leashyourkids wrote:
Come on, SomeGuy. I realize some of what you do is a bit, but much is true. You are way too smart to continually defend this guy. Some of what he represents certainly has merit - distrust of the establishment, skepticism of shady governments, populist rhetoric, etc... But it's nothing more than coincidence. Most of us would like someone to make waves, but deep down, you know this ain't the fuckin' guy. He's a lifelong Democrat/Clinton lover with no principles and no intellectual curiosity. Anything he does that is "good" is simply because everyone gets something right occasionally.
He's basically Brian Scalabrine when Scal would come in and miraculously hit a tough shot... It looks good, sounds good, and makes you feel good, but it's not a strategy to use consistently in the future. In fact, it's almost frightening.
My thoughts and views on Trump are in my posts from many moons ago.
My responses in
this thread were specifically in response to the Yahoo "article" on the Russian - U.S. Election, I hate to call it an article because it really isn't, it's a regurgitation of a cleverly written narrative shaping/setting piece by the Washington Post/NYT which seeks to convince and not to inform.
Let us break it down, shall we?
WARNING: SINI LENGTH POST AHEAD.Propaganda Outlet: Washington Post/NYT - proven to have worked, hand in hand, with the DNC and Clinton campaign during the primary and national election.
Assertion: Washington Post --> CIA says that Russia helped Trump win the White House via "hacking" things. More accurately its hacks on DNC servers and Podesta servers exposing emails via WikiLeaks. This isn't made expressly clear instead the article muddy's the water in an attempt to make it seems like the Russians "hacked" the election i.e. voting machines to change the outcome among other things...although, interestingly enough what Russia actually did isn't stated anywhere in the WaPo piece. That's not by mistake, by the way.
Source 1: Anonymous, unnamed, unverifiable.
Source 2: Anonymous, unnamed, unverifiable "senior official" that "sat in" on one of the meetings for U.S. Senators.
Proof/Evidence/Facts Provided to prove said assertions: None.
What was the actual concrete, verifiable information and facts were provided for the reader: The sources are unverifiable and anonymous. Everything else is unsupported assertions.
Now, the post used the word "consensus" when speaking about the 17 intel units. That's a squishy word and really means nothing without context. But, buried within the article the WaPo admits that all is not peachy....
--
"there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.” “intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin ‘directing’ the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks.” But the purpose of both anonymous leaks is to finger the Russian government for these hacks, acting with the motive to defeat Hillary Clinton.--
Whoa, so the "minor disagreements" were about whether Russia actually did anything concerning the DNC email leaks and the total lack of any evidence to prove such a thing...sounds pretty major seeing as that's the whole crux of the matter.
New York Times article is easier to dissect.
Claim: The DNC/Podesta emails were hacked and provided to WikiLeaks by Russia and so was the RNC servers but nothing from the RNC servers was released, ergo the Russians were trying to protect Republicans and hurt Clinton.
What isn't really provided in the article: The RNC went to the FBI after the DNC leaks and had them run a full investigation including computer forensics to see if they had been compromised. After the FBI investigation it was concluded that the RNC was not compromised but an RNC vendor was as well as several Republican officials not connected with the campaign such as Collin Powell (not really an official but you get the point) The RNC told the NYT's this and the NYT didn't see fit to provide this information to its readers and instead went with their own narrative, i.e. they lied.
The above is now what all the major "news" outlets are running with except that they are now adding their own words to amplify an unproven narrative. Mind you, these are the same news outlets that were proven, by those same DNC/Podesta emails, to be working in full 100% cooperation with the DNC/Clinton campaign to undermine the primary process and the democratic process as a whole. The entire argument is taken from the above articles, one that uses unverifiable, anonymous sources (those are totally great now! super!) and a NYT article that, at this point, is proven false by the FBI. So, from that the "news" outlets are now reading from a script, same words, same language all at the same time which should really set off your alarm bells and bullshit meter. So, it was originally stated that "Russia helped Trump because the Russians hacked and gave DNC/Podesta emails to WikiLeaks and withheld RNC emails" which is, at this point, proven false...and now that, as of today's shows, turned into RUSSIA HACKED THE ELECTION, HACK HACK HACK with all sorts of other extrapolations with zero actual analysis. The words and statements "Confirmed!" and "concluded!" and "beyond reasonable doubt!" and "Not up for argument!" are now thrown about even though there isn't any actual evidence to back those up. Turning a simple thing into something far more nefarious and evil such as the voting machines were hacked to change vote totals even though they aren't internet connected and not all states use electronic voting machines and the ones that do have theirs under 24/7 locked surveillance and are randomly checked to insure that they have been tampered with.
Also interesting to note that the original WaPo/NYT articles are not even mentioned anymore (surprise, surprise) nor the anonymous sources (hmmm, wonder who that could be) that started this whole thing. They've turned the page quickly, gotten the narrative out there and really are doing their best to do what Vladimir Putin could only dream of doing....discredit, devalue and damage (3 D's!) our elector process and democratic foundations.
Now, this all happens on the back of the Jill Stein recount fizzling out and so with that the Establishment Left/Right and the Global Establishment is running out of time to do one of two things: Put out as much misinformation and disinformation as possible to discredit the incoming President and electoral process (short and long game) or two push this so far to the line that the Electors face a choice which is really interesting because now the electors want "full briefings" on this.....how convenient that this anonymous, unnamed and unverifiable source bravely comes forward right at this very moment.
Best part about it? All of the commissions, and investigation and deep dives...their findings won't ever see the light of day no matter what they conclude. So no one will ever see an actual shred of solid evidence about whether or not the Russians did anything or not. But that isn't the point, the point is to put this out here, do the damage and let it do its thing with the public, damage the incoming administration and if they completely discredit and devalue and destroy our democratic process....who fucking cares, right? Makes you wonder just was planned for a Clinton presidency if the elites are going through all of this effort at this time.
All the above said...The Russians may have done this, sure, but we have zero evidence so far to prove such an allegation and, most likely, never will. But again, that isn't the point here.
And by the way, who has done the best by Putin and Russia over the last 8 years? Who has let him do what he wants with no repercussions, who has strengthened his allies and who has let him become a more powerful enemy of democracy and freedom? It's administration that is leaving power in about a month or so.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
