|
Helsing posted:Well I'm convinced. Its not like a high level career FBI spook would ever lie or exaggerate or mislead or even simply being delusional about the Russians causing domestic strife. Sure he's part of an institution where lying to the public comes more naturally than breathing and yeah he has a very sketchy career in that institution and of course the official FBI position has tended to be that everything from civil rights to the anti-war movement was actually a Russian plot but you know maybe this time Liberals should just uncritically worship at the altar of the security state even though every concrete piece of evidence purporting to show meaningful or efficacious examples of Russian interference has been manifestly ridiculous. Yeah the report is being suppressed and concealed for no reason and it's actually a good thing to not investigate problems because if the investigator isn't a pure angel then there's no way their investigation could find anything accurate
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 19:50 |
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:pretending that liking someone means that they can mind control you at any time. Got the order the wrong way around there What other reason could you possibly have for openly liking Putin
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2019 02:44
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:A lot of right-wingers like Putin. Trump is a right-winger. I don't see what's confusing about this. Cerebral Bore posted:Trump wants to be a strongman, Putin is the kind of strongman Trump wants to be and Trump is a suck-up by nature, which is why he likes Putin. Trump is also too dumb to keep up political kayfabe, which is why he openly likes Putin. It was a joke, folks. I think one of the problems that a lot of folks run into when talking about Russian interference is that both sides are able to talk about their own specific version of what happened and mock the other one for not getting it. Like, here: Ytlaya posted:Russia's Facebook and Twitter activity didn't have a significant impact. Are you saying that Russia did stuff on Facebook and Twitter to attempt to alter the outcome of the election? Are we admitting that this happened? What more does there need to be for there to be a conspiracy?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2019 12:05
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:that Russian activities actually had a meaningful impact on the election This seems like an unnecessary goalpost move. A deliberate conspiracy doesn't need to be successful.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2019 13:38
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:That's what literally everybody who uncritically believed the Russiagate stuff was claiming for about three years or so, so I suggest you take it up with them. Wait, are you saying that everybody but you thought it was successful? Or are you saying that everybody but you thought that conspiracies need to be successful in order to fit the definition? You're obliquely referencing something and there's a lot of potential candidates.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2019 14:01
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:A country putting non-zero effort towards influencing public opinions in another country isn't remotely uncommon, and it's even less uncommon if you expand the definition to powerful private entities (which you should). Pretty much all major countries have always done this, including the US. The question isn't whether or not it worked, the question is whether or not Trump's campaign knowingly conspired with a foreign government.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Well I was told for like three years straight that the Mueller report would descend from the heavens and provide answers that are true beyond any doubt to questions like this, and it said no. You seem to be missing the point of my posts in favour of going off on a tangent about Democrats. Which is fine, you do you, but it makes it difficult to respond.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Well, there's two separate things here. One is how you're defining "conspired" (i.e. does it count if Trump was simply aware of some of what Russia was doing, or does this require some sort of active cooperation). The other is why on a strictly ethical and practical level we consider "conspiring with a foreign government" to be inherently worse than conspiring with other organizations/entities. I don't see any reason to be more concerned about a politician conspiring with a foreign country than I should be about them conspiring with corporations hostile to the interests of the American public (if anything, the latter likely has a greater negative impact). The idea of foreign involvement being uniquely bad seems like it's just accepted as a "common sense" thing. In terms of ethics, you're on firm ground here with point number 2. However, in terms of pragmatism, if we can't even stop the obvious influence of hostile foreign governments, how the gently caress can we stop the influence of hostile multinational corporations as well? Like, this is the #AllLivesMatter style of deflection to an always-wider issue that ends up floundering in hopelessness instead of taking action. And to point number 1, I'd turn the question around: At what point can the collaboration between a candidate and a hostile power be considered innocent and fine?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2019 02:15
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Russia started started like 6 hours after he asked, lol I'm sure that Helsing can find a way to explain why this isn't actually important
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2019 04:38
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:All it can really do about Russia is improve cyber-security. McConnell is literally preventing this right now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The only point I'm making there, and I honestly do not know how I could communicate this more simplistically for you than I already am, is that it seems inconsistent for the poster I was responding to to act as though allegations from the Mueller report are "known to be true" if they are also going to ignore the fact Mueller declined to press charges. That's not me relying on the Mueller report to make my argument, that is me pointing out a contradiction in the construction of someone else's argument. This very much reads like you're willing to swap between believing someone and not believing them based on how their evidence lines up with your set-in-stone vision of what happened. Has any evidence that has come out changed your viewpoint? What evidence could, at this point?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It doesn't read like that at all. It's just awful convenient to be able to say "you can't cite him, because he's inherently and completely untrustworthy" and also say "it must be true, because the inherently and completely untrustworthy guy said it."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is embarrassing dude Thanks for the input, VitalSigns, I'll keep it in mind
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2019 06:03
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You first, buddy. What evidence has or could change your mind? Sorry, bub, buddy, chum, sweetiepie, but my argumentation style doesn't rely on "hey you can't cite that person I cited as a trusted source, he's not trustworthy."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You first, buddy. What evidence has or could change your mind? Cerebral Bore posted:No, your argumentation style seems to rely on dodging questions. Badly, I might add.  Again, I've got no need to answer this because I don't twist evidential trustworthiness to fit what I need for that sentence of my argument. VitalSigns posted:"Well if you think Mueller always lies, and he says he couldn't prove collusion, then by opposite day rules that must mean he proved it all!" This isn't what I was saying and you know that. Why do you insist that it is?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"sorry" Pretty sure you can absolutely disbelieve this part right here, being seen as recalcitrant is very much in the intererest of any organisation that's having to put out a "we hosed up real bad"  But, it feels like you're reading what's being said in this thread in a pretty generous and forgiving manner if you think that the self-interest argument maps to what is being taken as correct / incorrect. Especially since we're apparently unironically swinging for "the evidence is sound but uh well lots of countries do it so why are we focusing on this one" now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"the most qualified candidate ever" Little barbs like this one are inaccurate, irrelevant and a clear attempt to move the discussion to something you find safer. Please stop throwing them in, they make you look stupid and obsessed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2019 00:05
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Somfin definitely knows something about looking stupid: Which is why we have access to the full, unredacted report right now? E: VitalSigns posted:Can you ever address a point or is your strategy just to find something to whine about in every post so you can ignore it. There wasn't anything else in your post worth replying to with the way you were characterising things. Somfin fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Jul 31, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2019 00:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Release the long form birth certificate Do you think this is a good comparison?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well you tell me. Is there any evidence (or lack thereof) that could potentially change your mind, or will there always be somewhere else for the secret evidence of collusion to hide I'm mostly interested in it because Trump decided to swing the big hammer and prevent it from being released. E: And you'll recall I'm mostly bringing this up because someone decided to mock me for saying it was suppressed when this is about as explicit as suppression gets. Somfin fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Jul 31, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2019 02:29
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:IT IS FREE FOR DOWNLOAD AND STILL THE BESTSELLING NONFICTION BOOK OF 2019 The unredacted version. Thought that would be clear from context, but, y'know. Whatever. Have fun with the thread. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2019 11:39
|
|
|
Helsing and Jrodefeld should have a dedicated debate thread where they can non sequitur over each other freely
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
I think it's more a narcissism thing where people assume that because what they've written makes perfect sense to them, their posts are definitely rational and reasonable and easily followed, and the only way someone might not understand what they've written, and how it connects to what they're replying to, is if they were being willfully dense. But enough about my posting
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 19:50 |
|
|
Yo Helsing I want to apologise for being a shitbird earlier in the thread. I was in the middle of a real bad crack ping event, brainwise. Easier to accuse folks of not making sense on purpose than it is to accept that your brain hasn't actually taken on board what they've said because you're still locked in a self-imposed cage.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2020 05:31
|
|