that was sent to some... I want to say delegate, but I don't know the terms... Was that a made up e-mail? Or was it actually sent to that person in the way that I read it? Because that did not register as "OK" with me at all. Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 10:25 Simberto wrote:On December 10 2016 07:56 Thaniri wrote:
Why are people saying fake news is such a big deal?
The only reason it has an effect is because of poor education on the parts of consumers.
The problem isn't people saying stupid things, it's people listening to stupid things without thinking critically about them. One could also say that there is little understanding on both the side of the media and the people about what credible journalism is and what journalistic integrity is, and how to identify it.
But here you have a problem. Once you have enough people who are not capable of thinking critically and distinguishing real news from random shit, they will vote to keep education as bad as possible, otherwise they would have to confront their problem, which they do not. Thus you have an education system that is incapable of acknowledging even a hundred year old science, and instead requires teaching "the controversy", where children are taught some random crap, because some people are not capable of accepting the fact that life was not literally created in 7 days about 6000 years ago. How is someone who is taught all their live that there is no such thing as fact, that the scientific method does not work, and that every opinion is equal supposed to critically consume media? You have a whole party that works on "feelings over facts" now. Of course, such a system can not work forever. At some point, it is going to crash into people on the outside who have not chosen to be willfully uneducated, and at that point it has to either adapt to reality very quickly, or it will be dispatched eventually. Even if it is hard to imagine, no empire lasts forever. And if you choose to cripple your nation intellectually, you will be replaced eventually. Stop calling people uneducated because they vote for a party that isn't going to make life better for them. Which party should Middle America or the Rust Belt have voted for then? The Democrats who don't help them or the Republicans that don't help them? As Hillary said in one of those Goldman Sachs speeches to cheers and laughter from the audience: economic policy in Washington is one of the few issues where there is bi-partisan support. :r I saw some article in this very thread that pointed out how Middle America has been left behind in of the economic development of the country over the past 20 years or something -- this was under at least 12 years of democratic rule if my maths aren't entirely off. Stop calling people intellectually crippled for "feeling worse off, economically". The believing the bible literally thing isn't particularly intelligent, I'll agree (and mock people for doing so at every chance I get), but it's not like any of that was an issue during the campaign.
You're talking about the email about the person who quit the Decided to step away from the DNC then got an email saying she would not get DNC support if she did and then that email got interpreted as her being punished for not being pro Hillary? See, this is the issue with conclusions before facts. Did you even read that email?
I saw the appeal for Bernie. I even called most of my friends who said it was pointless to track the election because of how done and decided it was. I even told them that the only chance the GOP has was if someone named Clinton would run causing a repeat of the 2004 Kerry election where conservatives get so scared they vote anyway.
But then I listened to Bernie's talks, his debates, his asinine 2dimensional interviews where he does nothing but spout pipe dream talking points and considers any similar stance not as extreme as betraying the people.
Then Reddit and Twitter kept continually pointing out to actual evidence and laws being broken by Hillary and the DNC and when I would take a look, it would be shown as false. Over and over again.
The first email leak of DWS telling her staff that they shouldn't play favorites being was the first of many of supposed acted out bias. And it kept going from there. Risotto recipes and pizza parties being analyzed as supposed child sex rings, emails of democrat loyalists being confused about an independent running branded as collusion and yet not one command or order telling people to prevent Bernie from beating Hillary, not one solid piece of evidence from accusations boiling since before the emails and ballots were cast. Was Bernie big on social media? Yes he was. But as someone who dragged many to Bernie in the beginning, he just absolutely sucked when we listened to him.
Bernie did not lose just the delegate vote. He lost the popular vote, he lost it hard. Trump lost the popular vote in the general as well, lost it hard. It's obvious to me which of those three candidates was wanted by the people. It's obvious to me which of those 3 candidates rode on the power of being the people's choice.
|
On December 11 2016 00:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 farvacola wrote:Frankly, if xmz is calling you a nut job, you're doing something right. In other news... The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign drew on, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Donald Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night on condition of anonymity.
Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Washington Post reported on Friday that intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday.
Obama's homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters the report's results would be shared with lawmakers and others.
"The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," she said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win White House Probably wise to take reports from unnamed "US officials briefed on the matter" with a grain of salt, whether they are from the left or from the right. Not sure why they would leak it anyway? CIA declined to comment so it looks like the direct source for that article is... WaPo. I'm sure we all have infinite faith in the credibility of such an upstanding outlet like WaPo. Their sources when they slandered all of alternative media as tools of the Russians were also essentially anonymous. The tone deafness is hilarious. Either they have a serious cognitive dissonance problem or they are legitimately going crazy.
Talking of cognitive dissonance, I'm amazed at you guy's ability to jump on the least solid or simply dumbest conspiracy theory when it's against Clinton, but are ready to dismiss the fucking CIA and probably the most serious newspaper in the country when they come to a conclusion you don't like.
|
On December 10 2016 23:23 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 23:03 xM(Z wrote:On December 10 2016 22:57 Toadesstern wrote:On December 10 2016 22:44 xM(Z wrote:
well, tables being turned and all that, you do look like a conspiracy theorist nut job now.
i could pull a kwizach out of my rear and shower you in statistics and studies proving the opposite then ask you to show me the e-mail you have that would prove your claim but that would be to much work for no gain at all.
so, enjoy what you became. well how about some other lists one could make? A list of people owning a gun... oh wait that's bad because government could abuse a list like that and target people they don't like. Does that mean that's okay now after all? public figures and whatever they do for public benefit(at their job or whatever) is far game for any list but as i said, i only made that post to emphasize a double standard which GH felt it needed to be restated ... In what way is the question wether something might be a problem and the question wether someone did something wrong comparable? I'd say it's pretty normal that there are different standards for those two different things. I haven't accused Trump of having done something to those people, I'm saying he could (along the lines of harass those people / get them fired because he disagrees with them). How would I be able to prove something having happened that's strictly speaking in the future? you implied that he would, that he's about to and were panicking over it, looking for reassurement from posters.
sure you might've exaggerated on your example but the fear was there and it was illogical; it was without proof.
the difference between implying something about someone and accusing someone out right, is like the difference between a politician and a normal human being: only one needs a way out of a tacky situation.
about the future, i don't know dude, kwizach statistics predict the future based on the past so maybe you should look into that.
|
On December 11 2016 01:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2016 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 farvacola wrote:Frankly, if xmz is calling you a nut job, you're doing something right. In other news... The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign drew on, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Donald Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night on condition of anonymity.
Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Washington Post reported on Friday that intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday.
Obama's homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters the report's results would be shared with lawmakers and others.
"The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," she said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win White House Probably wise to take reports from unnamed "US officials briefed on the matter" with a grain of salt, whether they are from the left or from the right. Not sure why they would leak it anyway? CIA declined to comment so it looks like the direct source for that article is... WaPo. I'm sure we all have infinite faith in the credibility of such an upstanding outlet like WaPo. Their sources when they slandered all of alternative media as tools of the Russians were also essentially anonymous. The tone deafness is hilarious. Either they have a serious cognitive dissonance problem or they are legitimately going crazy. Talking of cognitive dissonance, I'm amazed at you guy's ability to jump on the least solid or simply dumbest conspiracy theory when it's against Clinton, but are ready to dismiss the fucking CIA and probably the most serious newspaper in the country when they come to a conclusion you don't like.
The problem here is that it isn't "the fucking CIA" (which has its own credibility issues for that matter) but a news source citing another news source (where both Reuters and WaPo are known for a rather Russophobic slant in reporting since a long time) that some CIA unnamed officials said it to be so. And the CIA declined comment. Less credible.
Edit: wait, did you just call WaPo "the most serious newspaper in the country" in your post?
|
On December 11 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 01:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2016 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 farvacola wrote:Frankly, if xmz is calling you a nut job, you're doing something right. In other news... The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign drew on, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Donald Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night on condition of anonymity.
Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Washington Post reported on Friday that intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday.
Obama's homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters the report's results would be shared with lawmakers and others.
"The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," she said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win White House Probably wise to take reports from unnamed "US officials briefed on the matter" with a grain of salt, whether they are from the left or from the right. Not sure why they would leak it anyway? CIA declined to comment so it looks like the direct source for that article is... WaPo. I'm sure we all have infinite faith in the credibility of such an upstanding outlet like WaPo. Their sources when they slandered all of alternative media as tools of the Russians were also essentially anonymous. The tone deafness is hilarious. Either they have a serious cognitive dissonance problem or they are legitimately going crazy. Talking of cognitive dissonance, I'm amazed at you guy's ability to jump on the least solid or simply dumbest conspiracy theory when it's against Clinton, but are ready to dismiss the fucking CIA and probably the most serious newspaper in the country when they come to a conclusion you don't like. The problem here is that it isn't "the fucking CIA" (which has its own credibility issues for that matter) but a news source citing another news source (where both Reuters and WaPo are known for a rather Russophobic slant in reporting since a long time) that some CIA unnamed officials said it to be so. And the CIA declined comment. Less credible.
This is the kind of issues I'm talking about where conclusions comes before the evidence. Much like Bernie supporters hating the DNC, I distrust Russia and currently believe they affected the election. But I would need stronger proof than "according to the Washington Post" before I start spouting a victory parade of being correct. "It's obvious" and "why can't you see it" is insufficient to me.
|
My overall stance on this russian interference in the election is business is:
they did something. how much, and how much it mattered is unclear.
It's the job of fbi and others to deal with it. So set them to dealing with it, oversee their work, and move on.
|
On December 11 2016 01:20 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2016 23:23 Toadesstern wrote:On December 10 2016 23:03 xM(Z wrote:On December 10 2016 22:57 Toadesstern wrote:On December 10 2016 22:44 xM(Z wrote:
well, tables being turned and all that, you do look like a conspiracy theorist nut job now.
i could pull a kwizach out of my rear and shower you in statistics and studies proving the opposite then ask you to show me the e-mail you have that would prove your claim but that would be to much work for no gain at all.
so, enjoy what you became. well how about some other lists one could make? A list of people owning a gun... oh wait that's bad because government could abuse a list like that and target people they don't like. Does that mean that's okay now after all? public figures and whatever they do for public benefit(at their job or whatever) is far game for any list but as i said, i only made that post to emphasize a double standard which GH felt it needed to be restated ... In what way is the question wether something might be a problem and the question wether someone did something wrong comparable? I'd say it's pretty normal that there are different standards for those two different things. I haven't accused Trump of having done something to those people, I'm saying he could (along the lines of harass those people / get them fired because he disagrees with them). How would I be able to prove something having happened that's strictly speaking in the future? you implied that he would, that he's about to and were panicking over it, looking for reassurement from posters. sure you might've exaggerated on your example but the fear was there and it was illogical; it was without proof. the difference between implying something about someone and accusing someone out right, is like the difference between a politician and a normal human being: only one needs a way out of a tacky situation. about the future, i don't know dude, kwizach statistics predict the future based on the past so maybe you should look into that.
bullshit
You still don't understand the difference of the situations. Of course I tongue-in-cheek said "so it begins?" but it's about the possibility of it being used against people, not about him doing it.
There are plenty of regulations in place to make sure my government doesn't turn against me, including basic stuff like splitting of powers. I don't need proof that my government is going after me to think it'd be a good idea to keep those checks in place if I think the alternative is dangerous.
If I say my government DID go after me I do have to come up with some evidence to back that up though.
Honestly I don't even know how you could possibly come to the conclusion that any phrase that basicly reads as "idk, that seems like something that could be abused in the future" is the same as saying "that guy did something unlawful and should be punished for it" (since that's what we're talking about), so I'm just leaving it at that. You're not making sense 
|
On December 11 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 01:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2016 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 farvacola wrote:Frankly, if xmz is calling you a nut job, you're doing something right. In other news... The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign drew on, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Donald Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night on condition of anonymity.
Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Washington Post reported on Friday that intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday.
Obama's homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters the report's results would be shared with lawmakers and others.
"The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," she said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win White House Probably wise to take reports from unnamed "US officials briefed on the matter" with a grain of salt, whether they are from the left or from the right. Not sure why they would leak it anyway? CIA declined to comment so it looks like the direct source for that article is... WaPo. I'm sure we all have infinite faith in the credibility of such an upstanding outlet like WaPo. Their sources when they slandered all of alternative media as tools of the Russians were also essentially anonymous. The tone deafness is hilarious. Either they have a serious cognitive dissonance problem or they are legitimately going crazy. Talking of cognitive dissonance, I'm amazed at you guy's ability to jump on the least solid or simply dumbest conspiracy theory when it's against Clinton, but are ready to dismiss the fucking CIA and probably the most serious newspaper in the country when they come to a conclusion you don't like. The problem here is that it isn't "the fucking CIA" (which has its own credibility issues for that matter) but a news source citing another news source (where both Reuters and WaPo are known for a rather Russophobic slant in reporting since a long time) that some CIA unnamed officials said it to be so. And the CIA declined comment. Less credible. Edit: wait, did you just call WaPo "the most serious newspaper in the country" in your post?
I did. It won 47 Pulitzer. Please find a more reliable and more respected daily newspaper. They don't print stuff lightly, and they don't do bullshit and desinformation.
I get it: you guys are fired up and ready to argue for a thousand pages over thin air when it's about the Clinton Foundation, but are ready to shout HAHA BULLSHIT when a newspaper that won half a hundred pulitzers says it source at the cia confirms what every experts has been saying for months.
It's a bit tiring to argue with you and those basis, I hope you realize. I have no problem if you guys want to be skeptics and require hard evidence even with such a reliable source, but please don't insult our intelligence by changing your attitude in such a grotesque fashion depending on who is the target.
|
Since we are at it, junk food baron and king of super low wages andy puzder is the new secretary of labour.
Finally a leader that truly represent the "real people", far from the rotten establishment. I'm surprised that nobody commented on that. Too busy with the DNC probably.
Maybe it's time to start paying attention to what is actually happening.
|
On December 11 2016 01:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 01:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2016 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 farvacola wrote:Frankly, if xmz is calling you a nut job, you're doing something right. In other news... The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign drew on, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Donald Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night on condition of anonymity.
Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Washington Post reported on Friday that intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday.
Obama's homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters the report's results would be shared with lawmakers and others.
"The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," she said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win White House Probably wise to take reports from unnamed "US officials briefed on the matter" with a grain of salt, whether they are from the left or from the right. Not sure why they would leak it anyway? CIA declined to comment so it looks like the direct source for that article is... WaPo. I'm sure we all have infinite faith in the credibility of such an upstanding outlet like WaPo. Their sources when they slandered all of alternative media as tools of the Russians were also essentially anonymous. The tone deafness is hilarious. Either they have a serious cognitive dissonance problem or they are legitimately going crazy. Talking of cognitive dissonance, I'm amazed at you guy's ability to jump on the least solid or simply dumbest conspiracy theory when it's against Clinton, but are ready to dismiss the fucking CIA and probably the most serious newspaper in the country when they come to a conclusion you don't like. The problem here is that it isn't "the fucking CIA" (which has its own credibility issues for that matter) but a news source citing another news source (where both Reuters and WaPo are known for a rather Russophobic slant in reporting since a long time) that some CIA unnamed officials said it to be so. And the CIA declined comment. Less credible. Edit: wait, did you just call WaPo "the most serious newspaper in the country" in your post? I did. It won 47 Pulitzer. Please find a more reliable and more respected daily newspaper. They don't print stuff lightly, and they don't do bullshit and desinformation. I get it: you guys are fired up and ready to argue for a thousand pages over thin air when it's about the Clinton Foundation, but are ready to shout HAHA BULLSHIT when a newspaper that won half a hundred pulitzers says it source at the cia confirms what every experts has been saying for months. It's a bit tiring to argue with you and those basis, I hope you realize. I have no problem if you guys want to be skeptics and require hard evidence even with such a reliable source, but please don't insult our intelligence by changing your attitude in such a grotesque fashion depending on who is the target.
Let me clarify.
I do believe this is a few magnitudes better than pretty much anything presented against Hillary. And as someone who has not trusted Russia supposed "fall" since the mid-90's, I too find it hard to believe that they are innocent in what happened. I think this is a very good start to an actual investigation. Prestigious institution believes they have contacts with someone willing to corroborate their story. As the investigation deepens and as we learn more we can become more confident of the information. Its a good start, and I'm glad they are doing it. All that's needed is solid proof/solid testimony and we are in.
|
On December 11 2016 01:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 01:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 11 2016 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2016 00:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 10 2016 22:49 farvacola wrote:Frankly, if xmz is calling you a nut job, you're doing something right. In other news... The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign drew on, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Donald Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night on condition of anonymity.
Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Washington Post reported on Friday that intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday.
Obama's homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters the report's results would be shared with lawmakers and others.
"The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," she said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win White House Probably wise to take reports from unnamed "US officials briefed on the matter" with a grain of salt, whether they are from the left or from the right. Not sure why they would leak it anyway? CIA declined to comment so it looks like the direct source for that article is... WaPo. I'm sure we all have infinite faith in the credibility of such an upstanding outlet like WaPo. Their sources when they slandered all of alternative media as tools of the Russians were also essentially anonymous. The tone deafness is hilarious. Either they have a serious cognitive dissonance problem or they are legitimately going crazy. Talking of cognitive dissonance, I'm amazed at you guy's ability to jump on the least solid or simply dumbest conspiracy theory when it's against Clinton, but are ready to dismiss the fucking CIA and probably the most serious newspaper in the country when they come to a conclusion you don't like. The problem here is that it isn't "the fucking CIA" (which has its own credibility issues for that matter) but a news source citing another news source (where both Reuters and WaPo are known for a rather Russophobic slant in reporting since a long time) that some CIA unnamed officials said it to be so. And the CIA declined comment. Less credible. Edit: wait, did you just call WaPo "the most serious newspaper in the country" in your post? I did. It won 47 Pulitzer. Please find a more reliable and more respected daily newspaper. They don't print stuff lightly, and they don't do bullshit and desinformation. I get it: you guys are fired up and ready to argue for a thousand pages over thin air when it's about the Clinton Foundation, but are ready to shout HAHA BULLSHIT when a newspaper that won half a hundred pulitzers says it source at the cia confirms what every experts has been saying for months. It's a bit tiring to argue with you and those basis, I hope you realize. I have no problem if you guys want to be skeptics and require hard evidence even with such a reliable source, but please don't insult our intelligence by changing your attitude in such a grotesque fashion depending on who is the target.
You're saying this to one of the people who commentated pretty much never on the Clinton Foundation (my stance, which I think I mentioned once, is to let the FBI handle it). Frankly this is part of that "label and dismiss" phenomenon of trying to think of how to label someone as part of a tainted group so you don't really have to address the concerns individually.
Frankly, that you seem to have no problem with citing something that amounts to a game of telephone from a "reliable source that doesn't do bullshit and disinformation" that has already printed McCarthyist bullshit on the exact same topic just two weeks ago as an unquestionable truth "because we already know Russia is guilty and this just confirms it" shows a much greater bias than being skeptical of a game of telephone from an anonymous source from THE CIA ITSELF.
Not to mention THE CIA ITSELF is not a fully credible source that is never known for lying either. I always have some degree of skepticism when an intelligence agency says it to be so. But that's three layers upstream in the sourcing issue going on here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
