|
Apraxin posted:One of the great joys of the Great Benghazi Scandal is that it's so nebulous that you can just say 'I hate Hillary Clinton for Benghazi' and people who believe 20 different things about it will agree with you. This like conspiracy 101. One of the first major things that got me reading debunking books was when in one of the conspiracy books I was reading, the JFK conspiracy coverage involved such things as the magic bullet, the grassy knoll, JFK not really being dead, JFK's coffin being way too heavy to be filled with just a body, etc. I wanted to be informed about such things, but I was lucky enough that my brain was willing to go one step further than most conspiracy theorists, in that while I didn't just want to accept the official story, I also wasn't willing to accept poo poo that didn't make sense from sources that disputed it. I wish I would have read debunking stuff first, it would have saved me some embarrassment in my youth.
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:ATM machine. PIN number.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:Hahaha what the gently caress is this from https://twitter.com/molcandr/status/790142667002904576
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
One thing I find so confusing about Benghazi is how comparatively petty it is. (I know, a goon died.) 9/11 trutherism is a conspiracy at a massive scale: 3000 Americans died, wars were started. So that was Bush. Clinton? Oh, she and her co-demon Hussein Obama and a bunch of other guys at state dept were partially to blame for - not even intentionally killed, but were not sufficiently vigilant in preventing - the death of 4 Americans. Birtherism is at least super simple. 1. to become president, you have to be born in the US. 2. Obama is president. 3. Obama was not born in the US. Benghazi is all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:Hahaha what the gently caress is this from The original came from Russian Embassy UK Twitter account.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:ATM machine. PIN number. Edit: Jesus... 3rd time I've gotten beaten on this thread today. I should just put the phone down. 
UFOTacoMan fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Oct 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LukeBrinker/status/790216973057654784 What a pretty map. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:One thing I find so confusing about Benghazi is how comparatively petty it is. (I know, a goon died.) 9/11 trutherism is a conspiracy at a massive scale: 3000 Americans died, wars were started. So that was Bush. Clinton? Oh, she and her co-demon Hussein Obama and a bunch of other guys at state dept were partially to blame for - not even intentionally killed, but were not sufficiently vigilant in preventing - the death of 4 Americans. A lot of it was given an initial big push because it happened during an election cycle and the Republicans were desperate for anything to discredit Obama's relative success in Libya. Then it went self replicating once it was it hit critical mass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
The thing with Benghazi and the email bullshit is that it is the best they got. That's it. That's why it is a big deal, because it is the best thing they have. So it has to be super-important (even if similar things weren't super important when Republicans did them) because otherwise they have nothing of any value to attack Hillary Clinton on. This is also why the "Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person ever" stuff is kind of tedious. She's been on politics for 30 years and the best attacks anyone can line up are "wasn't as good at email security as she should have been" "Said the wrong thing after an attack on an embarassy" "Her charity" and "Her husband cheated on her." If she is so loving good at being corrupt that the best you got is that then you're already hosed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Icon Of Sin posted:PIN number. JEB Bush
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:Pretty accurate as I understand it, except that it was a Consulate and not an Embassy. The latter would have had more built-in protection, I believe. Yeah, that But yeah, it's pretty much been milked into a Republican dream because they can alter it to be whatever they want. The few I've seen that actually listened to the actual details just believe we should have released the military and that's plenty of reason to make it all Obama/Hillary's fault...you know, aside from paradropping hundreds of troops and tons of equipment in a foreign country comes off more as an illegal invasion than a covert action to save a few people and would have kicked off some relation nightmares in an unstable, volatile section of the world
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Yeah, that Ive talked to people who legit belive that with all the security requests it should of set off a red alarm that had US military forces move in to protect our assets in Libya. During a civil war. I dont think there is a  big enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:So in other words your interpretation of the Benghazi scandal is *wet fart* I just don't see what's so scandalous about either scenario, i.e. whether or not the CIA were arming rebel factions. It wouldn't be the first time they did in any case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
totally losing my mime posted:JEB Bush With au jus
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Just chiming in because I broke down and put up fivebux for an avatar; but more importantly, bad hombres But even more importantly, go over to the RAINN thread and donate. Because they help people and you need redemption you awful piece of goon poo poo. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3794070 skylined! fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Oct 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:One thing I find so confusing about Benghazi is how comparatively petty it is. (I know, a goon died.) 9/11 trutherism is a conspiracy at a massive scale: 3000 Americans died, wars were started. So that was Bush. Clinton? Oh, she and her co-demon Hussein Obama and a bunch of other guys at state dept were partially to blame for - not even intentionally killed, but were not sufficiently vigilant in preventing - the death of 4 Americans. It's incredibly petty. I really think some people have just been aching for something negative to happen for a while so that thier predictions of "Obama cannot keep us safe!!!! Look what happens when democrats are responsible for defense!!!" will have some credibility, even a little, because that was a massive reason that was fielded against him, in both elections. Something terrible happened, americans died = validation of the dire warnings. It's also affected Clinton because it happened when she was sec. of state. Hillary is to blame because - well there just about as many theories as to why she failed, intentionally or out of incompetence, as there are theories that the U.S. government covers up space aliens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Social Studies 3rd Period posted:https://twitter.com/LukeBrinker/status/790216973057654784 Minnesota also a toss up?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
So, this may be putting too much thought and/or logic into it, but why do right wing nuts think the mainstream media is left-leaning? Like, is the assumption that the massive media corporations are owned by billionaires who are secret liberals and trying to corrupt the public? Because I was looking at it as said nuts assume media supported liberal policies sell better to a naive public, but then that'd just be a reflection both of a liberal majority in the public, and that the free market is speaking loud and clear, neither of which the right would concede.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:I just don't see what's so scandalous about either scenario, i.e. whether or not the CIA were arming rebel factions. It wouldn't be the first time they did in any case. Rebel factions against who? Are you being confused by the fact that the rebellion had recently won the country, and of course they would still receive assistance?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Social Studies 3rd Period posted:https://twitter.com/LukeBrinker/status/790216973057654784 Did they make Minnesota tossup just so Clinton wouldn't be at 270? And Oregon is only lean Dem?  Edit: And Connecticut? The more I look at this map the crazier it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Social Studies 3rd Period posted:https://twitter.com/LukeBrinker/status/790216973057654784 If Texas flips I'm going to get so many complaints from neighbors for blasting "Deep in the Heart of Texas" on repeat. Worth it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Basically Al Quaeda planned out anniversary attacks for 9/11 and one of those attacks was the Embassy in Benghazi. Attack started, people notified Washington DC. A drone was sent over to confirm and then action was taken. Unfortunately the closest unit around available to get moving was a small team of operatives that had to commandeer a plane to get there. By the time they did the compound had been overrun. My parents 100% hate the whole video misreport/lie (i don't know enough to determine which one it was), and firmly believe it was a lie because the election was near. (Though they also believe the klintons killed Foster, so  )
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Thaddius the Large posted:So, this may be putting too much thought and/or logic into it, but why do right wing nuts think the mainstream media is left-leaning? Like, is the assumption that the massive media corporations are owned by billionaires who are secret liberals and trying to corrupt the public? Because I was looking at it as said nuts assume media supported liberal policies sell better to a naive public, but then that'd just be a reflection both of a liberal majority in the public, and that the free market is speaking loud and clear, neither of which the right would concede. Because why else would their lovely opinions and policies be wrong?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Rodenthar Drothman posted:My parents 100% hate the whole video misreport/lie (i don't know enough to determine which one it was), and firmly believe it was a lie because the election was near. bad news
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
BrainMeats posted:Minnesota also a toss up? If it's within 5 pts it's a tossup. Clinton has +4.8, similar to Trumps 4.7 in Texas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Social Studies 3rd Period posted:https://twitter.com/LukeBrinker/status/790216973057654784 My personal favourite is from here: code:
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:bad news I fear it may be terminal
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:I just don't see what's so scandalous about either scenario, i.e. whether or not the CIA were arming rebel factions. It wouldn't be the first time they did in any case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:If it's within 5 pts it's a tossup. Clinton has +4.8, similar to Trumps 4.7 in Texas. What polling are they looking at that has it redder than Wisconsin though? It's pretty consistently +1-2 more D.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Thaddius the Large posted:So, this may be putting too much thought and/or logic into it, but why do right wing nuts think the mainstream media is left-leaning? Like, is the assumption that the massive media corporations are owned by billionaires who are secret liberals and trying to corrupt the public? Because I was looking at it as said nuts assume media supported liberal policies sell better to a naive public, but then that'd just be a reflection both of a liberal majority in the public, and that the free market is speaking loud and clear, neither of which the right would concede. Alot of it has to do with the name 'mainstream media.' They are outsider who are in the enlightened group, not part of the easily tricked masses. And also, yes this- skylined! posted:Because why else would their lovely opinions and policies be wrong? Nobody likes being called an rear end in a top hat, even when they are acting like an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:That whole skit was amazing. Baldwin is perfect, and if there was any reason I'd want to see Trump stick around and not fade into a poor obscurity it's so Baldwin could continue to mock him I find it funny that Baldwin's son supports The Cheeto. (also whew my keyboard still works after spilling water on it and having to take it apart and shake it dry)
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Thaddius the Large posted:So, this may be putting too much thought and/or logic into it, but why do right wing nuts think the mainstream media is left-leaning? Like, is the assumption that the massive media corporations are owned by billionaires who are secret liberals and trying to corrupt the public? Because I was looking at it as said nuts assume media supported liberal policies sell better to a naive public, but then that'd just be a reflection both of a liberal majority in the public, and that the free market is speaking loud and clear, neither of which the right would concede. Journalists tend to be highly educated and thus, as a group, are more liberal than the general population. The thinking of the right is that the personal slant of most journalists overpowers the generally right-wing corporate interests of the news media (or they just ignore the corporate interests entirely).
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Maybe when the Democrats own both houses we can get some congressional committees devoted to looking at why Reagan let terrorists blow up an Embassy and kill hundreds of marines in their barracks in Lebanon and then turned tail and ran like a coward rather than doing anything about it. Hell, let's try him posthumously as a traitor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Agrajag posted:I find it funny that Baldwin's son supports The Cheeto. (also whew my keyboard still works after spilling water on it and having to take it apart and shake it dry) Do you mean his brother, Stephen? Alec Baldwin's oldest son is about a year old so it'd be odd if he had a political opinion one way or the other. Kro-Bar fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Oct 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:
 M'LADY
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:Do you mean his brother, Stephen? Alec Baldwin's oldest son is about a year old so it'd be odd if he had a political opinion one way or the other. oh it's his brother? i thought the dude was his son.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:
 Agrajag posted:oh it's his brother? i thought the dude was his son. No, Stephen is probably the most discounted of the Baldwins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Thaddius the Large posted:So, this may be putting too much thought and/or logic into it, but why do right wing nuts think the mainstream media is left-leaning? Like, is the assumption that the massive media corporations are owned by billionaires who are secret liberals and trying to corrupt the public? Because I was looking at it as said nuts assume media supported liberal policies sell better to a naive public, but then that'd just be a reflection both of a liberal majority in the public, and that the free market is speaking loud and clear, neither of which the right would concede. Liberal elites who live in New York and Control the Media and aren't considered "Real Americans" is, to me, a more sanitized version of whole "The Jews Control the Media and Banks" narrative, and with the right wing nuts they are DEFINITELY still holding to that, if the alt-right's relationship with (((The Media))) is anything to go by. However, for your average Republican who might not be aware of that being a thing, I think it comes more from how the media doesn't focus on or care about rural areas,, and then the Republicans in charge, or talk radio hosts, or Fox News, pick your poison, actively plays into that resentment and encourages it. Not to say that they don't also take advantage of and encourage racism, sexism, homophobia, and the like because they do, but I think a major point that they start with that's glossed over is appealing to rural America when the "Mainstream Media", by and large, doesn't really seem to do that. I would like to look into this kind of thing more, though, if anyone has any literature about it, since I'm honestly just intuiting this, but I'd really like to read more about this and see if that's actually a thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:While it's definitely the sort of thing the CIA has done in the past, there's no evidence that they were involved in any sort of Libyan coup. I get where you're coming from - it's not like the CIA hasn't been involved in Middle East "regime change" before - but there's genuinely no evidence of that happening here, or even really much in the way of CIA motive in Libya post-Gaddhafi. It wasn't even a unique attack, plenty of embassies were attacked in the Bush years, and even a few others in the Obama years as I recall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:No, Stephen is probably the most discounted of the Baldwins. Almost like starring in Biodome and going on to be BFFs with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort might create some distance between Stephen and the rest of the Baldwins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 20:24
|
|