Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
phiwum said:
It happens.

Glancing around the "Unhack the Vote" site, it seems to be pretty dubious. Very little in the way of facts that I could see. I wouldn't be a regular visitor, personally.

Anyway, no matter. I appreciate that you conceded the point. Beats digging in one's heels and refusing to admit error like certain heads of these United States, elected last November.
Click to expand...

I've never used the site before, it popped up on a tech feed I pay attention to.

I'm not a huge "dig in the heels" fan and, despite the accusation, I know enough about tech to know when I'm wrong. I checked a few things in the article (the whois pics, etc) and jumped the gun. It's been a thing for me, apparently, the last few days.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Well Gee, I guess you boi doesn't have any clue what the FBI did or didn't do then, does he ?

I'm not sure why you think this is helping your case ?
Click to expand...

You miss the point.

The anonymous source was authoritative and reliable on those points which support Childlike's claims, and not on those points which do not. Hence, it is a fallacy to rely on the source on the latter but not the former.

Duh.
 
phiwum said:
You miss the point.

The anonymous source was authoritative and reliable on those points which support Childlike's claims, and not on those points which do not. Hence, it is a fallacy to rely on the source on the latter but not the former.

Duh.
Click to expand...


The only claim that the author (not me) made in regard to the CNN link is that they reported that the FBI relied on the piss dossier for their further steps, which is fully backed by the source.
 
plague311 said:
I'm not a huge "dig in the heels" fan and, despite the accusation, I know enough about tech to know when I'm wrong. I checked a few things in the article (the whois pics, etc) and jumped the gun. It's been a thing for me, apparently, the last few days.
Click to expand...


Look who gets uppity already again. My playful invention of the other subdomain was a very mild way of pointing out the objective wrongness of your ways, not an "accusation". You can actually thank me for not responding in depth to some claims you made.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Look who gets uppity already again. My playful invention of the other subdomain was a very mild way of pointing out the objective wrongness of your ways, not an "accusation". You can actually thank me for not responding in depth to some claims you made.
Click to expand...

Snide, at best. Uppity? No. You made an obvious assertion, and I rebutted it. Also, just because I was wrong certainly doesn't mean I owe anyone anything. Respond in depth all you'd like. It's your time, do with it what you will. I'm fully prepared to defend anything I say, and if I can't then I will admit I'm wrong. I did it here, I've done it in other threads, and it doesn't bother me at all. You've used nothing more than state run sites to try and back up a few of your claims, and that can be just as bad.

I have no idea why I would thank you. You're assuming you'd be right, or that I am afraid of your replies. I assure you, that's not the case.
 
plague311 said:
I have no idea why I would thank you. You're assuming you'd be right, or that I am afraid of your replies. I assure you, that's not the case.
Click to expand...


And that's because you are unaware of the nonsense you've produced before you were left with no place but to realize the dead-end. I'll leave it at that.
 
Childlike Empress said:
The only claim that the author (not me) made in regard to the CNN link is that they reported that the FBI relied on the piss dossier for their further steps, which is fully backed by the source.
Click to expand...

as is:

Officials familiar with the process say even if the application to monitor Page included information from the dossier, it would only be after the FBI had corroborated the information through its own investigation. The officials would not say what or how much was corroborated.

We agree then that if they used the dossier, they also corroborated it.
 
phiwum said:
You miss the point.

The anonymous source was authoritative and reliable on those points which support Childlike's claims, and not on those points which do not. Hence, it is a fallacy to rely on the source on the latter but not the former.

Duh.
Click to expand...

Good point :-)
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
You miss the point.

The anonymous source was authoritative and reliable on those points which support Childlike's claims, and not on those points which do not. Hence, it is a fallacy to rely on the source on the latter but not the former.

Duh.
Click to expand...

Childlike Empress said:
We agree on nothing but that you pretend to take claims of anonymous sources cited by CNN as gospel truth.
Click to expand...

lol OK
 
TheL8Elvis said:
lol OK
Click to expand...


Is there something in the water over there? Let's call the author you can't remember anyway V.V.. Here's the scenario:

V.V.: CNN said the FBI used the Steele dossier as basis for further investigation. If they did without corroboration, big deal---

CNN: The FBI used the Steele dossier as basis for further investigation, says our anonymous source who also says they wouldn't do so without corroboration but didn't tell us details about what, how much and how.

TheL8Elvis: THE ANONYMOUS SOURCE SAID THE FBI WOULDN'T USE SOMETHING WITHOUT CORROBORATION, V.V. IS A LYING LIAR!!!ELEVENTY

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
As a little punishment for the insults to everyone's intelligence on display, here is an actual Russian author writing on an actual Russian outlet today, someone who I have disagreed with in the past but is spot on here: RussiaGate: Soft Power Suicide of a Superpower
Click to expand...

Again I ask: why always Russian news? What is it with you and Russia? Why are you more inclined to believe sources from there? It should be an interesting discussion, if you didn't run away from it.
 
Argumemnon said:
Again I ask: why always Russian news? What is it with you and Russia? Why are you more inclined to believe sources from there? It should be an interesting discussion, if you didn't run away from it.
Click to expand...

Track record.
Americans have been lying to me to start wars all my life. I was 15 when they lied to me about irakis throwing babies out of incubators.

Breedlove tried to explain to me that the refugees who started to arrive in 2013 from all over the middle east where all the result of evil russians bombing in syria in autumn of 2015.

Now they try to tell me that Nordstrom shouldn't be built to increase "energy independence" while the russians have been reliably delivering gas since before I was born.

Why should I trust americans?
 
magellan said:
Track record.
Americans have been lying to me to start wars all my life. I was 15 when they lied to me about irakis throwing babies out of incubators.

Breedlove tried to explain to me that the refugees who started to arrive in 2013 from all over the middle east where all the result of evil russians bombing in syria in autumn of 2015.

Now they try to tell me that Nordstrom shouldn't be built to increase "energy independence" while the russians have been reliably delivering gas since before I was born.

Why should I trust americans?
Click to expand...
What about German, UK, Australian, Singaporean media? Why do think the Russian media doesn't lie as much as the USA media?
 
magellan said:
Track record.
Americans have been lying to me to start wars all my life. I was 15 when they lied to me about irakis throwing babies out of incubators.

Breedlove tried to explain to me that the refugees who started to arrive in 2013 from all over the middle east where all the result of evil russians bombing in syria in autumn of 2015.

Now they try to tell me that Nordstrom shouldn't be built to increase "energy independence" while the russians have been reliably delivering gas since before I was born.

Why should I trust americans?
Click to expand...

Reasons to distrust Americans are not reasons to trust Russians.
 
magellan said:
Track record.
Americans have been lying to me to start wars all my life. I was 15 when they lied to me about irakis throwing babies out of incubators.

Breedlove tried to explain to me that the refugees who started to arrive in 2013 from all over the middle east where all the result of evil russians bombing in syria in autumn of 2015.

Now they try to tell me that Nordstrom shouldn't be built to increase "energy independence" while the russians have been reliably delivering gas since before I was born.

Why should I trust americans?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about Americans? That has nothing to do with my question, so it's a strange answer.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Gee, what if the anonymous source CNN claims to have the info from wasn't entirely correct in their unsubstantiated claim that the FBI wouldn't use uncorroborated info? How dare the professor even allege this? Hahahaha! Oh "boi".
Click to expand...

The professor's allegation is itself unsubstantiated. He's basically taking the position that it's unsubstantiated because he hasn't seen proof of its substantiation, which he's not going to see because it's a FISA court.

And you're taking the position that anonymous sources are not to be believed unless they say what you want, and then you can cherry-pick the parts you like that fit your narrative while dismissing the parts that don't.
 
d4m10n said:
The only obvious exception is that we were warned about Manafort's impending indictment somewhat in advance.
Click to expand...

Skeptic Ginger said:
Except a lot of that was prior to Mueller. It came out about the undeclared 12 million payment on the Ukrainian ledger before Mueller was on the case. And the morning raid, that would have gotten out if anyone saw it happening.
Click to expand...
Did you click my link?

NYT said:
The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, then followed the house search with a warning: His prosecutors told Mr. Manafort they planned to indict him, said two people close to the investigation.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
The "new report" has been discussed here when it came out, and the best argument against its direct findings has been that the analysis of the available data from the Guccifer 2.0 (not to be confused with Guccifer 1.0, see above) leaks cannot account for if this is the original data taken from the DNC server, meaning there could have been steps before it was copied in the eastern coastal timezone at speed you can't do over the internet - maybe aliens with space hacking beams. ;)
Click to expand...


"ALIENS"

Stacko said:
US has evidence to charge at least six Russian government officials with hacking DNC.
Click to expand...
 
Childlike Empress said:
Is there something in the water over there? Let's call the author you can't remember anyway V.V.. Here's the scenario:

V.V.: CNN said the FBI used the Steele dossier as basis for further investigation. If they did without corroboration, big deal---

CNN: The FBI used the Steele dossier as basis for further investigation, says our anonymous source who also says they wouldn't do so without corroboration but didn't tell us details about what, how much and how.

TheL8Elvis: THE ANONYMOUS SOURCE SAID THE FBI WOULDN'T USE SOMETHING WITHOUT CORROBORATION, V.V. IS A LYING LIAR!!!ELEVENTY

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This is a ridiculous argument. "The FBI used the Steele dossier as basis for further investigation" by trying to find corroboration, because without some solid evidence, they obviously didn't have a case. Well, Mueller has a few indictments already (and more on the way) because he has evidence of crimes that doesn't depend on the dossier.
 
Childlike Empress said:
A very relevant read: How Obama and Hillary Clinton Weaponized the ‘Dossier’

George Szamuely said:
The Trump-Russia collusion story was a joint invention of the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign. <snip>

Most of this story is pure fiction. [...]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Despite the frantic Trump-Russia spinning and deflecting and yammering about the dossier, here's where the "joint invention" stands now:

"Rep. Adam Schiff Puts End To Question Of Donald Trump Russia Collusion | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC"

 
timhau said:
It's a perfect whataboutist answer, though.
Click to expand...

Thank you dowarisch!
Everytime I get accused of whataboutism I get 100 Rubels bonus.

Imperialist fools do not know whataboutism is russian counterpropaganda term to make people who use it look stupid.
 
phiwum said:
Reasons to distrust Americans are not reasons to trust Russians.
Click to expand...

It's simple: If there are 2 competing narratives, and one comes from a source that has been lying and lying and lying for as long as I can remember and the other source hasn't I tend to doubt the story of the known liar and rather not the other side.

So USA: "Russians hacked our election!!!!!!" (Whatever "hacking" an "election" means. Neboluos PR speach is of course not exactly inducing trust, even without the US track record)
Russia: "No we didn't."
Gonna believe the russians

USA: "You bomb hospitals!"
Russia: "No, you bomb hospitals"
MSF: "The US bombed one of our hospitals"
Aleppo terrorists: "The russians in the past 24 hours bombed 8721 Hospitals and 1275 Orphanages, a puppy shelter and a grandma trying to cross the street in east alleppo"
Again. Shall I believe the lying torturing killers or the russians? Sorry.
 
magellan said:
It's simple: If there are 2 competing narratives, and one comes from a source that has been lying and lying and lying for as long as I can remember and the other source hasn't I tend to doubt the story of the known liar and rather not the other side.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the "other side" is at least as big a liar, so again you fail to demonstrate why you should trust it.
 
d4m10n said:
Did you click my link?
Click to expand...
Yes. Doesn't change what I said which was, we knew about Manafort getting specious payments when Comey was still in charge.

Not a quibble worth discussing further, hopefully you agree.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
The problem is that the "other side" is at least as big a liar, so again you fail to demonstrate why you should trust it.
Click to expand...

Are they?
Can you point me to their "Ghadaffi distributes viagra to help with the raping" statement?
Or their "Communists in Odessa set themselves on fire to make the inoccent neonazis outside with their molotov cocktails look bad"?
Their "let's invade grenada to stop the press from covering beirut"?
Their "Dear kurds! Please fight syrian army and ISIS. we will help you get your own kurdistan in our gratitude."
Their "This is osamas Bond Lair." "These are the mobile chemical weapons factories of Saddam hussain"
Their "We see Iraqi Kuwait border disputes as an inner arab affair and will not intervene"

Do you remember that couragous artist Pyotr Pavlensky? The evil russians wanted to lock him up and declare him insane for setting fire to the door of the former KGB building.
He managed to flee and got political asylum in France.
A few days ago he set fire to a parisian bank. They now want to lock him up and declare him insane...
 
WilliamSeger said:
Despite the frantic Trump-Russia spinning and deflecting and yammering about the dossier, here's where the "joint invention" stands now:
Click to expand...
The Party Line has emerged very clearly in the last few weeks, and the faithful are clinging to it with a tenacity which speaks of desperation. Everything is based on The Steele Dossier; that was paid for by Clinton and is therefore all lies; there is no case.

Matters arising quite separately from the dossier, such as Fredo's meeting and Manafort's long-standing business with sketchy Russians, would never have emerged had it not been for the dossier, making them fruit of the forbidden tree and thus inadmissable.

They're clinging to this Maginot Line as the panzers swarm past them. Still, at least it looks like Manafort is going to make a fight of it. That should prove entertaining.
 
magellan said:
Are they?
Click to expand...
Yes. Really.

At least we heard US journalists being accused of treason for asking questions in the lead-up to the Iraq fiasco, and there's been a great deal of soul-searching since. The Russian situation is simply dire in comparison.

There are indendent journalists in Russia, and short-lived journals that will publish them , but they aren't the ones denying that Putin's Russia didn't interfere in the US election.
 
CapelDodger said:
Yes. Really.

At least we heard US journalists being accused of treason for asking questions in the lead-up to the Iraq fiasco, and there's been a great deal of soul-searching since. The Russian situation is simply dire in comparison.

There are indendent journalists in Russia, and short-lived journals that will publish them , but they aren't the ones denying that Putin's Russia didn't interfere in the US election.
Click to expand...


magellan asked for examples, not blather.
 
magellan said:
It's simple: If there are 2 competing narratives, and one comes from a source that has been lying and lying and lying for as long as I can remember and the other source hasn't I tend to doubt the story of the known liar and rather not the other side.

So USA: "Russians hacked our election!!!!!!" (Whatever "hacking" an "election" means. Neboluos PR speach is of course not exactly inducing trust, even without the US track record)
Russia: "No we didn't."
Gonna believe the russians
Click to expand...

You aren't aware of the specific allegations or the evidence behind them, but you're gonna believe Russian denials anyway? Suit yourself, but so what?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom