Trumpism: Page 36 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

Trumpism

Rex

jones wrote:
Rex wrote:
Common sense also should tell everyone that this is not the actions of 'a few guys sitting in a basement' or something to that effect. On several occasions during the campaigns there were very targeted details leaked to Wikileaks out of thousands upon thousands of documents. The manpower it would take to go through the stolen info and release the relevant parts just when it would make the most damage is reasonably a job for a much larger operation, possibly, and probably, in the hundreds.

That's not common sense in any possible meaning of the word. Anyone in Clinton's team could've easily leaked the mails to Assange, it's not like Hillary was known for her careful usage of her mails. It also fits in with the current state of affairs of the NSA not providing any evidence whatsoever of a supposed hack

On a related note, I'd like to know how it's possible to believe in supposed intelligence that Russia messed with the election and Putin being in contact with Trump's team and at the same time believe the FBI when they say they didn't wiretap Trump

Jones, you reckon there is no substance whatsoever in this piece?

jones

mags wrote:
jones wrote:
Getting back to this, what exactly did you read? Leaving aside that intelligence agencies are more or less professional liars and have been caught doing so on issues of way bigger magnitude, what media or FBI reports are you referring to that make you believe in what is a major accusation?

Did the Russian hackers break into the DNC? Yes
Look it up. Reported in major tv and print media.
And stop acting like a prosecuting attorney.

Then stop drinking the kool-aid. You're spreading lies here, don't be surprised if you're being called out on it.

How about having a look at the supposed evidence of the FBI itself instead of relying on what "major tv and print media" are feeding you?

Rex

mags wrote:
The Senate just voted to repeal rules that protect consumers online data from their internet providers.
Depressing.
Dems just don't have the votes.

Democrats don't have the votes because most of the Democratic politicians are just as bad as the Republicans when it comes to being errand boys for their donors; more and more people who used to vote Democrat, very surprisingly indeed, don't seem to think that the interests of huge corporations are the same as the interest of the people. Republican voters still seem to hold that belief though. Idiots.

arsedocmd

mags wrote:
The Senate just voted to repeal rules that protect consumers online data from their internet providers.
Depressing.
Dems just don't have the votes.

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/325410-senate-votes-to-block-internet-privacy-regulations

Disgusting isn't it?! John Oliver will prolly do a segment on this.
I used to think that the govt's actions on privacy are a sign of defeat against the terror attacks. It seems naive now and seems like terrorism is only a means in the larger scheme of things. Heard on the bbc the other day that the electronics ban was ridiculous too...more about revenge against the middle eastern airlines who are getting state subsidies than anything else.

jones

Rex wrote:
jones wrote:
That's not common sense in any possible meaning of the word. Anyone in Clinton's team could've easily leaked the mails to Assange, it's not like Hillary was known for her careful usage of her mails. It also fits in with the current state of affairs of the NSA not providing any evidence whatsoever of a supposed hack

On a related note, I'd like to know how it's possible to believe in supposed intelligence that Russia messed with the election and Putin being in contact with Trump's team and at the same time believe the FBI when they say they didn't wiretap Trump

Jones, you reckon there is no substance whatsoever in this piece?

After skimming through it I'd say it's complete horseshit. Social bots are used by literally anyone these days, Trump's campaign was heavily reliant on it but Clinton's wasn't far behind in terms of usage. It's not exactly news, to make this out as if Russia started doing it is absurd. Don't take my word for it, see this tender for yourself

Then she's quoting an intelligence report which summons a danger on the horizon - what do you expect what an agency would do, say that there's no danger on the horizon and make themselves superfluous? What about providing hard evidence for once? I went through the dossier which is the base of all the Russia hacking speculation in the beginning of this thread already, and that's me an absolute layman doing it in his spare time. If Russia or anyone else was actually involved in funnelling information to WikiLeaks the 17 intelligence agencies in the US would have long presented concrete evidence for that.

Rex

Gotcha. Think I have a pretty clear picture now.

mags

jones wrote:
mags wrote:
Did the Russian hackers break into the DNC? Yes
Look it up. Reported in major tv and print media.
And stop acting like a prosecuting attorney.

Then stop drinking the kool-aid. You're spreading lies here, don't be surprised if you're being called out on it.

How about having a look at the supposed evidence of the FBI itself instead of relying on what "major tv and print media" are feeding you?

Based on FBI reports warning DNC.
Whatever your koolaid comment means, don't have a clue.
Is this more code?

Normally I enjoy this part of the forum, film, politics, etc. I learn a thing or two.
Unfortunately, I can't say the same about these these exchanges with you.
So I will stop responding to your attack on my spreading lies.

y va marquer

mags there's an opinion on here that vehemently and aggressively demands that we believe that mainstream media, intelligence organisations, official investigative authorities, police, people who hold positions of power in any democratic state (western if you like) are never, ever credible sources.

If you are seen as someone who holds an opinion other than that, be prepared for excessively dismissive and condescending comments.

It's not a reflection on you or your opinion at all.

mags

Rex wrote:
mags wrote:
The Senate just voted to repeal rules that protect consumers online data from their internet providers.
Depressing.
Dems just don't have the votes.

Democrats don't have the votes because most of the Democratic politicians are just as bad as the Republicans when it comes to being errand boys for their donors; more and more people who used to vote Democrat, very surprisingly indeed, don't seem to think that the interests of huge corporations are the same as the interest of the people. Republican voters still seem to hold that belief though. Idiots.

The Clintons have to take responsibility for the direction the Democratic Party has taken. And Obama to a lesser degree. Keith Ellison would have been a radical, refreshing choice as DNC Chair. He is second in command and will, I hope, have some influence as to where the Party directs its resources.
Some Democratic politicians may well be errand boys for their donors. Yet there are several who follow their own beliefs, who work tirelessly for their constituents.
And they are coming to the forefront in this chaotic political scene.
There are good signs that the Democratic pols are finding the strength, guts and ability to fight the abomination which is the Republican Party. It will play out in the 2018 by elections. A lot can happen between now and then. Voters have to keep up the pressure.

mags

y va marquer wrote:
mags there's an opinion on here that vehemently and aggressively demands that we believe that mainstream media, intelligence organisations, official investigative authorities, police, people who hold positions of power in any democratic state (western if you like) are never, ever credible sources.

If you are seen as someone who holds an opinion other than that, be prepared for excessively dismissive and condescending comments.

It's not a reflection on you or your opinion at all.

Well said.
Thanks for the reminder.

Burnwinter

Hmm, I really wish we could all be amiable despite our political differences, but I guess that's optimistic.

Regarding the Russian involvement in the election, I think it's reasonable to synthesise multiple perspectives: both that Trump could never have been elected without a drastic hollowing out of the substance of American democracy that has very little to do with Russia, and that Russia wanted him to win and did a bit of pushing where it could.

Personally I think foundering US civics should be the priority for Americans, but I guess it's easier when you've got shadowy antagonists to blame.

Now the poll has happened and Trump is President, it seems the anti-Trump contingent in US institutional bureaucracy, as well as the Democrats, are utilising the long history of US Russophobia to milk the Trump administration's not inconsiderable Russian connections for probably more than they're worth.

I saw Eric Garland, a high profile centrist Twitter user, accuse Rupert Murdoch of being a "Russian operative" earlier. That is a model of reality at breaking point. Rupert Murdoch is a billionaire who deals with others of his ilk first and foremost, not an American or Australian or Russian loyalist.

Rex

mags wrote:
Rex wrote:
Democrats don't have the votes because most of the Democratic politicians are just as bad as the Republicans when it comes to being errand boys for their donors; more and more people who used to vote Democrat, very surprisingly indeed, don't seem to think that the interests of huge corporations are the same as the interest of the people. Republican voters still seem to hold that belief though. Idiots.

The Clintons have to take responsibility for the direction the Democratic Party has taken. And Obama to a lesser degree. Keith Ellison would have been a radical, refreshing choice as DNC Chair. He is second in command and will, I hope, have some influence as to where the Party directs its resources.
Some Democratic politicians may well be errand boys for their donors. Yet there are several who follow their own beliefs, who work tirelessly for their constituents.
And they are coming to the forefront in this chaotic political scene.
There are good signs that the Democratic pols are finding the strength, guts and ability to fight the abomination which is the Republican Party. It will play out in the 2018 by elections. A lot can happen between now and then. Voters have to keep up the pressure.

Sure, there are a few Democrats who seem decent, but it can't be a coincidence that the Clinton and Obama favorite won the DNC chair and not Ellison, who is a proper progressive. To me it signals that the majority of Democrat politicians are well happy to remain pro corporations and are not willing to stop taking big donor money. The majority want to keep on being errand boys for big business, very much in the mold of Clinton and Obama, instead of actually serving their constituents. They want this despite being fully aware it is such a loser strategy too, because they have lost over and over going down this route.

jones

mags wrote:
jones wrote:
Then stop drinking the kool-aid. You're spreading lies here, don't be surprised if you're being called out on it.

How about having a look at the supposed evidence of the FBI itself instead of relying on what "major tv and print media" are feeding you?

Based on FBI reports warning DNC.
Whatever your koolaid comment means, don't have a clue.
Is this more code?

Normally I enjoy this part of the forum, film, politics, etc. I learn a thing or two.
Unfortunately, I can't say the same about these these exchanges with you.
So I will stop responding to your attack on my spreading lies.

Stop drinking the kool-aid means don't blindly believe everything you're told, pretty sure it's an American term actually. I went into detail of what is wrong about the FBI report, your reply suggests you haven't actually read the dossier itself. That's what I meant when I said "spreading lies", not your own but that of the FBI.

I can agree with your second paragraph. Unlike you however I don't give negative rep when I have a different opinion to someone else 😆

jones

y va marquer wrote:
mags there's an opinion on here that vehemently and aggressively demands that we believe that mainstream media, intelligence organisations, official investigative authorities, police, people who hold positions of power in any democratic state (western if you like) are never, ever credible sources.

If you are seen as someone who holds an opinion other than that, be prepared for excessively dismissive and condescending comments.

It's not a reflection on you or your opinion at all.

You have some cheek to complain y va, you're complaining about people being excessively condescending and sound like Marie fucking Antoinette doing it 😆

It's never been about holding any type of opinion. There are concrete facts put out by agencies that anyone willing can verify or dismiss using publicly available data and information. It's fine if you couldn't be bothered to do so but then you're not in any position to judge or criticise opinions who spent the time and energy examining whatever said institutions are trying to feed us. It's insane really that I have to explain this to an adult.

jones

Burnwinter wrote:
Hmm, I really wish we could all be amiable despite our political differences, but I guess that's optimistic.

I don't think I'm out of line in criticising harmful misinformation, claiming Russia is behind Trump coming into power to me is little different than the bullshit "news" Trump himself tweets.

Qwiss

Rex wrote:
Jones, you reckon there is no substance whatsoever in this piece?

I read a critique of that yesterday claiming that the Bernie sites were just set up to make money as content aggregators. Now I read it on a pretty right wing looking site so I don't necessarily believe it but she's not big on evidence either.

Qwiss

jones wrote:
There are concrete facts put out by agencies that anyone willing can verify or dismiss using publicly available data and information

What I find annoying is that a lot of the same people now acting as if the US intelligence agencies are 100% reliable would have been highly suspicious of them 10 years ago. And since then we've only been given more reason not to believe them.

As Burns said Trump and his team clearly have very strong ties to Russia. Its a big jump from there to Putins administration hacked the DNC emails and swung the election. The importance of the DNC leaks is over stated too and I think sometimes conflated with other leaks that happened during the primaries. Whats more is the content of the leaks is conveniently ignored in all of this. As of yet the public have provided with little evidence and no credible evidence that the hacks were by the Russian administration. The only real signifier that it was Russian at all is the meta data in Russian which means it could be anyone in Russia or that speaks Russian or it could be someone trying to make it look like Russia. If it was the Russian administration you'd think they'd be a bit more careful.

Either way its pretty much all a distraction and the liberal media would be better served spending more time and what the Republicans (including Trump, separating them in any way is falling for Trumps spin) are actually doing. They've just opened up peoples internet history to their ISPs, thats far more important to the lives of average Americans than who hacked the DNC.

Burnwinter

y va marquer

Qwiss! wrote:
jones wrote:
There are concrete facts put out by agencies that anyone willing can verify or dismiss using publicly available data and information

What I find annoying is that a lot of the same people now acting as if the US intelligence agencies are 100% reliable would have been highly suspicious of them 10 years ago. And since then we've only been given more reason not to believe them.

As Burns said Trump and his team clearly have very strong ties to Russia. Its a big jump from there to Putins administration hacked the DNC emails and swung the election. The importance of the DNC leaks is over stated too and I think sometimes conflated with other leaks that happened during the primaries. Whats more is the content of the leaks is conveniently ignored in all of this. As of yet the public have provided with little evidence and no credible evidence that the hacks were by the Russian administration. The only real signifier that it was Russian at all is the meta data in Russian which means it could be anyone in Russia or that speaks Russian or it could be someone trying to make it look like Russia. If it was the Russian administration you'd think they'd be a bit more careful.

Either way its pretty much all a distraction and the liberal media would be better served spending more time and what the Republicans (including Trump, separating them in any way is falling for Trumps spin) are actually doing. They've just opened up peoples internet history to their ISPs, thats far more important to the lives of average Americans than who hacked the DNC.

You have zero clue of what people would have believed or thought 10 years ago.

y va marquer

jones wrote:
Burnwinter wrote:
Hmm, I really wish we could all be amiable despite our political differences, but I guess that's optimistic.

I don't think I'm out of line in criticising harmful misinformation, claiming Russia is behind Trump coming into power to me is little different than the bullshit "news" Trump himself tweets.

Who's claiming Russia is behind Trump coming into power?
It's been made pretty clear that even though investigation focuses on Russia's interference there is nothing to suggest or prove that if it happened that it influenced the outcome.

« Previous Page Next Page »