Merged All things Trump + Russia

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

"You have no clue what you're talking about. I am knowledgable enough to judge their claims while you are not"

How so ?
 
Childlike Empress said:
From a Washington Pest article? That's cute.
Click to expand...

Washington Pest? That's cute. Where is this sub-culture you come from where these nick-names are made up and tossed around?

Childlike Empress said:
There's not much in there but "CIA claims" or the proverbial anonymous government officials.
Click to expand...

The CIA, the FBI and the NSA. I get that your preference is for known Russian propaganda outlets, my opinion is that the US intelligence agencies are more likely to be correct.

Childlike Empress said:
About CrowdStrike and its derivitives (it is a self-containing claim bubble in that "security" industry, with different names for the same weak guesses), read this,
Click to expand...

Because CrowdStrike is questioned about something tangential, you believe that discredits them in regards to the election? I don't see how that works, but then again I don't see how you conclude that no planes hit the Pentagon either. :shrug:

There are several reports linked in your source, in one of them I found this:

Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
Click to expand...

And for further interesting reading:

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

https://docs.voanews.eu/en-US/2017/03/23/13e4fe03-a7a7-47ab-b88a-9eb9a2449d19.pdf


Childlike Empress said:
You have no clue what you're talking about. I am knowledgable enough to judge their claims while you are not.
Click to expand...

I disagree, but in the spirit of keeping an open mind; what are your qualifications?
 
Argumemnon said:
About who? What are you talking about?
Click to expand...


Fort Russ is an outlet that is so effective in its task of mostly translating articles from the Russian blogosphere into English, that Mycroft likes to include it into his Ad Hominem sidelines even if nobody brought it up, like he did in #619. You are never seen attacking stunts like that.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Fort Russ is an outlet that is so effective in its task of mostly translating articles from the Russian blogosphere into English for the purpose of promoting the Putinist point of view because these bloggers apparently believe the Russian propaganda machine doesn't have the resources to do it without their help, that Mycroft likes to include it into his Ad Hominem sidelines even if nobody brought it up, like he did in #619. You are never seen attacking stunts like that.
Click to expand...


Fixed that for you.


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
 
Childlike Empress said:
Fort Russ is an outlet that is so effective in its task of mostly translating articles from the Russian blogosphere into English, that Mycroft likes to include it into his Ad Hominem sidelines even if nobody brought it up, like he did in #619. You are never seen attacking stunts like that.
Click to expand...

If I spend time correcting every wrong thing in the universe I'd never do anything else. Hence I focus on the stuff that catches my attention.

Now that your dodge has been denied, would you mind addressing what I wrote?
 
Argumemnon said:
Now that your dodge has been denied, would you mind addressing what I wrote?
Click to expand...


You wrote petty junk and even dishonestly deleted my sentence in which I state why I dismiss the article, the sentence immediately following what you quoted which included the witty nickname Washington Pest. I'm not sure if it is better than the alternative, Washington Compost, so I guess I'll use them alternating for the moment.
 
Aridas said:
Ugh. Now, if we compare that to the force investigating, say, Benghazi...



Or what were apparently 12 full-time staffers for Hillary's e-mails...

Well, it's to the point where perhaps one should wonder whether Republican Congressmen were somehow involved, when they're acting like this.
Click to expand...

Covering stuff up is much easier than making up dirt and trying to slander someone.
 
Childlike Empress said:
You wrote petty junk and even dishonestly deleted my sentence in which I state why I dismiss the article
Click to expand...

Ah, hell, another poster who frames the clipping of posts to more efficiently address points as "dishonesty". I don't think for a second that you believe that. It's just another way to avoid addressing my point.
 
Childlike Empress said:
From a Washington Pest article? That's cute. There's not much in there but "CIA claims" or the proverbial anonymous government officials.
Click to expand...
I've been critical of the media handling of both Trump's campaign and presidency. With respect to the "dossier" I really don't know what to believe. So once again I am raising a question I've never seen answered.

What finally convinced Trump that Russia was involved in meddling/hacking of the 2016 presidential election? One of my theories is that he saw evidence that he was under Russian surveillance that he was previously unaware of. That might have been related to the "golden showers" incident, or it might have been something less lurid but more potentially damning.

If this has been answered can someone tell me where?
 
Argumemnon said:
Ah, hell, another poster who frames the clipping of posts to more efficiently address points as "dishonesty". I don't think for a second that you believe that. It's just another way to avoid addressing my point.
Click to expand...


You accuse me of "ad hominem", i.e. dismissing a WP article because it's from the WP, while cutting off the very sentence where I explain why I dismiss it. That's laughable. Next time think before you type.
 
Childlike Empress said:
You accuse me of "ad hominem", i.e. dismissing a WP article because it's from the WP
Click to expand...

I don't "accuse you" of doing that. It's a fact that you're doing it.

while cutting off the very sentence where I explain why I dismiss it.
Click to expand...

What I cut off made no difference: you still dismissed it because it came from the WP. The very use of "pest" in stead of "post", which is laughably childish, is clear on that. Whether it was the only reason is irrelevant. You still used an ad hominem.

Next time think before you type.
Click to expand...

May I tell you where you can stuff this comment?
 
Minoosh said:
I've been critical of the media handling of both Trump's campaign and presidency. With respect to the "dossier" I really don't know what to believe. So once again I am raising a question I've never seen answered.

What finally convinced Trump that Russia was involved in meddling/hacking of the 2016 presidential election? One of my theories is that he saw evidence that he was under Russian surveillance that he was previously unaware of. That might have been related to the "golden showers" incident, or it might have been something less lurid but more potentially damning.

If this has been answered can someone tell me where?
Click to expand...


Why do you think he was "convinced"? As far as I'm aware he said that maybe it was the Russians, once, in quite ambiguous terms like for the sake of argument, and has since repeatedly said things along the line of "the Russia thing is a ruse". Which it is.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Why do you think he was "convinced"? As far as I'm aware he said that maybe it was the Russians, once, in quite ambiguous terms like for the sake of argument, and has since repeatedly said things along the line of "the Russia thing is a ruse". Which it is.
Click to expand...

According to all the Russian sources Putin allows to print, at least.
 
Childlike Empress said:
You accuse me of "ad hominem", i.e. dismissing a WP article because it's from the WP, while cutting off the very sentence where I explain why I dismiss it. That's laughable. Next time think before you type.
Click to expand...
It's also an ad hom for dismissing the information because it comes from the CIA.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom