Topic: I think it's cool that presidents can pay whores to shut up and go away
Anonymous A started this discussion 7 years ago #78,260
It's not cool, however, when they stick around and try to extort more cash or just try to get more money for being a whore just because they fucked an important guy years ago.Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 52 minutes later[^] [v] #913,800
Retarded meme
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #913,801
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #913,802
I saw this meme w couple of hours ago on r/t_d. I'm glad you finally posted it here!
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #913,803
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #913,804
@previous (tteh !MemesToDNA)
So that I can read about how "happy merchants" are destroying America and how John McCain was a songbird according to this random guy's internet blog. I like seeing concentrated stupidity and ignorance in it's natural state, especially since it will make its way over here eventually via one of our three alt right trolls and their many sockpuppet UIDs anyway.
So that I can read about how "happy merchants" are destroying America and how John McCain was a songbird according to this random guy's internet blog. I like seeing concentrated stupidity and ignorance in it's natural state, especially since it will make its way over here eventually via one of our three alt right trolls and their many sockpuppet UIDs anyway.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,813
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,816
@913,804 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I used to visit the Daily Mail for similar reasons. I can't bring myself to dive into the abject retardation anymore. :(
I used to visit the Daily Mail for similar reasons. I can't bring myself to dive into the abject retardation anymore. :(
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 3 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,848
@OP
> It's not cool, however, when they stick around and try to extort more cash or just try to get more money for being a whore just because they fucked an important guy years ago.
youi can't even remember last week correctly
> It's not cool, however, when they stick around and try to extort more cash or just try to get more money for being a whore just because they fucked an important guy years ago.
youi can't even remember last week correctly
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,888
@913,804 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)But are you really there to get your red pill, because you are having a #walkaway moment from the Democrats party of hateful negativity? Are you a little suspicious of the narrative you are supposed to believe, and want to see what it's like on the other side and why no one is buying that bullshit?
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 7 years ago, 41 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,901
"narrative" has become overused to the point of cliche
people really mean "bullshit story"
people really mean "bullshit story"
Sheila LaBoof double-posted this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,902
@913,888 (G)
that pic makes no sense
I think the guy made up some bullshit about an elevator
I never heard about a fucking elevator
that pic makes no sense
I think the guy made up some bullshit about an elevator
I never heard about a fucking elevator
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 21 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,906
@913,888 (G)
No because while I'm not a huge fan of some in the left, and I think a lot of them are wrong in ways that are bad, the right is so unbelievably fucking stupid right now that it boggles my mind, so I often go to stare into the void. Dan Quayle and G.W. Bush seem like Einstein compared to Trump/Bannon et al.
No because while I'm not a huge fan of some in the left, and I think a lot of them are wrong in ways that are bad, the right is so unbelievably fucking stupid right now that it boggles my mind, so I often go to stare into the void. Dan Quayle and G.W. Bush seem like Einstein compared to Trump/Bannon et al.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 11 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,908
@913,902 (Sheila LaBoof)
I think these pictures are supposed to read like "gotcha" moments, but they only look like confused rambling from the outside. It's hard to make sense of them if you're not tapped in to the latest bullshit spin and all the important Twitter fights of the week. The people that think these pictures are clever are slowly marginalizing themselves by becoming unintelligible to the general public. I suppose that's a good sign.
Also, Get off my elevator.
I think these pictures are supposed to read like "gotcha" moments, but they only look like confused rambling from the outside. It's hard to make sense of them if you're not tapped in to the latest bullshit spin and all the important Twitter fights of the week. The people that think these pictures are clever are slowly marginalizing themselves by becoming unintelligible to the general public. I suppose that's a good sign.
Also, Get off my elevator.
Anonymous G replied with this 7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,910
@913,902 (Sheila LaBoof)
You should spend a little time on r/The_Donald
I think you'll find it's just a bunch of people laughing and joking around and enjoying each other's company whilst making America grate again.
You should spend a little time on r/The_Donald
I think you'll find it's just a bunch of people laughing and joking around and enjoying each other's company whilst making America grate again.
Anonymous G double-posted this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,911
@913,906 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Do you still believe Russia hacked the election and Trump colluded? Like wholeheartedly and honestly believe it like you used to?
Do you still believe Russia hacked the election and Trump colluded? Like wholeheartedly and honestly believe it like you used to?
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,914
@913,888 (G)
Trump used the N word in a meeting with Ben Carson I have the tape I just don't feel like showing it to anyone.
Trump used the N word in a meeting with Ben Carson I have the tape I just don't feel like showing it to anyone.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 5 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,915
Anonymous G replied with this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,917
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 7 years ago, 14 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,919
@previous (G)
regarding pic, I don't know what the fuck about political labels, but I do know that many people who walk around calling themselves conservative don't even live their lives conservatively. somehow retarded assholes have been convinced that they are these political people called conservatives, but all they are is assholes
regarding pic, I don't know what the fuck about political labels, but I do know that many people who walk around calling themselves conservative don't even live their lives conservatively. somehow retarded assholes have been convinced that they are these political people called conservatives, but all they are is assholes
Anonymous G replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,921
squeegee joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 19 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,923
@913,911 (G)
Like the CIA and the FBI and DHS and the state department and Pentagon? Nah, that'd be stupid.
Like the CIA and the FBI and DHS and the state department and Pentagon? Nah, that'd be stupid.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 15 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,926
@913,915 (J)
Not to give away the plot, but you're one of them and this thread was made by another.
@913,911 (G)
"Hacked the election" is dumb phrasing but do I believe that Russian intelligence services unlawfully gained access to the emails of John Podesta, the DNC, Condelezza Rice, and Colin Powell, and released them through various channels including Wikileaks in an attempt to influence the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election? I don't see how you couldn't believe that's true, unless you believe that five totally uncoordinated hacks all of which happened to negatively impact Hillary Clinton just unfortunately occurred for no particular underlying reason, and it is just sheer dumb luck that none of the hacking going on happened to target the Trump campaign.
If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Not to give away the plot, but you're one of them and this thread was made by another.
@913,911 (G)
"Hacked the election" is dumb phrasing but do I believe that Russian intelligence services unlawfully gained access to the emails of John Podesta, the DNC, Condelezza Rice, and Colin Powell, and released them through various channels including Wikileaks in an attempt to influence the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election? I don't see how you couldn't believe that's true, unless you believe that five totally uncoordinated hacks all of which happened to negatively impact Hillary Clinton just unfortunately occurred for no particular underlying reason, and it is just sheer dumb luck that none of the hacking going on happened to target the Trump campaign.
If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Anonymous G replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,927
@913,923 (squeegee)
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Cool, good to know. I mean I guessed there were people who still believe it, but I wanted to be sure.
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Cool, good to know. I mean I guessed there were people who still believe it, but I wanted to be sure.
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,928
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 12 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,929
@913,927 (G)
Among competing theories, do you prefer the Guy in New Jersey theory or the DNC Hacked themselves theory? Just trying to figure out where you stand on the matter.
Among competing theories, do you prefer the Guy in New Jersey theory or the DNC Hacked themselves theory? Just trying to figure out where you stand on the matter.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 7 years ago, 27 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,930
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,931
@913,929 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
You forgot the part where Podesta clicked on a phishing link that Clinton's fucking IT guy told him was "legitimate".
You forgot the part where Podesta clicked on a phishing link that Clinton's fucking IT guy told him was "legitimate".
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,932
@913,921 (G)
> It's like this
yeah that made no sense unless you have the other guy point and say nigger
that's a cartoon some asshole made isn't it
> It's like this
yeah that made no sense unless you have the other guy point and say nigger
that's a cartoon some asshole made isn't it
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,933
@913,931 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
I didn't forget that, I'm talking about why the link showed up for him to click in the first place (GRU), not the quality of Clintonland IT staff (piss poor).
I didn't forget that, I'm talking about why the link showed up for him to click in the first place (GRU), not the quality of Clintonland IT staff (piss poor).
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 7 years ago, 56 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,934
@913,929 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)Oh I think it was most likely a leak. Just like every other time this stuff comes out. It's why WikiLeaks exists and has a shit ton of leaked documents.
Do you really think Trump colluded with Russia though? Like actually believe it and think there is evidence still waiting to be found somewhere?
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,935
I don't know what it was because I wasn't there
That's why we have other people who look into it
That's why we have other people who look into it
Anonymous G replied with this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,936
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 24 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,937
@913,934 (G)
A leak...from who? Who acquired that information in the first place? Was it five different people who had no coordination whatsoever?
As for collusion I think probably they either knew the hacks were going on before they were made public and chose to not tell anyone, or actively made deals of some capacity as a quid pro quo (sink Clinton and we'll repeal sanctions/magnitsky act). What exactly this looked like I don't know. If the special counsel finds there was none of that sort of thing going on then I'll believe it, but it is just too many coincidences and leads for me to believe there's nothing there as of now.
A leak...from who? Who acquired that information in the first place? Was it five different people who had no coordination whatsoever?
As for collusion I think probably they either knew the hacks were going on before they were made public and chose to not tell anyone, or actively made deals of some capacity as a quid pro quo (sink Clinton and we'll repeal sanctions/magnitsky act). What exactly this looked like I don't know. If the special counsel finds there was none of that sort of thing going on then I'll believe it, but it is just too many coincidences and leads for me to believe there's nothing there as of now.
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,938
@913,930 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I wouldn't.
He's gonna be real upset, when he finds out you had it this whole time, if it is the bridge in question. I wouldn't know, since nobody seems to have ever seen the bridge, but Robert seems P.sure it exists.
I wouldn't.
He's gonna be real upset, when he finds out you had it this whole time, if it is the bridge in question. I wouldn't know, since nobody seems to have ever seen the bridge, but Robert seems P.sure it exists.
Anonymous G replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,940
@913,937 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)I don't know who leaked it, I just think it's the most likely scenario. Because when I hear hoof beats I think horses, not zebras. If you know who leaked it then they are a whistle blower
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 12 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,944
@previous (G)
Ok so your position is someone leaked the DNC emails. A different person leaked John Podesta's emails. A third person leaked Colin Powell's emails. A fourth person leaked Condelezza Rice's emails. None of these individuals knew each other. That's a lot of leaking! Almost an unbelievable amount. I'm glad I finally understand your theory though.
Ok so your position is someone leaked the DNC emails. A different person leaked John Podesta's emails. A third person leaked Colin Powell's emails. A fourth person leaked Condelezza Rice's emails. None of these individuals knew each other. That's a lot of leaking! Almost an unbelievable amount. I'm glad I finally understand your theory though.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 7 years ago, 12 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,945
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Is it suspicious to you because Hillarys didn't get leaked? Why can't it be from one person though?
Is it suspicious to you because Hillarys didn't get leaked? Why can't it be from one person though?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 21 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,948
@previous (G)
It could be from one person, I'm just trying to figure out out what you think happened in some detail because besides throwing out the term "leaker" you haven't really explained who did it, why, and why your theory is more plausible than mine.
It could be from one person, I'm just trying to figure out out what you think happened in some detail because besides throwing out the term "leaker" you haven't really explained who did it, why, and why your theory is more plausible than mine.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 7 years ago, 20 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,952
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)Because that's how all the leaks have leaked, and will continue to do so. I haven't taken the leap of faith without evidence that it was Russian hackers.
Did you ever stop to think that it's maybe Republican hackers? Seems to me if it was hackers, that's more likely.
I don't think so though. I think it's a leak, there's more to be leaked, and it'll coincide with the midterms or next election. All of this can happen without it being Russians. It's just as likely to be Poland, which I also think is not likely at all.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,991
@previous (G)
I mean, the House, Senate, and President (sometimes) have all come out and said Russia did the interfering. It's not like there's no evidence anywhere it's just the evidence doesn't support your weird theory that all these things were leaks that weren't hacked and there was anywhere from one to who knows how many leakers and none of them have any discernable motivation. I just don't think you have an explanation and you are just using the word "leaker" as a catch-all term so vague in its application that it explains any release of any information that has happened or will ever happen.
I mean, the House, Senate, and President (sometimes) have all come out and said Russia did the interfering. It's not like there's no evidence anywhere it's just the evidence doesn't support your weird theory that all these things were leaks that weren't hacked and there was anywhere from one to who knows how many leakers and none of them have any discernable motivation. I just don't think you have an explanation and you are just using the word "leaker" as a catch-all term so vague in its application that it explains any release of any information that has happened or will ever happen.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,993
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 11 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,994
@previous (L)
I'm just waiting to help a friend with something so I have time to kill with public transit and waiting for them.
I'm just waiting to help a friend with something so I have time to kill with public transit and waiting for them.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #913,995
@913,991 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I haven't actually seen any evidence though. I've seen people saying they've seen evidence but I, personally, have not seen any evidence.
I haven't actually seen any evidence though. I've seen people saying they've seen evidence but I, personally, have not seen any evidence.
squeegee replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #914,014
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Yeah, I've had my head buried in a hole for a couple of months and I haven't seen any evidence down here either. It's nice to have my little hole in the ground. Well, not really the ground but yeah, holes are nice. Real nice.
Yeah, I've had my head buried in a hole for a couple of months and I haven't seen any evidence down here either. It's nice to have my little hole in the ground. Well, not really the ground but yeah, holes are nice. Real nice.
Anonymous G replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #914,021
@913,991 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Just so we're clear, you think it was the 12 Russians indicted by Mueller who did all the hacking? Because that's what I don't believe. I also don't believe that will ever go to trial and require any actual evidence to be presented, just take crowdstrikes word for it. I think it's more likely that the information came from within and was leaked just like every other time politically harmful information comes to light in the public like from whistle blowers Manning, Kiriakou, Snowden, etc and things like Vault 7 leaked from the CIA.
The DNC is not the CIA so yeah someone probably downloaded all their emails and phished a bunch of passwords and leaked it. We can agree to disagree.
What about the Russian collusion with Trump that is being investigated? Do you think that has any merit? I'd like to know what you think about Steele, Strzok, Ohr, Fusion GPS, Halper and the FISA warrant on Page
Just so we're clear, you think it was the 12 Russians indicted by Mueller who did all the hacking? Because that's what I don't believe. I also don't believe that will ever go to trial and require any actual evidence to be presented, just take crowdstrikes word for it. I think it's more likely that the information came from within and was leaked just like every other time politically harmful information comes to light in the public like from whistle blowers Manning, Kiriakou, Snowden, etc and things like Vault 7 leaked from the CIA.
The DNC is not the CIA so yeah someone probably downloaded all their emails and phished a bunch of passwords and leaked it. We can agree to disagree.
What about the Russian collusion with Trump that is being investigated? Do you think that has any merit? I'd like to know what you think about Steele, Strzok, Ohr, Fusion GPS, Halper and the FISA warrant on Page
Anonymous H replied with this 7 years ago, 32 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #914,030
@previous (G)
> I think it's more likely that the information came from within and was leaked just like every other time politically harmful information comes to light in the public like from whistle blowers Manning, Kiriakou, Snowden, etc and things like Vault 7 leaked from the CIA.
See, it's funny you identified all the whistle blowers there. Even Vault 7 has been linked to Schulte.
> The DNC is not the CIA so yeah someone probably downloaded all their emails and phished a bunch of passwords and leaked it. We can agree to disagree.
Apparently the DNC is not the CIA, but you're happy to maintain it's "someone" as long it doesn't point to Russian Intelligence or Donald Trump. You don't think it's amusing that US intelligence had each leaker identified in a short amount of time based on what they revealed? But now it's just... someone? Some random dude? Could be anyone... I guess no one will ever know? huh?
Most of the crap conspiracy theories that surround this rely on Wikileaks never reveling their sources. Like Wikileaks has ever had trouble with politically inconvenient facts, right? All of a sudden they have trouble with transparency? Your story didn't include leakers like Reality Winner BTW. I'm sure you think it's Seth Rich or Reptilian Hillary or whatever shit story you've been fed. Maybe don't shrug your shoulders and refuse to believe things so much.
Seriously, your conspiracy theory is made of shit.
> I think it's more likely that the information came from within and was leaked just like every other time politically harmful information comes to light in the public like from whistle blowers Manning, Kiriakou, Snowden, etc and things like Vault 7 leaked from the CIA.
See, it's funny you identified all the whistle blowers there. Even Vault 7 has been linked to Schulte.
> The DNC is not the CIA so yeah someone probably downloaded all their emails and phished a bunch of passwords and leaked it. We can agree to disagree.
Apparently the DNC is not the CIA, but you're happy to maintain it's "someone" as long it doesn't point to Russian Intelligence or Donald Trump. You don't think it's amusing that US intelligence had each leaker identified in a short amount of time based on what they revealed? But now it's just... someone? Some random dude? Could be anyone... I guess no one will ever know? huh?
Most of the crap conspiracy theories that surround this rely on Wikileaks never reveling their sources. Like Wikileaks has ever had trouble with politically inconvenient facts, right? All of a sudden they have trouble with transparency? Your story didn't include leakers like Reality Winner BTW. I'm sure you think it's Seth Rich or Reptilian Hillary or whatever shit story you've been fed. Maybe don't shrug your shoulders and refuse to believe things so much.
Seriously, your conspiracy theory is made of shit.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 7 years ago, 9 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #914,031
@previous (H)
What? I didn't name every leaker ever and now I'm a conspiracy theorist?
How many leakers have been Russians?
What? I didn't name every leaker ever and now I'm a conspiracy theorist?
How many leakers have been Russians?
Anonymous H replied with this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #914,033
Anonymous G replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #914,034
Anonymous G double-posted this 7 years ago, 40 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #914,036
Anonymous H replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #914,037
@914,034 (G)
I'm not claiming it was Russians. I'm just claiming your theory is shit. Your "theory" seems to consist of the idea that... some people did it.
Convince me.
I'm not claiming it was Russians. I'm just claiming your theory is shit. Your "theory" seems to consist of the idea that... some people did it.
Convince me.
Anonymous G replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #914,038
BTW, I don't think it was Norwegian hackers either. Or Filipino hackers for that matter.
Anonymous G double-posted this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #914,039
Anonymous H replied with this 7 years ago, 33 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #914,040
Anonymous G replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #914,041
Anonymous H replied with this 7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #914,043
@previous (G)
No really. I'm going to go watch some Alex Jones and Seventh Day Adventist videos about how the Pope is the Antichrist. Take your time. Lay out all your best evidence in the most compelling fashion. I will come back in a few hours and see what you have to present to me in the way of compelling evidence for... whatever you think is the case. Please make it convincing.
No really. I'm going to go watch some Alex Jones and Seventh Day Adventist videos about how the Pope is the Antichrist. Take your time. Lay out all your best evidence in the most compelling fashion. I will come back in a few hours and see what you have to present to me in the way of compelling evidence for... whatever you think is the case. Please make it convincing.
Anonymous G replied with this 7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #914,045
@previous (H)
No. I've already explained it. The leak is no different than previous leaks. I don't think it was Russians. I think it was an American insider just like previous American insider leaks.
No. I've already explained it. The leak is no different than previous leaks. I don't think it was Russians. I think it was an American insider just like previous American insider leaks.
Kook !!a6qjFG7HF joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 10 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #914,049
@914,043 (H)
Why does it seem outlandish that the leaders might be insiders instead of Russians?
Why does it seem outlandish that the leaders might be insiders instead of Russians?
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 7 years ago, 47 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #914,053
@914,045 (G)
Okay I'm back and I'm ready to look at your evidence.
> No. I've already explained it.
No you haven't. You said it was somebody. That's nice. Do you have a real theory?
@previous (Kook !!a6qjFG7HF)
> Why does it seem outlandish that the leaders might be insiders instead of Russians?
I don't know. Why doesn't it? What do you mean by "the leaders" or "insiders"? There seems to be a lot of corroboration from US intelligence that Russia was involved in some way. Do you think it was an inside job by deep-state Obama-Hillary supporters? Maybe shadow people were involved?
Okay I'm back and I'm ready to look at your evidence.
> No. I've already explained it.
No you haven't. You said it was somebody. That's nice. Do you have a real theory?
@previous (Kook !!a6qjFG7HF)
> Why does it seem outlandish that the leaders might be insiders instead of Russians?
I don't know. Why doesn't it? What do you mean by "the leaders" or "insiders"? There seems to be a lot of corroboration from US intelligence that Russia was involved in some way. Do you think it was an inside job by deep-state Obama-Hillary supporters? Maybe shadow people were involved?
Anonymous G replied with this 7 years ago, 14 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #914,055
@914,049 (Kook !!a6qjFG7HF)
Some people don't like the most obvious answer, that it's an insider like usual, so they look for Russians under the bed or something.
Some people don't like the most obvious answer, that it's an insider like usual, so they look for Russians under the bed or something.
Anonymous H replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #914,058
Anonymous G replied with this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #914,059
Anonymous H replied with this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #914,061
@previous (G)
I'm honestly telling you to put all the evidence out here. Let's talk about it. I want to be convinced. I'm skeptical, but that shouldn't be be a problem if you are willing to show me the truth. Lay it all out right here. Make a big "It's Obviously Not Russia!" thread if you like. Put all the evidence out here and show me.
I'm honestly telling you to put all the evidence out here. Let's talk about it. I want to be convinced. I'm skeptical, but that shouldn't be be a problem if you are willing to show me the truth. Lay it all out right here. Make a big "It's Obviously Not Russia!" thread if you like. Put all the evidence out here and show me.
MR MIKE PENCE joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 9 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #914,099
Kook !!a6qjFG7HF replied with this 7 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #914,268
Kook !!a6qjFG7HF double-posted this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #914,269
@914,053 (H)
I don't know why you're bringing up shadow people like that helps your point at all? We have had many non Russian leakers, so it wouldn't be strange to have another
I don't know why you're bringing up shadow people like that helps your point at all? We have had many non Russian leakers, so it wouldn't be strange to have another
Anonymous H replied with this 7 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #914,285
@previous (Kook !!a6qjFG7HF)
Sorry I brought up shadow people. That was kind of unfair. All the talk of "the leaders" and "insiders" lead me to assume that you thought some cabal of people were behind it all. I didn't know that leakers was autocorrecting to leaders.
So, I have no problem believing that it wasn't Russians, except for the evidence. I'm not sure why there are so many people willing to look at evidence and basically hand-wave away any indication that Russians were involved. Especially after evidence just keeps coming out. Evidence that Russian-linked organizations bought Facebook ads, or had armies of Twitter bots, or after details about Guccifer 2.0, Levashov, or any of the Russians indicted. I don't understand the willingness not to see any of this and continue to think "Well I guess it could be anyone..." like some Polyanna.
There is a difference between being skeptical and being a contrarian. Skeptics ask you to convince them with some kind of plausible argument. Contrarians just try to shut down any argument against their position. I feel like enough evidence has already been presented to make the idea of some Russian involvement pretty likely even in the face of some skepticism. The people furiously denying Russian involvement and pointing fingers at literally ANYONE else look guilty as shit at this point. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I'd love to hear a convincing argument to that effect.
Sorry I brought up shadow people. That was kind of unfair. All the talk of "the leaders" and "insiders" lead me to assume that you thought some cabal of people were behind it all. I didn't know that leakers was autocorrecting to leaders.
So, I have no problem believing that it wasn't Russians, except for the evidence. I'm not sure why there are so many people willing to look at evidence and basically hand-wave away any indication that Russians were involved. Especially after evidence just keeps coming out. Evidence that Russian-linked organizations bought Facebook ads, or had armies of Twitter bots, or after details about Guccifer 2.0, Levashov, or any of the Russians indicted. I don't understand the willingness not to see any of this and continue to think "Well I guess it could be anyone..." like some Polyanna.
There is a difference between being skeptical and being a contrarian. Skeptics ask you to convince them with some kind of plausible argument. Contrarians just try to shut down any argument against their position. I feel like enough evidence has already been presented to make the idea of some Russian involvement pretty likely even in the face of some skepticism. The people furiously denying Russian involvement and pointing fingers at literally ANYONE else look guilty as shit at this point. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I'd love to hear a convincing argument to that effect.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #914,289
Anonymous H replied with this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #914,292
@previous (O)
Please see multiple DOJ indictments, Facebook's or Twitter's public statements on the matter, US Senate findings, or just about anything you can dig up if you take your head out of the sand a little bit.
Please see multiple DOJ indictments, Facebook's or Twitter's public statements on the matter, US Senate findings, or just about anything you can dig up if you take your head out of the sand a little bit.
Anonymous O replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #914,294
@previous (H)
> He thinks indictments are evidence
You know that's not how it works, right? Do you think they are going to go to the discovery phase with KGB agents and their lawyers next too?
> He thinks indictments are evidence
You know that's not how it works, right? Do you think they are going to go to the discovery phase with KGB agents and their lawyers next too?
Anonymous H replied with this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #914,295
@previous (O)
> Do you think they are going to go to the discovery phase with KGB agents
No, that's a naive question. The Russians indicted are going to be safe in Russia where they work.
Do you think these indictments are made without evidence? Why? On what basis are you asserting this? What about all the other things I mentioned? Why would a reasonable person not think there is evidence pointing to Russia?
> Do you think they are going to go to the discovery phase with KGB agents
No, that's a naive question. The Russians indicted are going to be safe in Russia where they work.
Do you think these indictments are made without evidence? Why? On what basis are you asserting this? What about all the other things I mentioned? Why would a reasonable person not think there is evidence pointing to Russia?
Anonymous O replied with this 7 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #914,298
@previous (H)
Because Mueller indicted a ham sandwich. Literally. A fucking catering company that didn't exist at the time.
Everyone knows that the indictments will never go to court. These bogus indictments happened to coincide with a Trump visit to Moscow.
It's not evidence. There is no evidence. If there was any evidence, ANYTHING AT ALL, I guarantee you the entire world would know about it and it wouldn't be hidden in some phony indictment that will never go to court and have to actually produce said evidence for examination.
BTW, Facebook and Twitter didn't hack the DNC with posting bots either, kid.
Because Mueller indicted a ham sandwich. Literally. A fucking catering company that didn't exist at the time.
Everyone knows that the indictments will never go to court. These bogus indictments happened to coincide with a Trump visit to Moscow.
It's not evidence. There is no evidence. If there was any evidence, ANYTHING AT ALL, I guarantee you the entire world would know about it and it wouldn't be hidden in some phony indictment that will never go to court and have to actually produce said evidence for examination.
BTW, Facebook and Twitter didn't hack the DNC with posting bots either, kid.
Anonymous H replied with this 7 years ago, 38 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #914,303
@previous (O)
See, it's that. It's that weird insistence that there's no evidence at all. There's a lot of actual evidence, if you look around. It's the claiming that there's nothing to see that makes it seem shady. It's not just one indictment, or one claim by someone that Facebook something something ads, or Twitter bots. It's a lot of evidence that's piled up about social media, and various Russians, bot herders, and GRU.
If you had some story about how Russians were involved up to some point, it might seem plausible. I'm perfectly willing to believe that Russia did some stuff because Putin didn't want Hillary and the Clintons anywhere near the levers of power in the US. That makes sense. That is mostly what is playing out in the realm of evidence for Russian involvement.
It's your weird presentation of it as some false dichotomy that it either was Russia or it wasn't. We live in an era where this is a plausible reality, and it looks like Russia probably did some stuff that might have effected the 2016 election. Once you throw in the connections with Russia the Trump administration repeatedly denied, then went back on, then denied again, then Trump Jr. tweeted out the emails, then a bunch of Trump's campaign got accused/plead guilty to connections with Russia, it looks down-right suspicious.
So, it looks like you're just pissing in the wind trying to claim that Russia wasn't involved at all, because it's been admitted already that they did. I'd love to hear some theories about how I'm wrong though.
See, it's that. It's that weird insistence that there's no evidence at all. There's a lot of actual evidence, if you look around. It's the claiming that there's nothing to see that makes it seem shady. It's not just one indictment, or one claim by someone that Facebook something something ads, or Twitter bots. It's a lot of evidence that's piled up about social media, and various Russians, bot herders, and GRU.
If you had some story about how Russians were involved up to some point, it might seem plausible. I'm perfectly willing to believe that Russia did some stuff because Putin didn't want Hillary and the Clintons anywhere near the levers of power in the US. That makes sense. That is mostly what is playing out in the realm of evidence for Russian involvement.
It's your weird presentation of it as some false dichotomy that it either was Russia or it wasn't. We live in an era where this is a plausible reality, and it looks like Russia probably did some stuff that might have effected the 2016 election. Once you throw in the connections with Russia the Trump administration repeatedly denied, then went back on, then denied again, then Trump Jr. tweeted out the emails, then a bunch of Trump's campaign got accused/plead guilty to connections with Russia, it looks down-right suspicious.
So, it looks like you're just pissing in the wind trying to claim that Russia wasn't involved at all, because it's been admitted already that they did. I'd love to hear some theories about how I'm wrong though.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous O replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #914,309
@previous (H)
I'm sorry that vague references and hints at possible circumstantial evidence is all you need to believe a story is true.
If 2 years and $20 million and an FBI investigation can only come up with a wet blanket indictment that wont go to court, then I call bullshit. You can't just say it's Russia and then not provide any actual evidence. That's not good enough. It shouldn't be good enough for you either.
Manafort was found guilty on 8 out of 18 counts of bank fraud, false tax returns etc from 2008 to 2014. So what? Nothing... The FBI looked around DC and found a guy fudging his loan applications? Give me a break... His next trial is for alleged money laundering etc and is connected to Ukraine. Ukraine isn't Russia, dummy. Thats like trying to blame Israel and finding someone who worked with Palestinians. "Israel hacked the election! Look, here's a guy with ties to Palestinians in 2014" That's a big fucking nope from me he has anything to do with Russia and I'm yet to see any actual evidence of that happening anyway.
Cohen made a plea bargain. That does not mean there is any evidence that he is guilty of anything. That's not how plea bargains work. He never went to trial, no evidence was presented, no judge, no jury, no verdict. Nothing... That's not how it works! He made a plea bargain for things lawyers are arguing aren't even actual crimes because you can pay off whores! You just can't use campaign funds to do it! Stormy Daniels is not fucking Russian!
Dude, that's it so far. That's the Mueller investigation...... And what? All you have is Facebook trolls and twitter bots??? China probably has more Facebook trolls and Twitter bots than Russia, North Korea and Iran combined. Go bark up that tree and circumstantial your way back here completely convinced of something rational people can easily dismiss.
I'm sorry that vague references and hints at possible circumstantial evidence is all you need to believe a story is true.
If 2 years and $20 million and an FBI investigation can only come up with a wet blanket indictment that wont go to court, then I call bullshit. You can't just say it's Russia and then not provide any actual evidence. That's not good enough. It shouldn't be good enough for you either.
Manafort was found guilty on 8 out of 18 counts of bank fraud, false tax returns etc from 2008 to 2014. So what? Nothing... The FBI looked around DC and found a guy fudging his loan applications? Give me a break... His next trial is for alleged money laundering etc and is connected to Ukraine. Ukraine isn't Russia, dummy. Thats like trying to blame Israel and finding someone who worked with Palestinians. "Israel hacked the election! Look, here's a guy with ties to Palestinians in 2014" That's a big fucking nope from me he has anything to do with Russia and I'm yet to see any actual evidence of that happening anyway.
Cohen made a plea bargain. That does not mean there is any evidence that he is guilty of anything. That's not how plea bargains work. He never went to trial, no evidence was presented, no judge, no jury, no verdict. Nothing... That's not how it works! He made a plea bargain for things lawyers are arguing aren't even actual crimes because you can pay off whores! You just can't use campaign funds to do it! Stormy Daniels is not fucking Russian!
Dude, that's it so far. That's the Mueller investigation...... And what? All you have is Facebook trolls and twitter bots??? China probably has more Facebook trolls and Twitter bots than Russia, North Korea and Iran combined. Go bark up that tree and circumstantial your way back here completely convinced of something rational people can easily dismiss.
Anonymous H replied with this 7 years ago, 38 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #914,311
@previous (O)
See I'm not so focused on the Mueller investigation, although I think it will probably go somewhere. And it's obviously going toward Russia, because of all the indictments and that's kind of the point of the whole thing. Although, it's nice of you to anticipate.
The problem is the consistent theme of Russian ties. Via family members, Flynn, Manafort, Sater, Rohrabacher, members of the administration STILL MAKING TRIPS TO MOSCOW. It is all a little fishy. And the fact that Trump et al. lied about it, backpedalled, lied about it again, and continues to backpedal with each new revelation despite having been caught backpedalling before look guilty as fuck.
I'm willing to give them the benefit the doubt. I personally don't think Donald Trump could mastermind a trip to Burger King without fucking it up somehow. But it looks like there were a lot of shady deals made in his administration and his team of "best people" that includes his son-in-law, his daughter, and a rotating staff of people pleading guilty to things doesn't look great. I'm sure he knew about a lot of it and didn't care. Much like he doesn't care when he says one thing and then says another thing and then pretends he never said that first thing. Which he has done over and over.
Trump in Helsinki didn't help. Putin may as well have walked out and bit Trump on the neck while peeing on Melania. The US looked seriously compromised in that moment. Trump's "would really means wouldn't" just made him look like a weak piece of shit who is scared of Putin.
I'm not saying Russia orchestrated everything. It's not an all or nothing proposition. But to think Russia isn't involved seems naive.
See I'm not so focused on the Mueller investigation, although I think it will probably go somewhere. And it's obviously going toward Russia, because of all the indictments and that's kind of the point of the whole thing. Although, it's nice of you to anticipate.
The problem is the consistent theme of Russian ties. Via family members, Flynn, Manafort, Sater, Rohrabacher, members of the administration STILL MAKING TRIPS TO MOSCOW. It is all a little fishy. And the fact that Trump et al. lied about it, backpedalled, lied about it again, and continues to backpedal with each new revelation despite having been caught backpedalling before look guilty as fuck.
I'm willing to give them the benefit the doubt. I personally don't think Donald Trump could mastermind a trip to Burger King without fucking it up somehow. But it looks like there were a lot of shady deals made in his administration and his team of "best people" that includes his son-in-law, his daughter, and a rotating staff of people pleading guilty to things doesn't look great. I'm sure he knew about a lot of it and didn't care. Much like he doesn't care when he says one thing and then says another thing and then pretends he never said that first thing. Which he has done over and over.
Trump in Helsinki didn't help. Putin may as well have walked out and bit Trump on the neck while peeing on Melania. The US looked seriously compromised in that moment. Trump's "would really means wouldn't" just made him look like a weak piece of shit who is scared of Putin.
I'm not saying Russia orchestrated everything. It's not an all or nothing proposition. But to think Russia isn't involved seems naive.
Anonymous O replied with this 7 years ago, 30 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #914,312
@previous (H)
So no evidence is all the evidence you need. And the two year $20 million investigation looking for evidence but not finding any is evidence that the evidence is hiding somewhere "because things don't look great" and "there is a consistent theme"
Holy fucking shit. Stop watching CNN.
So no evidence is all the evidence you need. And the two year $20 million investigation looking for evidence but not finding any is evidence that the evidence is hiding somewhere "because things don't look great" and "there is a consistent theme"
Holy fucking shit. Stop watching CNN.
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #914,323
@913,906 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I have a similar feeling. I'm honestly baffled at and disturbed by present-day conservatives. It's like they've decided that the more unstable and egotistical and xenophobic a leader is, the better. It's hard to respect someone who sees this movement, and decides that it's the best way forward.
On a logical level, I know that they aren't all that bad. Some of them were misled, or at the very least think that Trump et. al. are the "lesser evil" next to normal candidates. They're not all sadists like /pol/ or the New Zealand anon. But for all of the cruelty and irrationality that the typical alt-right leaders exude, their followers do not look good.
I have a similar feeling. I'm honestly baffled at and disturbed by present-day conservatives. It's like they've decided that the more unstable and egotistical and xenophobic a leader is, the better. It's hard to respect someone who sees this movement, and decides that it's the best way forward.
On a logical level, I know that they aren't all that bad. Some of them were misled, or at the very least think that Trump et. al. are the "lesser evil" next to normal candidates. They're not all sadists like /pol/ or the New Zealand anon. But for all of the cruelty and irrationality that the typical alt-right leaders exude, their followers do not look good.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 7 years ago, 9 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #914,415
@914,312 (O)
There's been a consistent link to Russia. US Intelligence has been saying that since late 2016. Go read the unclassified version of their report for January 2017. You can go watch all 2+ hours of the interview with the SSCI from February of this year where the heads of the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the director of National Intelligence say it over and over again to members of the US Senate. You can go read the unclassified version of the Senate committee's preliminary assessment. No one is "on the fence" about Russian involvement.
You can look at what Papadopoulos has already signed off on and admitted to in regards to meeting with Russians about thousands of emails and trying to set up meetings between the Trump Campaign and Russian officials. You can look at any number of press reports about the Trump Tower meeting, the emails Trump Jr. tweeted out, and the President himself saying that the campaign went with the intention of gathering information damaging to Clinton. Combine that with the timing of Trump's statements during 2016, and it all starts to look suspicious.
I'm not saying it looks shady just for fun. I'm saying it looks shady because it fucking looks shady. It's hard to look at the timeline of events and conclude that the Trump Campaign had no idea what was going on.
There's been a consistent link to Russia. US Intelligence has been saying that since late 2016. Go read the unclassified version of their report for January 2017. You can go watch all 2+ hours of the interview with the SSCI from February of this year where the heads of the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the director of National Intelligence say it over and over again to members of the US Senate. You can go read the unclassified version of the Senate committee's preliminary assessment. No one is "on the fence" about Russian involvement.
You can look at what Papadopoulos has already signed off on and admitted to in regards to meeting with Russians about thousands of emails and trying to set up meetings between the Trump Campaign and Russian officials. You can look at any number of press reports about the Trump Tower meeting, the emails Trump Jr. tweeted out, and the President himself saying that the campaign went with the intention of gathering information damaging to Clinton. Combine that with the timing of Trump's statements during 2016, and it all starts to look suspicious.
I'm not saying it looks shady just for fun. I'm saying it looks shady because it fucking looks shady. It's hard to look at the timeline of events and conclude that the Trump Campaign had no idea what was going on.
Anonymous G replied with this 7 years ago, 40 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #914,425
@previous (H)Post a link to the peepee dossier. That's the real kicker. That is the doccument that started the whole Russian narrative.