leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, Tiberius said: So the real enemies are the Democrats, not the Russians, in your view I'm no less threatened by a guy holding a knife to my throat than I am by a guy with a gun to my head. I don't deal in absolutes, they typically don't apply to this sort of thing and have learned over time that doing so has a tendency to restrict my thinking. I'll share one example. At one time, a friend of a friend parked his car, and was jumped by 4 guys and beaten up pretty badly. These guys who jumped him were distguishable by features, ethnicity or what have you and were different in that regard than "we" were. It colored my perception, impacted the way I viewed people and gave me pause to consider who(m) I trust, if at all. A few years later, another friend was nearly murdered by a guy outside a bar during one of the many, many fights that occurred with frequency outside a Buffalo bar. The guy at fault, interestingly, was not at all different than "we" were, and that got me thinking about the way I was thinking. Subsequently, I would say my view broadened, and I'm better for it. So, back to your question. I think Obama, as a sitting President, creating and sustaining a fact pattern demonstrably false, and hrc complicit and subsequently playing dumb about it, with the ultimate goal being to influence voters is no less of a threat to my America than Facebook ads. Mind you, I tried hard not to sit in judgement of the actual incident as as tragic and apparently avoidable as it was for the people impacted, those things happen when either dems or rs are in power. People screw up. Political decisions are made. It's horrible, sad and true. I'd be surprised to see something of that nature happen on Trumps watch (meaning the repeated ignoring of request for assistance, not the attack itself) just based on his approach to the military. But the Hollywood version they cooked up on the graves of those who died...disgraceful and sheer propoganda. I ask ask you now: Are you comfortable with your ruling political class putting out propaganda pieces to further a political agenda you ascribe to? And if so, would you be comfortable with the Russians helping you get your desired outcome? 10 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Have fun with trying to change the topic. Wont work. Russians were just charged with attempting to defraud our government, saying "But Benghazi!" Is silly I can understand why you would miss the larger point, why you would suggest that two separate and distinct situations should not be co-mingled, and why Benghazi is "silly" to you with respect to your political views, Russians and The Facebook. I see that as your limitation, not mine.
Tiberius Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 6 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I'm no less threatened by a guy holding a knife to my throat than I am by a guy with a gun to my head. I don't deal in absolutes, they typically don't apply to this sort of thing and have learned over time that doing so has a tendency to restrict my thinking. I'll share one example. At one time, a friend of a friend parked his car, and was jumped by 4 guys and beaten up pretty badly. These guys who jumped him were distguishable by features, ethnicity or what have you and were different in that regard than "we" were. It colored my perception, impacted the way I viewed people and gave me pause to consider who(m) I trust, if at all. A few years later, another friend was nearly murdered by a guy outside a bar during one of the many, many fights that occurred with frequency outside a Buffalo bar. The guy at fault, interestingly, was not at all different than "we" were, and that got me thinking about the way I was thinking. Subsequently, I would say my view broadened, and I'm better for it. So, back to your question. I think Obama, as a sitting President, creating and sustaining a fact pattern demonstrably false, and hrc complicit and subsequently playing dumb about it, with the ultimate goal being to influence voters is no less of a threat to my America than Facebook ads. Mind you, I tried hard not to sit in judgement of the actual incident as as tragic and apparently avoidable as it was for the people impacted, those things happen when either dems or rs are in power. People screw up. Political decisions are made. It's horrible, sad and true. I'd be surprised to see something of that nature happen on Trumps watch (meaning the repeated ignoring of request for assistance, not the attack itself) just based on his approach to the military. But the Hollywood version they cooked up on the graves of those who died...disgraceful and sheer propoganda. I ask ask you now: Are you comfortable with your ruling political class putting out propaganda pieces to further a political agenda you ascribe to? And if so, would you be comfortable with the Russians helping you get your desired outcome? I can understand why you would miss the larger point, why you would suggest that two separate and distinct situations should not be co-mingled, and why Benghazi is "silly" to you with respect to your political views, Russians and The Facebook. I see that as your limitation, not mine. The point is just silly. Just because you vomit out a lot of crap doesnt make Benghazi equal to a foreign attack on our nation. Are you DR?
row_33 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 They should stop bad people from using the internet
3rdnlng Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: The point is just silly. Just because you vomit out a lot of crap doesnt make Benghazi equal to a foreign attack on our nation. Are you DR? Are you still laughing?
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 Just now, Tiberius said:The point is just silly. Just because you vomit out a lot of crap doesnt make Benghazi equal to a foreign attack on our nation. Are you DR? You ask question....I reply respectfully. I ask question, you stamp your feet, refuse to answer then throw a stone at my head as I walk away. Again, that's your limitation, not mine.
Tiberius Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 1 minute ago, row_33 said: They should stop bad people from using the internet So do you think there is nothing that can be done to stop Russian misinformation campaigns in elections? This is the new normal?
row_33 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 They should make a law preventing people from posting things on the internet next election cycle that aren’t wholly truthful. ironic and joking stuff especially
Tiberius Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said: You ask question....I reply respectfully. I ask question, you stamp your feet, refuse to answer then throw a stone at my head as I walk away. Again, that's your limitation, not mine. Sorry, I just don't take you too seriously
row_33 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: So do you think there is nothing that can be done to stop Russian misinformation campaigns in elections? This is the new normal? Of course, Facebook should only be for perfectly truthful things. Nobody can exaggerate or pretend they really made a perfect chocolate souflee on Facebook without jail time 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 Just now, Tiberius said: Sorry, I just don't take you too seriously why would you feel the need to apologize to me? That's weird. I thought your question was sincere, but if it was the setup for throwing the stone there's no need to apologize. I can handle it.
3rdnlng Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: You ask question....I reply respectfully. I ask question, you stamp your feet, refuse to answer then throw a stone at my head as I walk away. Again, that's your limitation, not mine. Tiberius aka gatorman if you aren't aware, is not only the stupidest person here at PPP but the most partisan. Most people have him on "ignore". I don't because he is the perfect outlet for me to practice my mocking skills.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Tiberius aka gatorman if you aren't aware, is not only the stupidest person here at PPP but the most partisan. Most people have him on "ignore". I don't because he is the perfect outlet for me to practice my mocking skills. Well, I noticed a tendency but have never put anyone on ignore. I scan the pages from time to time and jump in every now and again. The interesting part about it for me is it's a way to gauge what people are thinking, opposing points of view and I don't think that's a bad thing. I'm not all that interested in allowing myself to be offended by people, so claims of "vomiting" experiences shared by someone with a bone to pick because I disagree politically are what they are. I do lose respect for folks who ask questions, get an answer and scurry off rambling "well you're dumb" when asked a question in response. But zealots are are going to be zealots. Thanks for the scoop. Btw, the question about me being DR actually made me laugh. I wish I had the level of focus, desire and commitment displayed by DR to the, or any, cause. Edited February 17, 2018 by leh-nerd skin-erd
B-Man Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 NOTES ON THE INDICTMENT FTA: As the Wall Street Journal observes in the related editorial today (behind the Journal’s paywall): “The 37-page indictment contains no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, but it does show a systematic effort to discredit the result of the 2016 election. On the evidence so far, President Trump has been the biggest victim of that effort, and he ought to be furious at Vladimir Putin.” The Journal editorial asks a good question: “The indictment also makes us wonder what the Obama Administration was doing amid all of this. Where were top Obama spooks James Clapper and John Brennan? Their outrage became public only after their candidate lost the election. If they didn’t know what was going on, why not? And if they did, why didn’t they let Americans in on the secret? President Obama sanctioned Russia for its meddling only after the election.” Obama was probably reluctant to echo the foreign policy of the 1980’s for which he had derided Mitt Romney in the campaign of 2012. He didn’t want to admit that Romney might have had a point. It didn’t gibe well with his belief that all was for the best in the best of all possible administrations. For more on the Internet Research Agency, see this interesting Atlantic sidebar. Andrew McCarthy’s weekly NRO column was posted this morning but obviously written before the indictment was released yesterday. Andy knows what he is talking about and is a natural teacher. His column today reiterates and expands on critical points he has previously made but that now emerge starkly in light of the indictment: “It has long been manifest that there is no criminal ‘collusion with Russia’ case. If there had been, there would have been no need for the legerdemain of conducting a criminal probe surreptitiously, under the label of ‘counterintelligence.’” After the indictment, this observation obtains even more so. His column strongly suggests that the obstruction gambit should be retired. The indictment states that the Russians supported Trump in the Republican primaries and Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries. They supported Trump in the presidential campaign. They obviously thought that their candidacies “sowed confusion” in the ways that became obvious to us all. They were outrageous. They were not meant to be. By the same token, the Russians viewed Trump’s presidential campaign as doomed — just as I and everyone else did. They supported American chaos and hysteria and demoralization. Supporting Trump or other actions to detract from the magnitude of Clinton’s victory might weaken Clinton when she ultimately won. That’s obviously what they had in mind. They were victims of traditional thinking and conventional wisdom, just like me. And just like CNN’s Chris Cillizza. Cillizza continues in his obtuse mode commenting on the indictment. He is also overcome with excitement. He thinks the Russians wanted Trump to win. He doesn’t understand what they were up to, or anything else relevant to what happened for that matter. Cillizza thinks, just to take one small example, the allegations of the indictment prove something “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” For those of us who have followed the twists and turns of the collusion hysteria since the day after the election, one question hangs over the indictment. In the words of the Lieber/Stoller song, is that all there is? It’s too soon to tell, but one guy who should have some idea is the malicious former Gus Hall supporter John Brennan More at the link: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/02/notes-on-the-indictment.php 1
3rdnlng Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 Can anyone tell us why Russia would want Trump to win? Their economy is very much tied to gas and oil prices. Trump campaigned on boosting our production. That would automatically be a bad thing for Russia. Any thinking person with a modicum of knowledge would realize that Mayhem is what they were trying to create.
row_33 Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 The internet should be censored by the DNC so that only truthful things will be allowed to be posted a month after sending 1
Deranged Rhino Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 7 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: Yeah, I suppose...if that fan then fell backwards over the glass, onto the ice, KO'd the goalie, and deflected the puck into the net for a goal. Oh, then if that's the case I'm certain you have mountains of evidence to share with us which demonstrates how catastrophic the propaganda machine was on the election, or how many votes it actually flipped... You do have that evidence, don't you? Oh, what's that? You don't have any evidence to make such proclamations? Why not? Because you were too stoned to differentiate emotional blathering from fact based content? Ah, that checks out. 4 hours ago, Nanker said: Yes, we do. It's the DNC and they've trashed the integrity of the DOJ and the FBI. Day two of his term, he was pretty specific about what he was going to do about that... 2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: C.mon, how many more Benghazi hearings will be needed to really get to the truth? Could be we have gotten the truth and the investigations didn't lead to Hillary's prosecution. Not everyone wishing the Trump investigation to continue would ignore crimes of past administrations, btw. I was strongly in favor of impeaching Bill Clinton back when for instance. The Russia story is undergoing investigation now. I just hate to see people close their eyes and say, "Shut down Mueller. I don't want to see. Trump misdeeds are fake news." Hopefully we can learn the truth in far less than the, what was it - 8 Benghazi hearings. You're leaving out the reality that during the Benghazi "hearings" Holder and 44 had neutered the DOJ Inspector General (Horowitz) and actively sought to prevent him from being able to do his job. The law changed in December 2016, restoring Horowitz's powers to do his job. Now he's been on the war path for over a year, collecting and investigating all the things that Holder, Lynch, and 44 worked to prevent him from looking into. Wonder how that's going to turn out for all the treasonous heroes you're racing to defend.... Oh wait, we have some early evidence of where his investigation is going: 1 1
boyst Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 23 hours ago, Logic said: Says the guy who, I assume, supports an obviously unqualified and morally reprehensible reality tv show star and failed steak salesman as president. Does your vagina hurt today?
njbuff Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: Oh, then if that's the case I'm certain you have mountains of evidence to share with us which demonstrates how catastrophic the propaganda machine was on the election, or how many votes it actually flipped... You do have that evidence, don't you? Oh, what's that? You don't have any evidence to make such proclamations? Why not? Because you were too stoned to differentiate emotional blathering from fact based content? Ah, that checks out. Day two of his term, he was pretty specific about what he was going to do about that... You're leaving out the reality that during the Benghazi "hearings" Holder and 44 had neutered the DOJ Inspector General (Horowitz) and actively sought to prevent him from being able to do his job. The law changed in December 2016, restoring Horowitz's powers to do his job. Now he's been on the war path for over a year, collecting and investigating all the things that Holder, Lynch, and 44 worked to prevent him from looking into. Wonder how that's going to turn out for all the treasonous heroes you're racing to defend.... Oh wait, we have some early evidence of where his investigation is going: Hannity brought up another name that could be big in all of this, but I forgot. So, I offer nothing to this thread right now. hehe 1
Deranged Rhino Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 More evidence that the DNC was not hacked is given to us by this indictment. So here's the million dollar question: How come the Russians tasked with spreading propaganda by posing as Americans used VPNs to mask their identities while Guciffer 2.0, the arm of the operation allegedly tasked with actual cyber theft and hacking of the DNC and others, did not? The 13 Russians indicted yesterday, and those under their employ, took great care to mask their identities and hide their nationalities despite the fact that even if they were caught (and they were), the things they were doing carried very little risk to either themselves or Russia if they were to be exposed. Spreading propaganda is frowned upon, but so commonplace that any retaliation would be fairly empty... like an indictment of 13 people who will never see the inside of a US courtroom for example. Yet G2.0's mission carried actual risk to both Russia and the operators. G2.0 allegedly committed cyber espionage, theft, and hacking that could - if exposed - result in a much more dangerous retaliation against Russia. Compared to the 13 propaganda spreaders, G2.0's mission was an actual act of war that could be used to justify a military response. Yet, despite this danger and unlike the rest of the people involved in this operation, the only real hacker involved in any of this didn't even bother to mask his identity or nationality. Why? In what world does that logic track? The Russians spent millions of dollars to spread propaganda, training and deploying active counter measures to make detecting the source of this propaganda as difficult as possible for anyone who investigated... but they didn't bother to fund, train, or use these same basic cyber counter measures while undertaking a massive "hack" of the DNC? If you believe that one, then you probably are smoking whatever Bob handed you. The only explanation for this discrepancy is that whoever Guciffer 2.0 was, they wanted their nationality to be known and unquestioned. Meanwhile, actual Russian operatives were taking precautions to hide their identities and nationalities despite their mission carrying far less risk than that of G2.0's. Guciffer 2.0 was not Russian. He's a creation by the DNC subcontractor CrowdStrike designed to get ahead of the "leak" WikiLeaks was preparing to publish in July. This indictment and the evidence presented therein adds yet another brick in that particular pile. 1
Recommended Posts