|
There's a long-form Mueller report and all the most damning evidence of Russia collusion is in there
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2019 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Awfully quiet in this thread today. What is there to talk about, the Republican cop investigated the Republican President and said "gee here's all this evidence of crimes, but how can we really ever know what it means, I guess we can't charge him with anything", exactly like every time the cops investigate themselves and say "okay yes he shot that unarmed man on the ground with his hands in the air crying 'don't shoot I am not armed' and then lied about what happened in his report and then bragged about it later, but who knows it might not have been murder in his heart, no charges recommended" which is unchanged from what was said itt last week. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Apr 18, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
I can already tell you the answer "I can't speculate on hypotheticals" but sure call him in and ask him
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
Right that's why he's trying to start a war with Iran, his incredibly consistent belief that the Persian Gulf is only of marginal significance to the United States
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
SickZip posted:Trump's stated reason for his opposition to involvement in the region was that it wasn't profitable not that it wasn't moral 1980s Imperialism in the Middle East didn't have a profit motive? That's the argument you're making in order to rationalize Donald Trump's statements as consistent and rational?
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
It might also make sense for them not to intervene if they were making it up
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
It could also be they didn't release it because they made it all up.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
I am sure the FBI helped MLK cover up being accessory to rape because they respected him so much and didn't want to embarrass him. I am also sure Donald Trump won't release his tax returns because they're so flawless it would make every other candidate look so bad that the 2020 election wouldn't even be fair.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
They could have had any number of plans for what to do with it that they ended up not executing for one reason or another, or they could have created it just in case they thought up a plan for it later. Are you really arguing that the transcript must be real because the FBI is Perfectly Rational and wouldn't ever do something stupid or poorly-planned because, uh
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
It's been proven that Russia mind-controlled John Podesta into ordering volunteers on the road to Michigan to turn around so they could bluff Trump into not campaigning there (he was campaigning there anyway)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2019 12:33
|
|
|
I'm not sure why we need a complex expensive insecure failure-prone electronic voting system to solve the "Hanging Chad" problem that can be completely obviated by better paper ballot design and therefore doesn't exist elsewhere. Hell it wouldn't have even been a problem in 2000 if a bassackwards ballot layout hadn't caused thousands of erroneous for Buchanan instead of Gore. Brought to you by the same county whose bad design cost Democrats a Senate race last year (no big loss since Nelson was too much of an arrogant prick to even make a token gesture at campaigning and appealing to *spits* voters, but nevertheless these are solvable problems)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:
I'm sorry who was it that voted to destroy a Democratic GOTV operation with zero investigation of the allegations being made while Democrats had a supermajority government
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
Somfin posted: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. It doesn't read like that at all. He's saying that the report doesn't support the allegations of a conspiracy between Trump and Putin that are being made, and even if we accept the explanation that Mueller must have lied and covered up the real evidence because it's all too top secret to be shown to the public, that would still require us to uncritically trust the word of a man who has either lied or been catastrophically wrong about national security before. So it's not a great argument even if Mueller directly came out and said "Trump conspired with Putin and I have all the proof but you can't see it until the trial", but he isn't even saying that it's just something people are imagining he might be secretly doing because the alternative is that they were wrong. None of the things Helsing is saying are contradictory. Someone can be untrustworthy, and also can write an accurate report. Real life isn't a brain-teaser riddle where once someone lies then everything they say is a lie and you just have to invert every statement of theirs to get the truth on any topic. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Jul 29, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2019 22:38
|
|
|
Somfin posted: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." This is embarrassing dude
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Thanks for the input, VitalSigns, I'll keep it in mind Sorry let me be more helpful now that I've slept. Try applying this reasoning to other situations and see if it still makes sense: "I was right that the CIA were completely untrustworthy about Saddam's WMDs, look they finally admitted they were wrong in their own report!" "Oh so the CIA is untrustworthy, but now their report is true? You can't just cherrypick which reports you want to believe, Helsing! If the CIA is untrustworthy and they say Saddam had no active weapons program then that only confirms that he did!"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2019 12:39
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:He went on national television and asked for it. Someone's bluster on TV isn't proof of a criminal conspiracy even if the thing they bluster about happens. Bush went on TV and told the Iraqi insurgency to "bring it on" and then they really did bring it on and we almost lost the war, but that doesn't mean W was secretly in cahoots with the rebels and was sending them their marching orders through the teevee machine.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
true.spoon posted:2. Why would the intelligence agencies lie about this? (Connected to 1. in the Iraq war. Incredibly vague in this case. Because they hate Russia? Because they want war? Pure jingoism?) For the CIA and the FBI: Justification of a massive security and surveillance state that crushes civil liberties to "protect America" from a vast and inscrutable foreign menace. For Democrats: The opportunity to blame their own failures and manifest failures of our economic and political system on an external enemy. Relief from the obligation of providing solutions to real problems because they can advance their political careers by frightening people into voting for them out of fear of the Other. The motivations are obvious. Now I'm not saying that anyone is sitting around deliberately concocting a fake Russian conspiracy to fool the public, what I am saying is that the Democratic Party establishment and the liberal elite are very motivated to believe that the Russia collusion story is true and to promulgate that belief because it would be a massive political benefit for them if Trump really were caught red-handed conspiring with Putin. And likewise the intelligence agencies benefit from anything that increases their power and influence. And we should take a narrative promulgated by people with a strong interest in it being true with a grain of salt, especially when the evidence is shaky and they contiually retreat to a motte-and-bailey defense when challenged on that shakiness. That's how this stuff usually works. Like I don't believe the Bush Administration sat around plotting "first we'll fabricate a completely fake WMD weapons program to frame Saddam, then we'll invade, then uh do a completely real and honest investigation which will prove we were lying which we'll release to the public as the war grinds on until we get killed in the midterms". The most likely explanation for that debacle is that they believed the war would be good for them personally and believed the PNAC bullshit about how a democratic US-allied Iraq would secure America's world hegemony for generations to come. But to do it they had to get the public on board with the idea that Saddam was an imminent existential threat, and well hell Saddam probably was secretly building WMDs anyway because that's the sort of thing he would do so even if we can't definitively prove it right now, if we convince the media and the public that it's true we'll be vindicated when we invade anyway and no one will really care that looking back on it we really weren't as sure as we said we were.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2019 16:18
|
|
|
Everyone knows that. In the first few weeks after everyone thought every high school stadium in Podunk, Oklahoma was a target and 9/11 was only the spearhead of a massive war on American soil, instead of Al-Qaeda shooting their load and going soft. It's not relevant to what I was saying, which was that people who would benefit from a narrative being true don't have to knowingly and consciously plot to sell the public on a lie, most of the time they're just so motivated to believe it that they construct the narrative they want on top of a mix of real and imaginary "evidence" that doesn't really support it. The Bush Administration didn't confidentially believe that Saddam wasn't a threat and consciously concoct a fake case for war that would be exposed as bullshit by their own investigation. They just wanted to believe it was true so hard that any discrepancies and conflicting evidence was dismissed because they were firmly convinced they'd find all the smoking guns they needed once they conquered the country. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Jul 30, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:US intelligence agencies have such a long and storied history of lying to the public and even to their ostensible masters in the government for literally every reason under the sun, including the dumbest ones possible, that they should never be given the benefit of the doubt ever. Actually no we can't question the intelligence services during this perilous time for our country, how dare you sir, turning over all your electronic correspondence to our loyal spies is a great act of patriotism, oh and also we have to invade Iraq now bc it would be v rude to imply the CIA is incompetent or mendacious when they assure us Saddam is 5 minutes away from building nukular weapons. Oops looks like we killed more Americans than 9/11 and a half million Iraqis and wrecked an entire region only to find out the CIA was wrong, hmm ah but nevertheless
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Most of the evidence for the Russia stuff came from the Dutch, would you like to try again? The Dutch provided evidence of Russian hacking, they did not provide evidence of Trump conspiring with Putin to do it. This is another example of the lazy motte-and-bailey defense being used to paper over the shaky evidence supporting the collusion narrative.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
Hell I'll answer it. Examples of evidence that could change my mind:
Examples of evidence that isn't good enough to change my mind:
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
Somfin posted:This isn't what I was saying and you know that. Why do you insist that it is? It's essentially the same fallacy as what you are saying yes, just more humorously stated. You're saying that if Helsing takes the word of a man with a grain of salt when that man is motivated to find evidence of national security threats that justify the budget and power and wide mandate to violate civil liberties given to the organization he spent his life building up, then if that man admits he can't prove the allegations he's making that we should distrust that too. But that's not how it works. When someone who is motivated to believe X says X we should be skeptical without solid evidence other than his word to back it up. Because claiming X is in his self-interest. On the other hand if someone motivated to believe X admits that there's not enough evidence for X, that's a pretty good indicator that he really didn't find any, because admitting not-X isn't in his self-interest. When the CIA and the Bush administration said that Saddam was building a nuclear weapon, they were just slinging bullshit, they were either lying or catastrophically wrong. Then after the war when they investigated and their own report said "ok yeah it was all bullshit sorry", it would be ridiculous to dismiss that report on the grounds that the CIA is untrustworthy and continue to believe in WMD. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Jul 30, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
Somfin posted:
Nope the evidence of collusion is not sound, we're retreating back to the bailey "the Russians tried to hack the DNC" since we can't defend the motte of "because Trump conspired with Putin to steal it from the most qualified candidate ever"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
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. Follow-up question: if you have to resort to this deflection to sustain your position isn't that a blazing neon sign to you that your position is unsound, it would be to me
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Which is why we have access to the full, unredacted report right now? Release the long form birth certificate
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2019 00:44
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Do you think this is a good comparison? 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
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:The special counsel signed off on the drat redactions! They've enumerated the four general categories of redaction! Its not like they found the loving crimes and then hid the crimes so the public wouldn't get mad! No it is that, the public isn't ready to see the tapes of Trump and Putin drinking adrenochrome straight from children's veins while peeing on hookers. That's why it's falls to us, the Anons, to interpret Mueller's coded messages and prepare the public to accept the incredible truths that will be revealed in the unredacted report.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
P sure it's not "guilt by association" if you know the guy is a predator and suck up to him anyway. That's just you elevating a predator. "Guilt by association" is when you condemn someone based on some irrelevant link like "well you were his roommate in college" or "well you're his brother so you must be bad too" or "you were his friend so even though no one knew you must have known." It's not when you condemn someone for things they actually knew and did like fêteing the owner of the Lolita Express.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
OJ MIST 2 THE DICK posted:uh Ah ok I missed that post and thought we were talking about people associating with Jeffrey Epstein, that makes more sense. E: Willie Tomg posted:To be clear: Mark Epstein's association is that he owns one of the penthouses where his brother received incoming slaves Oh wait nvm letting your brother use your property for human trafficking is not 'guilt by association' it's straight up guilt
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
Condiv posted:also, is "jeffrey epstein scandal == pizzagate" an actual thing to you ogmius? do you think the women coming forward claiming they were sex slaves are lying? They have to be, would Bill Clinton be friends with a sexual predator? OJ MIST 2 THE DICK posted:The Qanon twitter thread in question then decides that a pediatrician is a pedophile because she runs a charity in Los Angeles that uses the word "Liddle" which means that it's a front because Adam Schiff represents LA and Donald Trump nicknamed Schiff "Liddle", ergo because Schiff is on the congressional advisory board for Mark Epstein's NGO this means clearly that the pediatrician is killing and raping children. Oh wow you've convinced me that using your property to traffic underage sex slaves is ok, A+ debating sir
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2019 14:44
|
|
|
Finally we can put all this awful business behind us, welp no need for all this evidence implicating political and business leaders anymore
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I'm pretty bummed about how broke brain Americans handled it. It was a perfect opportunity to discuss the effects of foreign money and influence in subverting American democracy these days, from Russia to Israel to the UAE, and how to start countering such things and combat the effects of lobbying in general post-citizens united. That was never going to happen lol because the same figures pushing the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory are owned by AIPAC, the Saudis, and private corporations. A Democrat tried to criticize other foreign influence in our politics, remember, and the same establishment figures yelling "Russia Russia Russia" screamed that Ilhan Omar was an antisemite for telling the truth about AIPAC Which has really been the whole problem from the beginning. If Democrats had reacted to Russian interference by taking a principled stand against foreign interference and corporate interference in our elections generally they could make the conversation about Trump being the corrupt sell-out he is. But they don't want to have that conversation because they want to be the corrupt sell-outs making bank, so instead they bet the house on finding direct proof of Trump conspiring with Putin and now that that didn't happen their credibility is in the toilet
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2019 13:55
|
|
|
Well thank God the prison was slightly cost-inefficient when arranging Epstein to be alone, no need to investigate this convenient suicide of a witness that is obviously in the interests of rich and powerful criminals.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Wait, is epstein the poor and helpless that got murdered in this or like, is he the powerful and rich that got literally murdered for being caught hurting the poor? Hahahaha ohmygod
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
Oh no the kids might question authority this is terrible
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
OJ MIST 2 THE DICK posted:Why would people who think that someone who appears as a fairly regular guest on the show of noted fascist Tucker Carlson might be right winger indeed. Well of course it would be too easy to go after a target like Tucker Carlson,
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2019 12:01
|
|
|
Pulling out of nuclear antiproliferation treaties because you want to proliferate nukes and then whining how unfair it is that nukes are proliferating is the most American thing probably ever.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2019 00:55
|
|
|
predicto posted:Just like everyone else in DnD, I don't want to play Helsing games anymore. There's a good reason this thread is dead as a doornail - discussing anything with you is pointless. lmao "Well his claim ended up being well-supported, but someone else pointed out the support so it doesn't count and reality is still whatever I like"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2019 01:26
|
|
|
Could you imagine if Russia had pulled out of NPT agreements after we meddled in their election in the 90s and started building nukes and militarizing space. The same people crying "election interference, casus belli" now would be squawking about how Russia's unreasonable provocative rearmament over some election ads just proves that you can't deal with the paranoid and aggressive Asiatic brain. But I guess they'd want to go to war either way, so at least they're consistent VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Dec 21, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:It's funny how people like the guy in the post above mine view the points Helsing is making as non sequitors, because they're incapable of understanding the concept of "putting things in context." I think the problem is with people who don't really understand how to support an argument, or how to evaluate how well an argument is supported, so they just default to saying "well are the reasons given factually correct" and not "do those reasons support the conclusion." So we have to start another Great Game or possibly World War 3, because Russia meddled in the election. The conclusion, that we start a war, must be correct because it's factually true that Russia bought some Facebook ads to help Trump. Is that a good reason to start a war, well I don't know how to evaluate that so the question is a meaningless non sequitur
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2019 02:40
|
|