TrumPutinGate

#10,751
#10,751
Obsessed said:
A whistleblower provided a very damaging email showing that the Democrats were plotting to ‘manufacture false evidence of the Russian security services’ involvement in cyber attacks during the U.S. presidential elections 2016′.


“We all agree there is a need to provide technical details on Russian hacking. (Redacted) urges you and (redacted) to bring up again the issue with (redacted). It’s quite important, especially as we approach the hearings.

If there are no technical details we have to find some by all means. I am sure his guys can do it.”

Cyber Berkut stated that they redacted the names in order not to expose their sources:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...show-democrats-plotting-blame-russia-hacking/
Click to expand...

Fake news! Anonymous sources!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#10,752
#10,752
luthervol said:
Again, you misinterpreted my post. Try this....

You come in from work and all the fish are dead in your aquarium. You feel the water and it is hot. You then realize the heater has been turned all the way up. Those are all indisputable facts. The question becomes, how and why was the heater turned all the way up.

Your 9 year old son enters the room and says "I did it".
Now you're faced with the realization that there was a very negative outcome directly caused by someone you desperately want to think the best of. Now assume your son must leave immediately before you have anytime to get answers.

In your head you start running through all the possible explanations. I could expand here, but I'll cut to the chase. Did he do it because of misinformation he read on the internet, were the instructions wrong, did a friend tell him it would be okay, did he just not know how hot the water would get and that it would kill the fish, or did he do it with full knowledge of what was going to happen? These are all possible and some more plausible than others. The one with the most unacceptable implications is the latter.

Misinformation on the internet would be bad, a misprinting in the instructions would be bad, a friend either intentionally or unintentionally encouraging the action would be bad, his own ignorance would be bad, acting on his own with full knowledge would be far worse.
Click to expand...
Sorry about the fish Luther.
 
#10,754
#10,754
luthervol said:
Again, you misinterpreted my post. Try this....

You come in from work and all the fish are dead in your aquarium. You feel the water and it is hot. You then realize the heater has been turned all the way up. Those are all indisputable facts. The question becomes, how and why was the heater turned all the way up.

Your 9 year old son enters the room and says "I did it".
Now you're faced with the realization that there was a very negative outcome directly caused by someone you desperately want to think the best of. Now assume your son must leave immediately before you have anytime to get answers.

In your head you start running through all the possible explanations. I could expand here, but I'll cut to the chase. Did he do it because of misinformation he read on the internet, were the instructions wrong, did a friend tell him it would be okay, did he just not know how hot the water would get and that it would kill the fish, or did he do it with full knowledge of what was going to happen? These are all possible and some more plausible than others. The one with the most unacceptable implications is the latter.

Misinformation on the internet would be bad, a misprinting in the instructions would be bad, a friend either intentionally or unintentionally encouraging the action would be bad, his own ignorance would be bad, acting on his own with full knowledge would be far worse.
Click to expand...

Sure, luther. That's exactly what "I won't even entertain that thought because of my feelz" would look like.

I get it. The burn was deep and, although I warned you it was coming, the pain was intense. You're doing what you must right now.

So I won't push it any further. I'll leave you that "plausible deniability" you wanted desperately enough to tell a story about kids and aquariums.

:good!:
 
#10,755
#10,755
1972 Grad said:
Seth Rich ate a bullet.
Click to expand...

If Seth Rich was assassinated at all, which I highly doubt, it was likely by either a RIS or a Russian mob (kind of same thing) hitman in order to convince stupid people like you that Hillary and the "Dims" had a young man murdered to cover up their crimes.

In fact, that would not surprise me at all. The way they play you all like a fiddle with fake news is staggering to watch.

Most likely, however, it was a robbery gone wrong, and the would-be robber got scared and ran after he shot a most likely emboldened, drunk Rich, who refused and instead confronted his assailant.

But, hey, what's plausibility to a person like you? You've got families to exploit for small political gains.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#10,759
#10,759
volprof said:
If Seth Rich was assassinated at all, which I highly doubt, it was likely by either a RIS or a Russian mob (kind of same thing) hitman in order to convince stupid people like you that Hillary and the "Dims" had a young man murdered to cover up their crimes.

In fact, that would not surprise me at all. The way they play you all like a fiddle with fake news is staggering to watch.

Most likely, however, it was a robbery gone wrong, and the would-be robber got scared and ran after he shot a most likely emboldened, drunk Rich, who refused and instead confronted his assailant.

But, hey, what's plausibility to a person like you? You've got families to exploit for small political gains.
Click to expand...

He was a Bernie supporter working for the DNC you moron, he was about the spill the beans on how they ****ed crazy Bernie over from getting the nomination. My what a selective memory we have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#10,760
#10,760
volprof said:
If Seth Rich was assassinated at all, which I highly doubt, it was likely by either a RIS or a Russian mob (kind of same thing) hitman in order to convince stupid people like you that Hillary and the "Dims" had a young man murdered to cover up their crimes.

In fact, that would not surprise me at all. The way they play you all like a fiddle with fake news is staggering to watch.

Most likely, however, it was a robbery gone wrong, and the would-be robber got scared and ran after he shot a most likely emboldened, drunk Rich, who refused and instead confronted his assailant.

But, hey, what's plausibility to a person like you? You've got families to exploit for small political gains.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. I bet all those deaths surrounding the Clintons were done by Republicans to make us think the Clintons were bad people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#10,761
#10,761
Orange_Crush said:
OK... I didn't get a response, so I'll ask for clarification, luther.

Are you saying that it's OK to attack media that one believes to be pushing an agenda and passing along fake news? To pass them off as detrimental/enemies to the country, and breed distrust for them as Obama did?

Is that the stance you're taking?
Click to expand...

I like you using my name for that all important emphasis.

Is it okay to attack law enforcement as the enemy of the people? Is it okay to attack some law enforces as being bad, on the take, or overly violent? How about a whole department? Who gets to decide? What are the criteria to be used when making that decision? If an officer has one complaint should he be fired? What if an officer has 20 complaints? 100? Should an officer with one complaint filed against him be put in the same category as an officer with 100 complaints? If the Chief of Police fires the officer with one minor complaint and promotes the officer with 100 complaints, he may sacrifice his credibility and the loyalty of the "good" officers on his force. However, the crappy officers will love him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#10,763
#10,763
Sin City Vol said:
Your obsession is in full force. Blame the Dems for DTJr agreeing to collide with the Russians. I think his hair grease is seeping into his brain
Click to expand...

Only things I'm obsessed with my Vols, hot women and fast trucks.

I know all the Russian crap is just that, crap.
Some of us are smart enough to see past the **** the libs are slinging because they lost an election.

And they will continue to lose them with this fear mongering you continue to push.

Enjoy it. You guys have made your bed, now lay in it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#10,765
#10,765
FLVOL69 said:
He was a Bernie supporter working for the DNC you moron, he was about the spill the beans on how they ****ed crazy Bernie over from getting the nomination. My what a selective memory we have.
Click to expand...

You get your Kremlin deza good and honest, I'll give you that.
 
#10,768
#10,768
Orange_Crush said:
OK... I didn't get a response, so I'll ask for clarification, luther.

Are you saying that it's OK to attack media that one believes to be pushing an agenda and passing along fake news? To pass them off as detrimental/enemies to the country, and breed distrust for them as Obama did?

Is that the stance you're taking?
Click to expand...

luthervol said:
I like you using my name for that all important emphasis.

Is it okay to attack law enforcement as the enemy of the people? Is it okay to attack some law enforces as being bad, on the take, or overly violent? How about a whole department? Who gets to decide? What are the criteria to be used when making that decision? If an officer has one complaint should he be fired? What if an officer has 20 complaints? 100? Should an officer with one complaint filed against him be put in the same category as an officer with 100 complaints? If the Chief of Police fires the officer with one minor complaint and promotes the officer with 100 complaints, he may sacrifice his credibility and the loyalty of the "good" officers on his force. However, the crappy officers will love him.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you noticed, but you failed to answer a very simple question. I'm genuinely asking for clarification. So, please give it. Simply and concisely. Yes, or no. Is that the stance you're taking?
 
#10,769
#10,769
luthervol said:
I like you using my name for that all important emphasis.

Is it okay to attack law enforcement as the enemy of the people? Is it okay to attack some law enforces as being bad, on the take, or overly violent? How about a whole department? Who gets to decide? What are the criteria to be used when making that decision? If an officer has one complaint should he be fired? What if an officer has 20 complaints? 100? Should an officer with one complaint filed against him be put in the same category as an officer with 100 complaints? If the Chief of Police fires the officer with one minor complaint and promotes the officer with 100 complaints, he may sacrifice his credibility and the loyalty of the "good" officers on his force. However, the crappy officers will love him.
Click to expand...

Good analogy. Would an officer violating public trust but not doing anything illegal be an officer you want in the beat in your neighborhood.
Let's say he makes up a story to make himself look good or make others look bad?
Perhaps he uses his authority to intimidate some kids poking fun at but not harming him?
 
#10,771
#10,771
McDad said:
Good analogy. Would an officer violating public trust but not doing anything illegal be an officer you want in the beat in your neighborhood.
Let's say he makes up a story to make himself look good or make others look bad?
Perhaps he uses his authority to intimidate some kids poking fun at but not harming him?
Click to expand...

If those were his only faults, then I would consider him worse than most but still superior to some.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#10,774
#10,774
Orange_Crush said:
I'm not sure if you noticed, but you failed to answer a very simple question. I'm genuinely asking for clarification. So, please give it. Simply and concisely. Yes, or no. Is that the stance you're taking?
Click to expand...

If forced to answer yes or no to a question that should not be answered with a simple yes or no.....I would say no.

You see, some leaders have the wisdom and judgement to use this power appropriately and some do not. So if it has to be one or the other, then it should be a no; the possible negative consequences are to great....as we are witnessing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#10,775
#10,775
Orange_Crush said:
Sure, luther. That's exactly what "I won't even entertain that thought because of my feelz" would look like.

I get it. The burn was deep and, although I warned you it was coming, the pain was intense. You're doing what you must right now.

So I won't push it any further. I'll leave you that "plausible deniability" you wanted desperately enough to tell a story about kids and aquariums.

:good!:
Click to expand...

Usually people use quotations to indicate something that was actually said.

Thanks for the reminder of why one should never engage with you in any type of debate. I'm not sure why I needed the reminder.

I need to go tend to my severe burns and this excruciating pain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top