|
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. |
Also the White House seems to be using a school shooting to hide from the Press today.
|
On February 15 2018 06:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Whats funny is that everyone, including Republicans in Congress, knows that such an endorsement from trump means nothing, because it depends on who had his ear in that moment.
|
On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that.
Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground.
@LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss.
|
On February 15 2018 06:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Also the White House seems to be using a school shooting to hide from the Press today.
I am actually okay with this as long as they come out for a bit to give an update on it.
We can wait one day for a press brief so they can get their story together about how this is so sad but we can't do anything about it
|
On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss.
Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then.
|
On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground.
Yeah, and she probably has competent lawyers and all that. I just really am not sure how NDA enforcement works and how "tied up in courts" that type of thing can get.
|
On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then.
This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that?
|
On February 15 2018 06:21 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 06:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Also the White House seems to be using a school shooting to hide from the Press today. I am actually okay with this as long as they come out for a bit to give an update on it. We can wait one day for a press brief so they can get their story together about how this is so sad but we can't do anything about it
Time to play gun apologist bingo:
1. This is a mental health crisis (applicable if shooter is white)
2. Guns don't kill people, people kill people
3. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun
4. The shooter was a liberal
5. We should not politicize this tragedy
|
On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that?
Because your talking to LL. A Russian shill living the US who occasionally pretends to be British.
If it involves Russia there is nothing to discuss.
|
On February 15 2018 05:51 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 05:36 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 05:28 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 05:22 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 05:03 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 04:59 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 04:52 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2018 04:49 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2018 04:36 LegalLord wrote:
What difference does it really make if the RNC was hacked or not? Are we trying to prove politically motivated leakage or something? They were hacked by the same group that hacked the DNC. So, for some reason, they did not release the RNC’s emails. Maybe the emails were really boring? So... what of it? Maybe they were in Reince Priebus's pockets and didn't want to force him to be relegated to the position of honorary campaign chairman. Maybe the expected reaction would've been less notable. Maybe they decided they just couldn't outdo pussygate. Maybe they just didn't get as much to work with. Or maybe absolutely definitely 100% it was a quid pro quo collusion arranged between the hackers and Donald J Trump himself. I suppose we should just pick whichever of those narratives is most politically convenient and roll with it. I just assume whoever hacked both of them, which is reported to be Russia, leaked what they felt would be in their best interest. Breaking news: leakers act in their own self interest? And don't say their goal was just to sow discord because releasing both would have done that better. How? How do you imagine that would actually play out? You saw the reaction to the DNC leaks. Seems obvious that releasing RNC leaks would get a similar reaction and add to the cacophony. Paints the whole system as corrupt as opposed to just one side. Is “seems obvious” the best you have? Because that isn’t at all enough nor is it clear that the result would have been that way. As much as anything else it’s about timing and environment. The scenario was perfect in the prelude to the Dem convention - Sanders supporters felt robbed, and it was supposed to be Hillary’s great “unity” moment. Click, boom, and it turned into a desperate farce by a mix of leaks and self-sabotage via DWS. I can say with 80% certainty that nothing in those RNC leaks would have been remotely interesting compared to the BS that comes out of Trump’s mouth daily. All it would do is draw attention to the “hacking” aspect of it. @GreenH, didn't the leaks happen after Trump was either the nominee or at least the presumptive fav? I dont doubt the RNC didnt want Trump tho.
Pretty much. Which is sorta my point. It wouldn't have worked out anything like the other side really. Also then there wouldn't be so much resentment among Hillary supporters (not referencing anyone here) for Russia's role. Democrats and Republicans (of the establishment) could hate Russia and Trump together for both exposing them and beating them. Instead Republicans and Democrats are as divided as they get and divisions within each party are (not quite as high right before he won on the right) high.
They wanted peak dysfunction and they got it. The honored opposition has spent the last year boosting Putin's reputation domestically, and failing to convince Trump's supporters they have anything better to offer them while doing just enough to piss off both sides of their own base. Now they have the brilliant plan to parade Hillary (worse ratings than Trump) Clinton around for 2018.
This whole thing feels like Russia exposed that we shouldn't have faith in the system by just throwing a rock through a small window that had been obscured by a thick cake of ash and soot from the raging fire inside. Now the system managers have convinced people to put all of their attention into the jerks who threw the rock (and the rock) and none on the raging inferno (at least not on their side of the system)
|
On February 15 2018 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? Because your talking to LL. A Russian shill living the US who occasionally pretends to be British. If it involves Russia there is nothing to discuss.
This would be example of the negatives of speculation.
|
The mental health crisis option is a good one.
If only people would be happy with government investment in community mental health solutions. For some reason the same people who insist on the mental health crisis are opposed to any proposed solution to said crisis.
|
On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that?
I’m not at all sure what you’re getting at. The issue is, assuming the goal is to cause discord, would it make sense to release RNC leaks?
Why exactly is it “obvious” that it would be? There’s an argument that could be made either way. But if the only argument is, “it’s obvious!” as with On_Slaught, the reality is more akin to that there isn’t too much of a justification for why it’s the case. Just conjecture.
Which is fine - as you say, people can speculate if they like. But it also means there’s nothing further to discuss.
On February 15 2018 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? Because your talking to LL. A Russian shill living the US who occasionally pretends to be British. If it involves Russia there is nothing to discuss.
Your immaturity on full display is much appreciated.
|
On February 15 2018 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? Because your talking to LL. A Russian shill living the US who occasionally pretends to be British. If it involves Russia there is nothing to discuss.
Did he also pretend to be pro-EU at some point? That was hilarious. :D
|
On February 15 2018 06:27 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 06:21 IyMoon wrote:On February 15 2018 06:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Also the White House seems to be using a school shooting to hide from the Press today. I am actually okay with this as long as they come out for a bit to give an update on it. We can wait one day for a press brief so they can get their story together about how this is so sad but we can't do anything about it Time to play gun apologist bingo: 1. This is a mental health crisis (applicable if shooter is white) 2. Guns don't kill people, people kill people 3. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun 4. The shooter was a liberal 5. We should not politicize this tragedy
Pretty accurate.
I'd add
6. The bodies are still warm and you already argue weapon legislation, what's wrong with you?
Apparently right after a shooting isn't the time to talk about how to prevent these shootings. How many in 2018 now?
|
On February 15 2018 06:21 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 06:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Also the White House seems to be using a school shooting to hide from the Press today. I am actually okay with this as long as they come out for a bit to give an update on it. We can wait one day for a press brief so they can get their story together about how this is so sad but we can't do anything about it
Except they have had Press briefings the day of school shootings before.
|
On February 15 2018 06:33 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? I’m not at all sure what you’re getting at. The issue is, assuming the goal is to cause discord, would it make sense to release RNC leaks? Why exactly is it “obvious” that it would be? There’s an argument that could be made either way. But if the only argument is, “it’s obvious!” as with On_Slaught, the reality is more akin to that there isn’t too much of a justification for why it’s the case. Just conjecture. Which is fine - as you say, people can speculate if they like. But it also means there’s nothing further to discuss. Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? Because your talking to LL. A Russian shill living the US who occasionally pretends to be British. If it involves Russia there is nothing to discuss. Your immaturity on full display is much appreciated.
Because I'm bored I'll throw out one more point you can immediately dismiss. Let's say there is only a 15% chance releasing the RNC leaks accomplishes what they want. Fuck, let's make it 5%. What reason is there to hold on to it if there is any chance it helps you? If it flops who cares, just move on since, like you said, there was so much else going on. There is only upside to releasing.
|
On February 15 2018 06:40 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 06:33 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? I’m not at all sure what you’re getting at. The issue is, assuming the goal is to cause discord, would it make sense to release RNC leaks? Why exactly is it “obvious” that it would be? There’s an argument that could be made either way. But if the only argument is, “it’s obvious!” as with On_Slaught, the reality is more akin to that there isn’t too much of a justification for why it’s the case. Just conjecture. Which is fine - as you say, people can speculate if they like. But it also means there’s nothing further to discuss. On February 15 2018 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? Because your talking to LL. A Russian shill living the US who occasionally pretends to be British. If it involves Russia there is nothing to discuss. Your immaturity on full display is much appreciated. Because I'm bored I'll throw out one more point you can immediately dismiss. Let's say there is only a 15% chance releasing the RNC leaks accomplishes what they want. Fuck, let's make it 5%. What reason is there to hold on to it if there is any chance it helps you? If it flops who cares, just move on since, like you said, there was so much else going on. There is only upside to releasing.
Holding on to it is definitely good strategy.
Lets say there's 15% chance that releasing it gets you what you want, but there's an 80% chance that you could get something else you want - repeatedly over the course of 4(?) years - by threatening to release it. Maybe its a good idea to keep it.
|
On February 15 2018 06:40 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 06:33 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? I’m not at all sure what you’re getting at. The issue is, assuming the goal is to cause discord, would it make sense to release RNC leaks? Why exactly is it “obvious” that it would be? There’s an argument that could be made either way. But if the only argument is, “it’s obvious!” as with On_Slaught, the reality is more akin to that there isn’t too much of a justification for why it’s the case. Just conjecture. Which is fine - as you say, people can speculate if they like. But it also means there’s nothing further to discuss. On February 15 2018 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? Because your talking to LL. A Russian shill living the US who occasionally pretends to be British. If it involves Russia there is nothing to discuss. Your immaturity on full display is much appreciated. Because I'm bored I'll throw out one more point you can immediately dismiss. Let's say there is only a 15% chance releasing the RNC leaks accomplishes what they want. Fuck, let's make it 5%. What reason is there to hold on to it if there is any chance it helps you? If it flops who cares, just move on since, like you said, there was so much else going on. There is only upside to releasing.
Perhaps they weighed it against the eventuality they might try to get rid of Trump and release some incriminating stuff when they're pounding their chest about the only honorable thing they can do is get rid of the guy they never wanted there. All the while sewing more discord because while I'm sure there's plenty in there, they were also remarkably fair and the argument I attributed to intro in absentia would be caught in between the "honorable" people trying to get rid of Trump and the trump supporters who saw just how far RNC people would have gone if they were allowed to.
|
On February 15 2018 06:43 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 06:40 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:33 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? I’m not at all sure what you’re getting at. The issue is, assuming the goal is to cause discord, would it make sense to release RNC leaks? Why exactly is it “obvious” that it would be? There’s an argument that could be made either way. But if the only argument is, “it’s obvious!” as with On_Slaught, the reality is more akin to that there isn’t too much of a justification for why it’s the case. Just conjecture. Which is fine - as you say, people can speculate if they like. But it also means there’s nothing further to discuss. On February 15 2018 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? Because your talking to LL. A Russian shill living the US who occasionally pretends to be British. If it involves Russia there is nothing to discuss. Your immaturity on full display is much appreciated. Because I'm bored I'll throw out one more point you can immediately dismiss. Let's say there is only a 15% chance releasing the RNC leaks accomplishes what they want. Fuck, let's make it 5%. What reason is there to hold on to it if there is any chance it helps you? If it flops who cares, just move on since, like you said, there was so much else going on. There is only upside to releasing. Holding on to it is definitely good strategy. Lets say there's 15% chance that releasing it gets you what you want, but there's an 80% chance that you could get something else you want - repeatedly over the course of 4(?) years - by threatening to release it. Maybe its a good idea to keep it.
Fair enough (see pee tape). Though it wouldnt help as much if the Republicans lost...
Either way I maintain the chances of it having an effect were much higher than 15% and that the best justification for not doing it is they wanted Trump to win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
