|
Nevvy Z posted:The artcile you shared doesnt seem to be an editorial. Why don't you just say that unnamed/unverifiable "sources" from the notoriously trustworthy institution known as the CIA leaked to a Clinton propaganda outlet have 100% credibility here while you're at it.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:47 |
|
|
A Deacon posted:Why don't you just say that unnamed/unverifiable "sources" from the notoriously trustworthy institution known as the CIA leaked to a Clinton propaganda outlet have 100% credibility here while you're at it. You could try just saying that in the first place instead of a bunch of dumb poo poo. Don't post bad criticism. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
It is really weird to see the left dismiss evidence that strongly suggests that Russia actively tried to sway the election. This is the case, of course, because it undermines the notion that the left abandoning a centrist Clinton candidacy or the Clinton campaign ignoring working class issues is the primary, or sole, reason Democrats lost in 2016. You guys do know that acknowledging that Russians manipulating media narratives is a really concerning thing and likely played some role in defeating Clinton does not undermine the thesis that Sanders should have been the Democratic Party's candidate? These are not contradictory notions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
I think the most important issue here is we must find and prosecute whoever leaked this information.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted:It is really weird to see the left dismiss evidence that strongly suggests that Russia actively tried to sway the election. Well, I did hear from Clinton surrogates that the Podesta emails were fake, despite Hillary unwittingly confirming their authenticity twice in the debates. Did I mention that they said Wikileaks was "fake news" as well? The point is that they have zero credibility. This isn't even getting into how the CIA has a history of manipulating the media for nefarious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
A Deacon posted:Well, I did hear from Clinton surrogates that the Podesta emails were fake, despite Hillary unwittingly confirming their authenticity twice in the debates. Did I mention that they said Wikileaks was "fake news" as well? The point is that they have zero credibility. This isn't even getting into how the CIA has a history of manipulating the media for nefarious reasons. Is the Central Intelligence Agency also in on the take? What do they hope to gain from their collaboration with Clinton apparatchiks? I'm excited to find out how far this conspiracy goes. Edible Hat fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted:Is the Central Intelligence Agency also in on the take? What do they hope to gain from their collaboration with Clinton apparatchiks? I'm excited to find out how far this conspiracy goes. What did the FBI have to gain from their October Surprise?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
The CIA is basically the political branch of Wall Street, so there ya go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted:Is the Central Intelligence Agency also in on the take? What do they hope to gain from their collaboration with Clinton apparatchiks? I'm excited to find out how far this conspiracy goes. Until they provide indisputable & verifiable evidence, yes. Hillary Clinton's propensity for neocon foreign policy lines up quite nicely with the CIA's hard-on for regime change; so it's at least plausible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
A Deacon posted:Until they provide indisputable & verifiable evidence, yes. Hillary Clinton's propensity for neocon foreign policy lines up quite nicely with the CIA's hard-on for regime change; so it's at least plausible. Great. What would be your epistemology for determining what is the "indisputable and verifiable evidence"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted:Great. What would be your epistemology for determining what is the "indisputable and verifiable evidence"? Anything more substantial than an unnamed "source," for starters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
A Deacon posted:Anything more substantial than an unnamed "source," for starters. Okay, and what else?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted:It is really weird to see the left dismiss evidence that strongly suggests that Russia actively tried to sway the election. This is the case, of course, because it undermines the notion that the left abandoning a centrist Clinton candidacy or the Clinton campaign ignoring working class issues is the primary, or sole, reason Democrats lost in 2016. You guys do know that acknowledging that Russians manipulating media narratives is a really concerning thing and likely played some role in defeating Clinton does not undermine the thesis that Sanders should have been the Democratic Party's candidate? These are not contradictory notions. I am shocked that Russia would prefer a candidate that did not call for open conflict. gently caress Hillary Clinton and the democrat establishment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
reagan posted:I am shocked that Russia would prefer a candidate that did not call for open conflict. gently caress Hillary Clinton and the democrat establishment. "Call for open conflict" the nonsense people rile themselves up into believing. Foreign interference in our elections is a big deal, even if you like the result.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
reagan posted:I am shocked that Russia would prefer a candidate that did not call for open conflict. gently caress Hillary Clinton and the democrat establishment. Are you agreeing with me? The Russians had a rational reason to want to influence the election and took steps to do that (via Wikileaks). A Trump administration will necessarily improve the geopolitical position of Russia: Clinton, Trump, Russia, you, me all seem to be in agreement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AJentleson/status/807443174344036352 President and Reid can call for investigations, the press has other ideas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:"Call for open conflict" the nonsense people rile themselves up into believing. Foreign interference in our elections is a big deal, even if you like the result. Edible Hat posted:Are you agreeing with me? The Russians had a rational reason to want to influence the election and took steps to do that (via Wikileaks). A Trump administration will necessarily improve the geopolitical position of Russia: Clinton, Trump, Russia, you, me all seem to be in agreement. [Citation Needed] The FBI debunked this horseshit in October: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html President Obama debunked this horseshit again after the election: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/us/politics/hacking-russia-election-fears-barack-obama-donald-trump.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
The same FBI that was clearly putting their thumb on the same side of the scale? That FBI?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:The same FBI that was clearly putting their thumb on the same side of the scale? That FBI? I guess Comey was pulling Obama's strings as well, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
A Deacon posted:[Citation Needed] Obama is dismissing the idea that Russia hacked voting machines. That is a completely separate (but related) accusation from saying that Russians hacked DNC emails and disseminated them through Wikileaks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
I'll just leave this here. https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/807445186829811712 Russia didn't hack poo poo. The CIA is just angry that Trump might disrupt their regime-change policy (which I doubt) in the Middle East, mostly at the insistence of the Saudis. Big Oil fucks everything up as usual. Surprise!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
A Deacon posted:Also, Hillary Clinton warning us about "fake news" threatening our democracy is especially rich when 1) her donors at Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the banks were openly boasting about how America is NOT a democracy in the Podesta/Wikileaks emails, and 2) she had literally 98% of supposedly objective "journalists," "newspapers," and media corporations endorse her. She is literally doing what she claimed Donald Trump would do if he lost the election. Any self-respecting leftist and thinking person needs to unequivocally denounce Hillary Clinton's hysteria and McCarthy tactics altogether. She is permanently ruining the reputation and credibility of the Democrat party with this poo poo due to her narcissism rendering her incapable of acknowledging her failure as a candidate to connect with people in the Rust Belt. Yes, we get it; you're bitter that your life's mission to be come the first female President came to an abrupt and humiliating defeat at the hands of Donald loving Trump. But you know what, it's entirely YOUR fault. And this is what Hillary, and her supporters cannot grasp. (and let me clarify, when I say "supporters"? I don't mean progressives/liberals. I mean the dipshits that were cheerleading her into this entire thing) It's stunning to me. The Democrats had such a wave of support in 2008. They HAD a mandate. The people had ENOUGH of the GOP. The people wanted the crooks on Wall Street tried and prosecuted. The people wanted jobs. The people wanted health care in some way shape or form. They had the will of the people on their side. What the hell did they do? Sat on their hands and helped out Wall Street, helped out the insurance companies and for the most part? Ignored the people. You know what the GOP did? They got their clocks cleaned but found a way to claw back via the grass roots on up. They won local elections. They won state elections. They won senate and house seats. They paid attention to their lunatic base in addition to their donors. They had idiots like Ted Cruz championing their batshit causes. spare me the bullshit about the economy being "better". The people I KNOW are struggling right now. Their underpaid for their work, have lovely healthcare coverage and are in general? Angry. This transcends gender, sexuality, race or whatever the hell you want to throw at me. This lovely Wall Street/Silicon Valley version of what being a progressive is has to die. It's pathetic and it leads us absolutely nowhere. It doesn't help the middle class, it doesn't help the poor, it doesn't help LGBT people, it doesn't help minorities. You know who it helps? Rich assholes and trustfund kids that want to feel better about themselves. That's it. FuzzySkinner fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Its just sickening to me that a substantial part lf the population, the part that ostensibly hates Russia, will have a candidate elected based on propaganda from Russia, but simce they liked the result, they are ok with it. How wonderful that sugar rations have doubled from half a kilo to a quarter kilo!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
A Deacon posted:I'll just leave this here. That guy is about as qualified as Trump's doctor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
I think the election broke some of the hardcore hillarites who toxxed, and now they're re-regging and trying to make obscure fake news happen because they're just so pissed off at the world for not going according to their plan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
A Deacon posted:I'll just leave this here. There's now "indisputable and verifiable evidence" that the Russian-hacking non-story was orchestrated by the CIA mandarins and their Saudi puppetmasters. Thanks for blowing the lid off this story, A Deacon and emptywheel.net
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted:There's now "indisputable and verifiable evidence" that the Russian-hacking non-story was orchestrated by the CIA mandarins and their Saudi puppetmasters. Thanks for blowing the lid off this story, A Deacon and emptywheel.net You are quite exceptional at portraying a willfully ignorant shithead. In other news, the NYT is now saying the RNC (which they deny) was hacked and that big bad Putin withheld the stolen documents! https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/807446251478351872 More platitudes and posturing without evidence. This is nothing more than an attempt to undermine Trump's legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:
American Jobs Act - killed by a Republican Congress Affordable Care Act - Over 60 attempts to repeal parts or the whole made by Congressional Republicans quote:You know what the GOP did? They got their clocks cleaned but found a way to claw back via the grass roots on up. They won local elections. They won state elections. They won senate and house seats. They paid attention to their lunatic base in addition to their donors. They had idiots like Ted Cruz championing their batshit causes. You know, I'm trying to add one and one here, but I'm not getting two. So the Democrats had a mandate to deliver to the people things they desperately wanted, but in the end the people rewarded the party who was obstructing the Democrat's efforts to get anything done? You are making the people sound like a bunch of loving idiots, or you might be wrong about their motivations
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Again, you keep talking about evidence, but you never clarify what convincing evidence would look like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Russia hacked the DNC. All of our intelligence agencies are in agreement on this. If you dispute that you're either an opportunist or an imbecile.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
Bloops Crusts posted:Russia hacked the DNC. All of our intelligence agencies are in agreement on this. If you dispute that you're either an opportunist or an imbecile. Assange said they did not. Is he an opportunist or an imbecile?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
A Deacon posted:Assange said they did not. Is he an opportunist or an imbecile? Assange is the rancid dog poo poo I stepped in three days ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
Why not both? Or he might be someone who is protective of his sources, who knows?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
A Deacon posted:You are quite exceptional at portraying a willfully ignorant shithead. Obviously when Russia looked at the RNC data they found no scandal whatsoever, just a pure and honest conservative political party. They were looking for dirt but found nothing damning like was found in the DNC emails. Why else but to find dirt would they have even looked in the first place? God bless you, Saint Reince.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
Bloops Crusts posted:Assange is the rancid dog poo poo I stepped in three days ago. Even when he exposed Dubya's war crimes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
i'm just loling at everyone still getting mad about wall street. haven't you loving idiots learned: we always win, even when we lose. you literally cannot beat us. vote for trump? he'll make one of us his treasury secretary. vote for clinton? she'll make some small changes here and there but won't fundamentally change how we do business vote third party:  don't vote because you're an idiot who gets their political opinions from south park? we win by default and get to laugh at you for being a moron. don't you see? we can't lose! it's loving amazing that people haven't picked up on it yet. A Deacon posted:Assange said they did not. Is he an opportunist or an imbecile? you loving believe that neo-nazi?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
To be fair to A Deacon, (and this should probably go without saying) we should be skeptical of leaks from an ongoing CIA investigation without seeing documentary evidence that backs up that still-coalescing conclusion. On the other hand, the knee-jerk rejection by some leftists of even the possibility that Russians hacked the DNC (often in the same paragraph as a defense of that very same thing) is deeply weird.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
A Deacon posted:Even when he exposed Dubya's war crimes? Hang a picture of Julian Assange above your loving fireplace if you want. If I ever hang one, it will be in my bathroom, so I can sneer at his poo poo-eating face anytime I squeeze out a turd.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
axeil posted:i'm just loling at everyone still getting mad about wall street. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:47 |
|
|
Bloops Crusts posted:Hang a picture of Julian Assange above your loving fireplace if you want. If I ever hang one, it will be in my bathroom, so I can sneer at his poo poo-eating face anytime I squeeze out a turd. Why is it exactly that he garners so much puerile rage from you? Genuine question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 08:03
|
|