Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Henri McPhee said:
I think Ray McGovern understands what is going on, unlike the American public and American journalists. I don't like the way Hillary Clinton keeps mentioning 'Russian Wikileaks' when there is no hard evidence to back that up, or the cover up of the Podesta child sex ring pedophiles involving Portugal and possibly Madeleine McCann.

There is background to what Ray McGovern thinks about the matter at:

www.informationclearinghouse.info/47556.htm

This is part of it:
Click to expand...

:crazy:
 
Henri McPhee said:
I think Ray McGovern understands what is going on, unlike the American public and American journalists. I don't like the way Hillary Clinton keeps mentioning 'Russian Wikileaks' when there is no hard evidence to back that up, or the cover up of the Podesta child sex ring pedophiles involving Portugal and possibly Madeleine McCann.

There is background to what Ray McGovern thinks about the matter at:

www.informationclearinghouse.info/47556.htm

This is part of it:
Click to expand...

You are only interested in evidence and facts-not opinion? So you cite a lengthy citation from McGovern that neithet contains nor cited any evidence or facts, but doesn't even rise to the level typically expected of reasoned opinion, but instead is complete speculation!

I only hope that you are sufficiently self aware to see the irony.
 
Henri McPhee said:
I think Ray McGovern understands what is going on...
Click to expand...

Then why does it read exactly like a typical conspiracy theorist's paranoid fantasy about the unlimited power of the bad guys -- "the DNC brass (with help from allies at the CIA)" -- to perpetrate a hoax? McGovern forgot to tell us how they got they got non-allies at the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc., to go along with it -- buy them off or threaten their families?

Don't you require unsubstantiated speculation to at least sound plausible before you buy it?
 
Henri McPhee said:
I think Ray McGovern understands what is going on, unlike the American public and American journalists.
Click to expand...
Sure you do... people generally assign authority to celebrities who tell them what they want to hear, even in the case of a former glorified clerk like McGovern. And what you want to hear (assuming you're not parodying, which is a distinct possibility) is the same old, worn out pablum Kremlin websites pump out day after day.

...the cover up of the Podesta child sex ring pedophiles involving Portugal and possibly Madeleine McCann.
Click to expand...
Like this.
 
varwoche said:
You dodged my question.

Why does the word of McGovern count as evidence, yet the word of current US Intel doesn't count as evidence?
Click to expand...

That's because Henri is solely amenable to opinions, particularly the opinons of people who reinforce his own prejudices.
 
Henri McPhee said:
There is background to what Ray McGovern thinks about the matter at:

www.informationclearinghouse.info/47556.htm

This is part of it:

Did Hillary Scapegoat Russia to Save Her Campaign?
...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Betteridge's law of headlines offers the following heuristics: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

More analytically, the question mark indicates that the author is aware that the claim does not rise to the level of "fact", as it is not sufficiently backed by evidence in his own opinion.

In other words: McGovern is bloviating someone else's opinion, which that someone else marks as opinion, not fact.
 
Last edited:
It's weird* how much the beast hates the US intelligence community considering that, apparently, they were trying so hard to get it elected during this elaborate frame job against Russia.

*It's not weird at all since the conspiracy theory is nonsense.
 
Henri McPhee said:
or the cover up of the Podesta child sex ring pedophiles involving Portugal and possibly Madeleine McCann.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the connection with the kidnapping of the children from Sandy Ridge and having them sent on a spaceship to Mars to act as slaves and sustenance to their Vampiric Illuminati overlords.

All the pieces are starting to come together...
 
Giordano said:
You are only interested in evidence and facts-not opinion? So you cite a lengthy citation from McGovern that neithet contains nor cited any evidence or facts, but doesn't even rise to the level typically expected of reasoned opinion, but instead is complete speculation!

I only hope that you are sufficiently self aware to see the irony.
Click to expand...

Would you also like a pony?
 
Giordano said:
The process you describe is that involved in obtaining a criminal conviction- which I suspect will indeed occur eventually in the case of the Trump administration.
Click to expand...
But not too soon we hope - it would be a pity if the series had to be canned before the end of season 1 because half the cast were behind bars.
 
varwoche said:
And yet you omitted the assessments of US Intel when you pretended there was no evidence.

Why does the word of a former agent count as evidence, but current intelligence doesn't count?
Click to expand...

Do you mean this one?
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

The one where 17 almost 4 agencies signed?

You should read it yourself. It's not long. Some gems are in there, like putin wanted to paint the US as hypocritical. (Right now the US tries to sell becoming dependent on US LNG as "energy indipendence")

Putin stating that he would prefer trump to the lady who compared him to hitler, and threatened to shoot down russian planes over syria is an attempt to influence the US election?

And half of it is literally complaining about RT programming, giving 3rd party candidates a platform and suggesting the electoral college might not be the most democratic institution in the world.

The only "election hacking" (How do you "hack" an election? I wonder why they keep using such a neboulous term) is that they suspect guccifer 2.0 and dcleaks to be russian operations. And the NSA isnt even sure about that.
 
magellan said:
Do you mean this one?
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
....
Click to expand...


What is it you don't get? "Hacking" is short-hand for "the multiple means and methods that the Russian government used to support its chosen candidate for U.S. president." Is that better? You think it's all right that the Russians wanted Trump in the White House? And the report you cite isn't the only evidence. What's most chilling is the attempted assaults on a majority of state voting systems. And that doesn't mean changing vote counts. If names of registered voters could be removed from the rolls, or machines could be shut down on election day, it would be enough to create chaos.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...h-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections

And that's before you get to the extensive "fake news" web bots that contributed to campaign misinformation.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/04/politics/election-day-cyber-threat-fbi-monitoring/index.html

The bottom line is that Putin wanted Trump to be President. You don't think that's a matter of concern?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom