Forums / Discussion / General

Donald Trump was on a pardoning spree today.
From junk bond kings to Genovese things, and even a wild Blago.

Andrew Yang joins CNN as a political commentator

Sanders is not a communist. Socialism and communism are in fact, not the same thing, nor is Democratic socialism and communism, but I'm sure you knew that already.

How old is the post you're quoting? Because I couldn't find anywhere recent.

probably a troll account that got deleted

"It was only a matter of time before Stinky rolled on Don. Also implicating former-Congressman Dana Rohrabacher and alt-right activist and notorious floor-pooper Charles Johnson."
What does that sentence even mean? Who's stinky and "what is a floor pooper"?

Assange wouldn't bathe while holing himself in the London's Ecuadorian embassy, and Mr. Johnson pooped on the floor of a college dorm room.

Roger Stone sentenced to 40 months.

You also use the term hacking as if they went and changed the vote, when all they did was reveal things we should have already known. You're basically acting like Nixon did with the Pentagon Papers.

More bad news for the Biden camp.

Can you make a post that doesn't make you sound like a smug douche?
And what do the Panama papers have to do with this? I was talking about reactions to damning evidence becoming public, not what their contents were.

Welp, according to andrew yang, Micheal Bloomberg is contacting supporters/doners for his opposition and "telling" them not to donate because "he's got this". He's also hiring staff from other campaigns by offering them 150% their current pay.

It's clear that because he can't win people over with his personality, he's restored to doubling down on bribery to carry him through this election.

^
relevant

All of the candidates except Bloomberg are quietly plotting a brokered convention strategy.

Bloomberg is loudly plotting a brokered convention strategy and talking to the press on and off the record about it. https://t.co/qlpB62EWmT

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) February 21, 2020

New York billionaires are one in the same, whether it be Trump or Bloomberg.

Despite what the Trump Administration might tell you, in a shocking turn of events that no one could have seen coming, it turns out that killing Net Neutrality did, in fact, not help consumers whatsoever.

I'm surprised that Ajit Pai is still there.

Bernie Sanders briefed by US officials on how Russia is helping his campaign.

bUt dA rUsSiNs gUYz

Russian interference is nothing to joke about.

according to people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.

It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken. U.S. prosecutors found a Russian effort in 2016 to use social media to boost Sanders’s campaign against Hillary Clinton,

Ah yes, the unspecified officials, anonymous reports, and undefined assistance should be treated with utmost severity /s. Please, give me a break.

Pooch at this time I have spoken to a Government Official who has told me that every country in existence is interfering with the 2020 Presidential election. I can't tell you what government position he is and even he doesn't know what type of interference it is but I ASSURE YOU it's happening and only for those political candidates.

That's all 100% technically true, but the lack of detail betrays its legitimacy. It's junk information, bad data, a non-story, and at the very worst actual propaganda. There is wisdom to having some discretion in the information you trust.

> It's junk information, bad data, a non-story, and at the very worst actual propaganda.

whatever it is you just wrote is, but the washington post story isn't. If there is something about the story you think is wrong, point it out specifically and explain. Their story is in line with their past reporting and the information all the major intelligence agencies around the world have reported.

You guys want to actually explain the issue you have against defending the elections from Russia by using actual substance, or just memes?

If you make a claim and someone says you're wrong the burden of proof is on you to prove that you're right, not the other way around.
Also, if you're going to cite a news article that's behind a paywall you should screenshot it instead of directly linking to it.

Because if the interference isn't specified, the location isn't certain, and the perpetrators are unknowm, it starts to sound a lot less like a confirmed threat, and a lot more like WMD's in Iraq. It wastes resources in pursuing these leads only to find out it amounts to a Facebook Group posting some anti-biden memes. Meanwhile it kinda has a Witch Hunt/French Revolution effect of accusing someone of being "aided by russia" without specifying how, and then using that as a justification to defame people.

Trump for example has actual russian paper trails but uses the "russian connection" accusations on a few democrats or republicans or people in general he doesn't like. And the DNC/Mainstream Media eats it up and does the same thing, and doesn't bother to differentiate the very different categories of Sending money to russian to purchase KGB/Russain Mafia aid, reciving money from Russian Oligarchs in exchange for favorable deals, or being written about favorably by russian internet users.

All 3 are conflated together as "Russian Influence" even though all 3 are vastly different from one another, and it makes a situation where everyone is just hysterically shouting about russia to drown out any other concerns, such as Corruption within the DNC's voting process to force out the candidate that people actually want, in favor of one that the DNC wants instead.

@PatrickBateman96
>If you make a claim and someone says you're wrong the burden of proof is on you to prove that you're right, not the other way around.

It was already posted by brent15

>Also, if you're going to cite a news article that's behind a paywall you should screenshot it instead of directly linking to it.

Try this
wapo is good though, you should pay for it.

@Black Graphic T
>Because if the interference isn't specified, the location isn't certain, and the perpetrators are unknowm, it starts to sound a lot less like a confirmed threat, and a lot more like WMD's in Iraq.

I don't see how. There is so specific immediate threat from China or NK either, so does that mean we should just completely ignore them and laugh off the idea that they could do something bad? We have reasons to view these countries as hostile. Just because the threat isn't immediate or obvious, doesn't mean no per-cautions should be made.

> wapo is good though, you should pay for it.
you’re a comedy genious poochy

The article released today we are talking about is very good, an article about bloomberg's history of sexual assaults is very good and wapo was the one that wrote the article about The Afghanistan Papers

Washington Post has a lot of high quality journalism. I'm also a big fan of The trailer news letter that David Weigel writes every other day.

>If there is something about the story you think is wrong, point it out specifically and explain

My first post was a quote of the problematic section. The report makes claims with anonymous and unspecified claims. There's no measurement of any influence, nor any indication of what that influence is that it claims is assuredly there. It's not a report, it's a goddamn rumor. A "government official" could be anything from a political intern on a candidate's team to the President himself.

I asked my friend who worked at the DMV to make that claim I said in my last post, making the hypothetical statement I made 100% true. He is an anonymous government official who reported foreign influence of unknown extent in the presidential election. This is exactly the same level of information that is given in the WaPo article. This is why you should not just trust that article off of that information alone, ANYONE is capable of manufacturing that information. A claim needs to be backed up with data FOR that claim, not by relying on the pattern of previous claims.

I don't understand why you trust everything you read from a paper, but cannot comprehend two sentences from another individual talking to you. My first post was all this summarized in a brief quote and a post and yet I still have to get dragged into spelling it out.

It's really funny how Bernie Sanders is polling well and then suddenly, Jeff Bezos's mouthpiece reports he's got Russian assistance in the election, coincidentally after terrible news and a horrible debate surrounding fellow billionaire Micheal Bloomberg happened.

Gee, it's almost like a couple of billionaires are looking out for one anothers interest, and trying to sway public opinion against the person whose gonna make them finally pay their fair share of taxes, and probably shut down their glorified embezzlement routes they call tax havens.

Considering the shit that's been going on during this primary, Putin just needs to sit back and take a page out of the "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street Aliens" playbook if he want's division in the Democratic base

Well, you got half of that right.

Sanders was indeed notified a month ago about Russian interference. Don't see the "throwing a fit" part.

Here's your "fit", from the article linked above

"It was not clear what role they were going to play. We were told that Russia, maybe other countries, are gonna get involved in this campaign," Sanders said.

"The ugly thing that they are doing, and I've seen some of their tweets and stuff, is they try to divide us up. That's what they did in 2016," he added.

Sanders described Russian President Vladimir Putin as a “thug” in a statement on Friday, emphasizing that he stands “firmly against” Russian interference efforts.

“Unlike Donald Trump, I do not consider Vladimir Putin a good friend. He is an autocratic thug who is attempting to destroy democracy and crush dissent in Russia," Sanders said. "Let’s be clear, the Russians want to undermine American democracy by dividing us up and, unlike the current president, I stand firmly against their efforts, and any other foreign power that wants to interfere in our election."

This is the worst political post I've ever seen on this site.

@wisehowl_the_2nd
>The report makes claims with anonymous and unspecified claims.

Why is that a problem? To be clear, you understand its anonymous for you, not them, right? They know who it is giving them this info.

> There's no measurement of any influence, nor any indication of what that influence is that it claims is assuredly there. It's not a report, it's a goddamn rumor.

Its a little more than a rumor. There is something going on, we just don't know the specifics as the general public. This isn't even new. from 2016

>According to the special counsel investigation's Mueller Report (officially named "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election"),[33] the first method of Russian interference used the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Kremlin-linked troll farm, to wage "a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton".[34] The Internet Research Agency also sought to "provoke and amplify political and social discord in the United States".[35]

>By February 2016, internal IRA documents showed an order to support the candidacies of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, while IRA members were to "use any opportunity to criticize" Hillary Clinton and the rest of the candidates.[36] From June 2016, the IRA organized election rallies in the U.S. "often promoting" Trump's campaign while "opposing" Clinton's campaign.[37] The IRA posed as Americans, hiding their Russian background, while asking Trump campaign members for campaign buttons, flyers, and posters for the rallies.[38]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

>This is exactly the same level of information that is given in the WaPo article. This is why you should not just trust that article off of that information alone

If you give the same level of trust to nobodies on the internet as you do reputable news organization, then you are no better than anti-vax or flat earthers.

@Black Graphic T
I really hate smears like this. Are you just stupid, or trying to defraud wapo for some sort of personal gain?
Here are literally thousands of articles dating back years discussion russian interference
They didn't just "suddenly" start reporting on the subject.

Yeah, they just chose to run a story they had gotten months prior only when Bernie was doing well and Bloomberg was doing poorly. If Bloomberg had crushed the debate, i doubt we'd be hearing this particular story.

>only when Bernie was doing well

They've been running similar stories for 4 years. He's been doing well the entire time?

His polling average was a distant second behind Biden until shortly before the Iowa caucus. From early August to late November he averaging third behind Warren and Biden.
Also question for Brent: If you want Trump to win so badly why don't you just say so?

exactly

Even if its correct why should anyone waste anymore time even entertaining the idea this conversation we have been having for 4 fucking years thats gone no where? "The multimedia network that cried Russian" Yet the same people (im not necessarily talking about you) pushing this don't give a damn about election tampering when its good to their narrative.

How many times did liberals on CNN and MSBC bitch endlessly about this crap but when it came to the app used in Iowa filled with known flaws run by the same people who cheated last time it was either half truths or silence.

Also this is assuming that its even true and not some cooked up narrative. Please don't even try to suggest this statement is some hyperbolic conspiracy when they have been doing it, especially that gross attack on Tulsi Gabbard

Its not that I don't think this subject is serious, its that don't believe a single word about Russia coming from a newspaper or channel.

If CNN said the sky was blue id go outside and double check.

>thats gone no where?

What specifically do you mean gone no where? Like, are you implying russia has done nothing, or that the US has not responded to the threat?

> Yet the same people (im not necessarily talking about you) pushing this don't give a damn about election tampering when its good to their narrative.

You are talking about me, i'm one of the people talking about it, and its because I care about election tampering.

>How many times did liberals on CNN and MSBC bitch endlessly about this crap but when it came to the app used in Iowa filled with known flaws run by the same people who cheated last time it was either half truths or silence.

idk? How many times was it?
lol, I know you don't actually know and you are just making stuff up to fit your narrative. What possible relevance does that even have to this? Ok, theoretically a few people might have cared about russian interference, but not about iowa election flaws…. your point?

>its that don't believe a single word about Russia coming from a newspaper or channel.

Who would you believe?

Oh and by the way

When Hillary gets direct help from CNN and the DNC who are suppose to remain objective and we only find out via hacking,its ok

When she takes money from the fucking Saudi government who throw gay people off of buildings, its ok

Well connected to a sex trafficking pedophile? ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzZZZZ

Sanders might maybe is getting indirect "help" from the big boogie man Russia lets run 24 hour news updates on it

Uh huh. You have a better chance of convincing me a Japanese fish market doesn't smell fishy its just my imagination

>When Hillary gets direct help from CNN and the DNC who are suppose to remain objective and we only find out via hacking,its ok

its not.

>When she takes money from the fucking Saudi government who throw gay people off of buildings, its ok

Its not.

>Well connected to a sex trafficking pedophile? ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzZZZZ

Is that you sleeping? Or are you playing dumb by suggesting no news organization talked about Epstein's connection to the clintons?

>Sanders might maybe is getting indirect "help" from the big boogie man Russia lets run 24 hour news updates on it

As they should as an unbias news organization. Specifically avoiding news stories that would make Sanders look bad would be bias.
Even you are talking about the story, so its a little ironic for you to suggest they are bad for talking about the story.

4 years of Trump loves Russia, Secret phone calls, Election tampering, impeachment, ect. A few minor arrests, Yet no one talks about his pay to play scams with horrible dictator nations we like. We sell weapons to the fucking Saudis while they buy brand rights, real estate deals, and spend money in his hotels directly from Trump. Oh yeah, because Silicon valley and the DNC also take Saudi blood money so we can't talk about that. Wake up dude

I was trying to be nice and not put words in your mouth/straw man you into a group, even tho you were being dismissive to people calling Iowa fishy, I was trying to not imply you agree with those Neo liberal talking points. I guess you pretty much just cosigned yourself as that anyway so what ever.

The relevance is you can't spend 4 years endlessly acting like a moral arbiter for democracy, and fair elections endlessly parroting any conspiracy about Russia then when it happens and its not convenient for who you want to win all of a sudden your narrative changes. Its almost like, and this is a crazy idea but maybe they don't actually give as shit about election tampering and just want Trump out of the white house.

Depends on the topic and what their agenda is. I love Kyle Kulinski but that guy is in straight up pro Sanders propaganda mode. When it comes to current events I trust him, for the election I largely ignore him because he has a massive bias, the fucking guy has connections in sanders campaign and even helped create Justice Democrats

Even tho I like him and Sanders im not gonna take shit he says about the election seriously until I also see others less bias echoing what he says

You act like news is some black and white thing. I look at
>Who the person alies himself with
>What they report on AND ignore
>How often they have been caught lying/been wrong
Just use basic common sense and don't trust someones reporting just because they agree with you and say what you want to hear, that's actually a red alarm to me

This is basically what im understanding in this election so far

10,000 post get btw

Yeah, we’re the ones drinking coolaid
we proles should know our place and be like you
I’ll go whine on twitter about the mean bernie bros and about exterminating le evil russians and drumpf, and then go watch reality tv