Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-30-2019, 05:10 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Everyone agrees Bill stole some money. You say Bill's stealing some money was not enough to explain why you beat Ted in the "fortune contest". A court then declares Dave stole from you. You say investigate Dave. You are charged with requesting an investigation into Dave, and your statement that Bill didn't help you win against Ted is misconstrued as a denial that Bill stole money.
Right, but Bill gave the money to Dave before he stole it from you, and then Dave deposited the money in an interest-bearing account at Ted's bank. But you hired Dave to investigate Bill, without realizing that Bill and Dave are identical twins, and that they were both Ted's lovers before Ted was involved in a motorcycle accident that gave him amnesia, and if he ever recovers from the amnesia, he'll reveal the whole thing, which is why you don't want Ted to testify.
  #52  
Old 12-30-2019, 05:13 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Russian military intelligence hacked the DNC server and John Podesta’s email and released the contents by Wikileaks in order to damage to the Clinton campaign.

Jesus fucking Christ, it’s like talking to people who haven’t read a newspaper in the last half-decade.
There's no evidence that Russia hacked the DNC and provided those emails to Wikileaks who latter released them.

Quote:
Nearly three years have passed, however, and no one has produced forensic evidence of a DNC “hack” by “the Russians”—and that includes special counsel Robert Mueller, whose 2018 indictment of a dozen or so Russians presents zero evidence to support his accusations. Not even the FBI discovered evidence of any hack at the DNC because, in part, the nation’s federal law enforcement body never examined the DNC’s computer servers.
The Big Lie About ‘Russian’ ‘Hacking’
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #53  
Old 12-30-2019, 05:15 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I'm not sure how you managed to reach that conclusion from that analogy, but let's assume you're right. Let's also assume Trump didn't say what I quoted and linked about his position on Russian interference. Let's ignore the Mueller report conclusions. Let's ignore the 17 intelligence agencies agreeing on who meddled in the 2016 election. Let's ignore ALL that, and more.

Let's focus on the following:
1) Trump lost the majority vote.
2) Trump won by a total of ~80,000 votes combined across three states
3) Russia only needed to convince 0.0615% of the voting public with social media lies.

A far larger % of the public believes in ghosts. Do you really believe it was that big a challenge for Russia to find a handful of useful idiots?
Great analysis! You should have been on Clinton's campaign staff so that her billions could have been spent more wisely.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #54  
Old 12-30-2019, 05:16 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,475
EasyPhil cites [snicker]The Epoch Times[/snicker]

Last edited by Czarcasm; 12-30-2019 at 05:18 PM.
  #55  
Old 12-30-2019, 05:26 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
There's no evidence that Russia hacked the DNC and provided those emails to Wikileaks who latter released them.



The Big Lie About ‘Russian’ ‘Hacking’
I can count on you to cite flat earth scientific papers if it would help Trump.
  #56  
Old 12-30-2019, 05:33 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Everyone agrees Bill stole some money. You say Bill's stealing some money was not enough to explain why you beat Ted in the "fortune contest". A court then declares Dave stole from you. You say investigate Dave. You are charged with requesting an investigation into Dave, and your statement that Bill didn't help you win against Ted is misconstrued as a denial that Bill stole money.
Well, again, that sounds like a good defense: you misunderstood me. I didn't say that Bill didn't steal money, I just said that Dave also did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I'm not sure how you managed to reach that conclusion from that analogy, but let's assume you're right. Let's also assume Trump didn't say what I quoted and linked about his position on Russian interference. Let's ignore the Mueller report conclusions. Let's ignore the 17 intelligence agencies agreeing on who meddled in the 2016 election. Let's ignore ALL that, and more.

Let's focus on the following:
1) Trump lost the majority vote.
2) Trump won by a total of ~80,000 votes combined across three states
3) Russia only needed to convince 0.0615% of the voting public with social media lies.

A far larger % of the public believes in ghosts. Do you really believe it was that big a challenge for Russia to find a handful of useful idiots?
So, election interference only depends on the margin of victory? If the same exact things happened in 1984 on behalf of Reagan but he wins 59-41 then nothing to see here, no crime?

I think the prior poster's point is well taken. A scary sounding term like "interfering in the election" implies far more than a few stupid memes. I mean, not that I like foreign countries having any say in selecting our representatives, but with the global nature of the internet, such mild influences cannot be stopped, in either direction. I was going to say short of war, but even with war you couldn't stop it.
  #57  
Old 12-30-2019, 06:14 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
It's an analogy, Trump denies Russia helping him win the election but doesn't mean he doesn't believe Russia interfered and doesn't mean that Ukraine didn't interfere as well.
Of course, we don't know what the President believes in his heart of hearts but he can be quoted as saying that he doesn't believe that Russia interfered.

Quote:
Additionally, no one has explained the mechanics of how Russia helped Trump win, facebook ads, memes? Really?!
a) I once read a story about a man who went to a voodoo priest and asked to be made invisible. The priest had him strip down and rubbed (magic) lemon juice all over him. Following, the man went to a bank, asked them to hand over their money, was dragged out by the security guards, and arrested for bank robbery.

Was his plan solid? No. Did he ever have any realistic chance of success? No. Did he go to jail? Yes.

Neither competence nor success is a component of committing a crime. One might even say that incompetence is a strong component of going to jail.

b) The intelligence unit of the Russian army hacked into the DNC, looking for information on the Democrat's campaign strategy and anything scandalous. They shared the former with some Republican candidates and Roger Stone (aka The Trump Campaign) and published the latter to WikiLeaks.

In either case, this is the exact sort of operation that Richard Nixon's American born and bred operatives were trying to conduct when they raided the DNC headquarters in the Watergate building. It is widely accepted that this sort of thing is "not kosher", let alone when conducted by foreign operatives, and any President who was allowing of such activities by anyone is a disgrace to the Constitution, the flag, and humanity in general. And, one might note, the Watergate bandits failed in their mission and ultimately had no effect on the election.

In the latter case, there did end up being embarrassing information released, indicating that the DNC had buried Sanders and made him unable to compete against Hillary. One could envision this depressing Democratic turnout.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-30-2019 at 06:18 PM.
  #58  
Old 12-30-2019, 06:21 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
There's no evidence that Russia hacked the DNC and provided those emails to Wikileaks who latter released them.

The Big Lie About ‘Russian’ ‘Hacking’
So... Your belief is that we should release our sources and means for spying on Russia and detecting Russian hacking - to try and prevent it - to the general public?

Care to make an argument in favor?

Personally, I would argue that that would be stuuuuuupid, but I remain open to being convinced.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-30-2019 at 06:23 PM.
  #59  
Old 12-30-2019, 07:36 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,649
The way you keep saying “Ukrainian Court”, like it means something roughly analogous to a US court or British court, is incredibly naive.

It doesn’t. Ukraine is not considered a “rule of law” country. The Ukrainian justice system is incredibly corrupt, It’s not just a matter of a few corrupt individuals. It’s not a matter of a lot of corrupt individuals. The corruption is baked into the entire system. It’s an artifact of the oligarchy, basically anyone that holds any power or owns anything of substance came into it originally by corrupt means. It’s a perpetually tricky situation from a diplomatic / foreign relations POV and it isn’t helping matters that the Republicans are taking advantage of the average American’s relative ignorance of foreign affairs with all their gaslighting.

I doubt Ukraine’s purpose in busting Manafort had much, if anything, to do with the US election. Manafort’s history would've made him a huge political enemy of the Ukrainians in power in 2016.

It’s no secret that lots of Ukrainians dislike Trump. In 2016 Trump publicly called for Ukraine to concede the Crimean peninsula to Russia. Some top Ukrainian official, who were against giving a large swath of their nation to their worst enemy, wrote op-ed’s pushing back against the idea.

These articles are now being cited by Republicans as evidence that the Ukrainian government had it in for Trump. Please note that this is a classic Trump move. Say or condone something so outrageously horrible that your target is guaranteed to push back against, then use that pushback as evidence that your target hates you, then retaliate.

And please remember that Russia is dead serious about their mission of gaslighting Ukraine. They shot down a commercial airliner so they could blame it Ukraine.

And even if Ukraine did interfere in some minor way, so what? Does that mean they’re obligated to cheat FOR Trump this time? Does that make it OK for Trump to shake down their president? And why do you and your red state cohort suddenly think election interference isn’t OK?

No one is working under the illusion the Ukraine is perfect. They are really corrupt. We aren’t helping them because their leader thinks our leader is brilliant. We aren’t helping them because we “like” them. We help them for reasons like “they are strategically important to the energy security of Western Europe and the entire world.”

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 12-30-2019 at 07:37 PM.
  #60  
Old 12-30-2019, 08:26 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Of course, we don't know what the President believes in his heart of hearts but he can be quoted as saying that he doesn't believe that Russia interfered.



a) I once read a story about a man who went to a voodoo priest and asked to be made invisible. The priest had him strip down and rubbed (magic) lemon juice all over him. Following, the man went to a bank, asked them to hand over their money, was dragged out by the security guards, and arrested for bank robbery.

Was his plan solid? No. Did he ever have any realistic chance of success? No. Did he go to jail? Yes.

Neither competence nor success is a component of committing a crime. One might even say that incompetence is a strong component of going to jail.

b) The intelligence unit of the Russian army hacked into the DNC, looking for information on the Democrat's campaign strategy and anything scandalous. They shared the former with some Republican candidates and Roger Stone (aka The Trump Campaign) and published the latter to WikiLeaks.

In either case, this is the exact sort of operation that Richard Nixon's American born and bred operatives were trying to conduct when they raided the DNC headquarters in the Watergate building. It is widely accepted that this sort of thing is "not kosher", let alone when conducted by foreign operatives, and any President who was allowing of such activities by anyone is a disgrace to the Constitution, the flag, and humanity in general. And, one might note, the Watergate bandits failed in their mission and ultimately had no effect on the election.

In the latter case, there did end up being embarrassing information released, indicating that the DNC had buried Sanders and made him unable to compete against Hillary. One could envision this depressing Democratic turnout.
No, I'm sorry, you don't know that the Russians provided those emails to WikiLeaks. Wikileaks denied it and there is no evidence to support it. Even the Mueller report hedges its bets, here's a great article on this.

CrowdStrikeOut: Mueller’s Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia-Meddling Claims

Quote:
The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.

The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.

There is strong reason to doubt Mueller’s suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.

Mueller’s decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.

U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.

Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.

Mueller’s report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).

Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.

John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller’s investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #61  
Old 12-30-2019, 09:00 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
No, I'm sorry, you don't know that the Russians provided those emails to WikiLeaks. Wikileaks denied it and there is no evidence to support it.
Ok, comrade.
...
Wait, so the working theory is that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election by noting that Trump’s campaign manager was a crook? THIS is what the GOP claims is foreign interference?

Quote:
Originally Posted by That NY Times link
In 2016, while Mr. Manafort was chairman of the Trump campaign, anti-corruption prosecutors in Ukraine disclosed that a pro-Russian political party had earmarked payments for Mr. Manafort from an illegal slush fund. Mr. Manafort resigned from the campaign a week later.
  #62  
Old 12-30-2019, 09:33 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Why would he stop when he has so many useful helpers at his disposal?
Not saying that he would. Just observing how, after nearly two centuries and multiple regime changes, Russia is still playing it and expanding it from Central.Asia. The only major change was to add the U.S. as a player. As I recall, but cannot find the cites without investing more effort than I care to, MacNamara and JFK's other Whiz Kids felt it was up to them to pick up the game from the faltering British.
  #63  
Old 12-30-2019, 09:53 PM
Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
A scary sounding term like "interfering in the election" implies far more than a few stupid memes.
It has been pointed out to you numerous times in multiple threads that the Russian effort in 2016 went far beyond a few stupid memes. For example, there is evidence that they tried to electronically access voting infrastructure in every single county in Florida. That is, in fact, far more than a few stupid memes.

Did you forget?
  #64  
Old 12-30-2019, 10:04 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
It has been pointed out to you numerous times in multiple threads that the Russian effort in 2016 went far beyond a few stupid memes. For example, there is evidence that they tried to electronically access voting infrastructure in every single county in Florida. That is, in fact, far more than a few stupid memes.

Did you forget?
There was also money laundering through the NRA

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/27/76487...report-reveals

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.van...sian-money/amp

Last edited by Moriarty; 12-30-2019 at 10:06 PM.
  #65  
Old 12-30-2019, 10:15 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
It has been pointed out to you numerous times in multiple threads that the Russian effort in 2016 went far beyond a few stupid memes. For example, there is evidence that they tried to electronically access voting infrastructure in every single county in Florida. That is, in fact, far more than a few stupid memes.

Did you forget?
Do you mean this?

Mueller Report: FBI Thinks Russia Got Into Florida County Network Ahead of 2016 Election

Quote:
"We understand the FBI believes that this operation enabled the GRU to gain access to the network of at least one Florida county government," the report said. "The Office did not independently verify that belief and, as explained above, did not undertake the investigative steps that would have been necessary to do so."
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #66  
Old 12-30-2019, 10:16 PM
Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
There was also money laundering through the NRA
There was also a ton of other things. Every few months UltraVires tries to minimize the Russian interference in the 2016 election as "mean things on Facebook" or similar. Then twenty or so posters present examples of Russian interference that go well beyond Facebook and demonstrate that Facebook was only a tiny slice of the massive undertaking that was Russian interference in the 2016 election. UltraVires will then fade out of the thread without acknowledging any of those posts only to pop up and do it all again six months down the road.
  #67  
Old 12-30-2019, 10:17 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Oh Maria Butina, the "Natasha" of Rocky & Bullwinkle?
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #68  
Old 12-30-2019, 10:18 PM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
There was also a ton of other things. Every few months UltraVires tries to minimize the Russian interference in the 2016 election as "mean things on Facebook" or similar. Then twenty or so posters present examples of Russian interference that go well beyond Facebook and demonstrate that Facebook was only a tiny slice of the massive undertaking that was Russian interference in the 2016 election. UltraVires will then fade out of the thread without acknowledging any of those posts only to pop up and do it all again six months down the road.
I didn't see any of this "massive" stuff outlined in the Mueller report and that was his exact mandate to investigate. Where's the beef?
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #69  
Old 12-30-2019, 10:35 PM
Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
I didn't see any of this "massive" stuff outlined in the Mueller report and that was his exact mandate to investigate. Where's the beef?
The beef starts on page 50 of volume 1 of the Mueller report.

Here's the chunk about Florida...

Quote:
Similarly, in November 2016 , the GRU sent spearphishing emails to over 120 email accounts used by Florida county officials responsible for administering the 2016 U .S. election. 191 The spearphishing emails contained an attached Word document coded with malicious software (commonly referred to as a Trojan) that permitted the GRU to access the infected computer. 192 The FBI was separately responsible for this investigation. We understand the FBI believes that this operation enabled the GRU to gain access to the network of at least one Florida county government.
This is just one example, but the point is this is clearly a crime, even if an American did it, and definitely has nothing to do with Facebook. This and many, many other aspects of the massive Russian operation have been pointed out to UltraVires before, but for some reason he insists that it was just, "Facebook memes."

It's absurd.
  #70  
Old 12-31-2019, 12:00 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,347
Be plausible enough to chalk up some of those voting database incursions as poking around and trying to find out what they could do, rather than actually setting out to do it. What concerns me more is the ability to target disinformation to vulnerable segments of the population.

Reagan talking about welfare queens in Cadillacs? Outdated, obsolete. Today, its a FB ad about how Hillary kidnapped Bernie's grandchildren and enslaved them on one of her pizza shop sex farms.

Progress!
  #71  
Old 12-31-2019, 12:22 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
No, I'm sorry, you don't know that the Russians provided those emails to WikiLeaks. Wikileaks denied it and there is no evidence to support it. Even the Mueller report hedges its bets, here's a great article on this.

CrowdStrikeOut: Mueller’s Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia-Meddling Claims
Let's say that I tell you that studies have been performed that show that 80% of rape accusations have been proven to have been true, 5% were pure slander, and the other 15% could not be established.

Now, a particular man, Roger, has been accused of rape by ten different women. There is no indication that they know each other.

Woman by woman, there's up to a 20% chance that their testimony adds nothing. Mary could be lying, Joanne could be lying, Barbara could be lying, Mandi could be lying, and so on.

But Roger is a rapist.

At an 80% probability across 10 independent reports, the probability that Roger is innocent is 0.00001024%. That is science and math. Our 80% value was generated by an independent research effort that has no relationship to the case at hand. The calculation to reach 0.00001024% is simple math. It's 20^10 / 100^10 because those are the areas of the hypercube for the "10 liars" option and the hypercube for all possible options. If even one woman is telling the truth, when the other nine are lying, Roger is still a rapist.

In science, sleuthing, or anything else, proof is achieved through a preponderance of evidence. "Preponderance" does not mean "I have a video tape of the guy doing it". It means, "I have a bunch of independent factoids that, alone, mean nothing. But, viewing them as a whole and running some odds, we have a certain thing even if some elements of evidence prove to have been wrong."

Feel free to go through that article and assign probabilities.

What are the odds, for example, that someone else (see footnote 136 on page 41 of the Mueller report), other than Russia, also hacked into the DNC, also stopped their hacking operation on or around the same day that Russia stopped, also would be motivated to use WikiLeaks as a front?

Yeah, each of those items independently could happen. But the only person to write an article that tries to convince you to consider all those elements independently and exclusive of one another is someone whose job it is to generate political spin to mislead those who want to be mislead.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-31-2019 at 12:27 AM.
  #72  
Old 12-31-2019, 12:45 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
It has been pointed out to you numerous times in multiple threads that the Russian effort in 2016 went far beyond a few stupid memes. For example, there is evidence that they tried to electronically access voting infrastructure in every single county in Florida.
(emphasis added)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
Do you mean this?

Mueller Report: FBI Thinks Russia Got Into Florida County Network Ahead of 2016 Election
Quote:
"We understand the FBI believes that this operation enabled the GRU to gain access to the network of at least one Florida county government," the report said. "The Office did not independently verify that belief and, as explained above, did not undertake the investigative steps that would have been necessary to do so."
(emphasis added)

Why would you ask such a foolish question?
  #73  
Old 12-31-2019, 01:52 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Looks like you are stuck with Russia AND Ukraine interfering.
Don't forget Albania — its Fakebook entrepreneurs make it a strong candidate for a medal in the Small Country category.

Of course, by far the hugest amount of 2016 election frauds and crimes were committed down there in the Yewnited States.
  #74  
Old 12-31-2019, 07:10 AM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Let's say that I tell you that studies have been performed that show that 80% of rape accusations have been proven to have been true, 5% were pure slander, and the other 15% could not be established.

Now, a particular man, Roger, has been accused of rape by ten different women. There is no indication that they know each other.

Woman by woman, there's up to a 20% chance that their testimony adds nothing. Mary could be lying, Joanne could be lying, Barbara could be lying, Mandi could be lying, and so on.

But Roger is a rapist.

At an 80% probability across 10 independent reports, the probability that Roger is innocent is 0.00001024%. That is science and math. Our 80% value was generated by an independent research effort that has no relationship to the case at hand. The calculation to reach 0.00001024% is simple math. It's 20^10 / 100^10 because those are the areas of the hypercube for the "10 liars" option and the hypercube for all possible options. If even one woman is telling the truth, when the other nine are lying, Roger is still a rapist.

In science, sleuthing, or anything else, proof is achieved through a preponderance of evidence. "Preponderance" does not mean "I have a video tape of the guy doing it". It means, "I have a bunch of independent factoids that, alone, mean nothing. But, viewing them as a whole and running some odds, we have a certain thing even if some elements of evidence prove to have been wrong."

Feel free to go through that article and assign probabilities.

What are the odds, for example, that someone else (see footnote 136 on page 41 of the Mueller report), other than Russia, also hacked into the DNC, also stopped their hacking operation on or around the same day that Russia stopped, also would be motivated to use WikiLeaks as a front?

Yeah, each of those items independently could happen. But the only person to write an article that tries to convince you to consider all those elements independently and exclusive of one another is someone whose job it is to generate political spin to mislead those who want to be mislead.
What are the odds that the DNC wasn't hacked but the emails were obtained by WikiLeaks via a leak? Meaning someone inside the DNC provided the emails to WikiLeaks. Perhaps a Bernie supporter dissatisfied about how the DNC was operating with respect to the primary system. Small probability of that, right?
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #75  
Old 12-31-2019, 07:38 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Of course, we don't know what the President believes in his heart of hearts but he can be quoted as saying that he doesn't believe that Russia interfered.
Go ahead, quote him then.

I don't think such a quote can be found. There are some where he says he doesn't believe Russia hacked the DNC servers, but that has not been considered proven by US Intelligence. The latest quote I can find on it says "high confidence":
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/u...acked-dnc.html which falls short of "absolute certainty". And that is just one type of interference. His statement therefore is not a denial of Russian interference of any kind.

So there is a false "exclusive or" in the impeachment articles. Russia AND Ukraine interfered in the 2016 US election. Unless you are so xenophobic as to say that "a Ukranian court finding of Ukranian interference does not merit any further investigation".

Last edited by Jim Peebles; 12-31-2019 at 07:41 AM.
  #76  
Old 12-31-2019, 08:14 AM
Turek is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Inara's shuttle
Posts: 4,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Go ahead, quote him then.
It took me all of 30 seconds:

2017 Lie of the Year: Russian election interference is a 'made-up story'

Quote:
"This Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won," said President Donald Trump in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt in May.

On Twitter in September, Trump said, "The Russia hoax continues, now it's ads on Facebook. What about the totally biased and dishonest Media coverage in favor of Crooked Hillary?"

And during an overseas trip to Asia in November, Trump spoke of meeting with Putin: "Every time he sees me, he says, ‘I didn't do that.’ And I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it." In the same interview, Trump referred to the officials who led the intelligence agencies during the election as "political hacks."
  #77  
Old 12-31-2019, 09:16 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turek View Post
It took me all of 30 seconds:

"This Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won," said President Donald Trump in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt in May.

On Twitter in September, Trump said, "The Russia hoax continues, now it's ads on Facebook. What about the totally biased and dishonest Media coverage in favor of Crooked Hillary?"

And during an overseas trip to Asia in November, Trump spoke of meeting with Putin: "Every time he sees me, he says, ‘I didn't do that.’ And I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it." In the same interview, Trump referred to the officials who led the intelligence agencies during the election as "political hacks."
The "Trump and Russia is a made up story" is saying he did not collude with Russia. He was not trying to say Russia made no attempts to interfere.

The "ads on Facebook" were compared to "Media coverage in favor of Crooked Hillary". He was not denying Russia bought ads on Facebook. The ads on Facebook were compared in significance to Media bias in favor of Hillary, like a butterfly flapping its wings (ads on Facebook) behind one runner (Trump) compared to a jet engine (Media bias) pushing the competing runner (Hillary). And he still won.

And the third quote is about Putin denying the hack of the DNC servers, which the US Intelligence agencies are "highly confident" Russia did, but not absolutely certain. One way to help the US Intelligence agencies to remove their remaining doubts, and learn more things which might help the US, would be to ask the Ukranians to locate the server, which some believe is now in Ukraine, and which the DNC would not allow the FBI to look at directly, but instead used a private contractor.

Last edited by Jim Peebles; 12-31-2019 at 09:18 AM.
  #78  
Old 12-31-2019, 09:19 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Go ahead, quote him then.

I don't think such a quote can be found. There are some where he says he doesn't believe Russia hacked the DNC servers, but that has not been considered proven by US Intelligence. The latest quote I can find on it says "high confidence":
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/u...acked-dnc.html which falls short of "absolute certainty". And that is just one type of interference. His statement therefore is not a denial of Russian interference of any kind.

So there is a false "exclusive or" in the impeachment articles. Russia AND Ukraine interfered in the 2016 US election. Unless you are so xenophobic as to say that "a Ukranian court finding of Ukranian interference does not merit any further investigation".
I know enough about Ukraine to know not to give the findings of their corrupt legal system anywhere near the kind of weight I would give the findings of a court that operates under the rule of law.
  #79  
Old 12-31-2019, 09:35 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
And the third quote is about Putin denying the hack of the DNC servers
This is patently untrue, and you should apologize for saying something so untrue without researching first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remarks from Trump on AF1 to reporters
Q How did you bring up the issue of election meddling? Did you ask him a question?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: He just — every time he sees me, he says, “I didn’t do that.” And I believe — I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it. But he says, “I didn’t do that.” I think he’s very insulted by it, if you want to know the truth.
The conversation had gone on extensively before that, but it was always in the context of election meddling. Here's some more of it:
Quote:
Q Did Russia’s attempts to meddle in U.S. elections come up in the conversation?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: He said he didn’t meddle. He said he didn’t meddle. I asked him again. You can only ask so many times. But I just asked him again, and he said he absolutely did not meddle in our election. He did not do what they’re saying he did. And he said —

Q Do you believe him?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, look, I can’t stand there and argue with him. I’d rather have him get out of Syria, to be honest with you. I’d rather have him — you know, work with him on the Ukraine than standing and arguing about whether or not — because that whole thing was set up by the Democrats.

I mean, they ought to look at Podesta. They ought to look at all of the things that they’ve done with the phony dossier. Those are the big events. Those are the big events.

But Putin said he did not do what they said he did. And, you know, there are those that say, if he did do it, he wouldn’t have gotten caught, all right? Which is a very interesting statement. But we have a — you know, we have a good feeling toward getting things done.
You're just plain wrong here, and it's a test of your posting habits whether you can, confronted with the evidence from whitehouse.gov, admit error and change your mind.
  #80  
Old 12-31-2019, 09:36 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I know enough about Ukraine to know not to give the findings of their corrupt legal system anywhere near the kind of weight I would give the findings of a court that operates under the rule of law.
I would consider the President to be remiss if he failed to ask Ukraine to investigate Ukranian interference in the 2016 election after a Ukranian court declared there was, despite doubts some have about the Ukranian court system. The Democrats have done the opposite, and to the extreme: they say it is an impeachable offense to request such investigations.
  #81  
Old 12-31-2019, 09:39 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
Great analysis! You should have been on Clinton's campaign staff so that her billions could have been spent more wisely.
So no response of substance. Just a snipe at Clinton. You should be on the Trump re-election campaign. Oh, wait.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #82  
Old 12-31-2019, 09:42 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
I would consider the President to be remiss if he failed to ask Ukraine to investigate Ukranian interference in the 2016 election after a Ukranian court declared there was, despite doubts some have about the Ukranian court system. The Democrats have done the opposite, and to the extreme: they say it is an impeachable offense to request such investigations.
But that isn't what he asked of Ukraine, was it? No matter how much you wish it was.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #83  
Old 12-31-2019, 09:49 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
This is patently untrue, and you should apologize for saying something so untrue without researching first.

The conversation had gone on extensively before that, but it was always in the context of election meddling. Here's some more of it:

You're just plain wrong here, and it's a test of your posting habits whether you can, confronted with the evidence from whitehouse.gov, admit error and change your mind.
No, I think he was talking about the hacking when he said Putin denied it in a conversation. The President is not going to ask Putin about Russia buying Facebook ads. It is clear from the other quote I explained, that Trump has no doubt Russia bought Facebook ads, and it would be silly to ask a world leader about Facebook ads on top of that. Trump is not a careful speaker, but here he is being analyzed as if he wrote what he said in a legal document. The Impeachment Articles though, which should be one of the most carefully prepared legal documents in history, contains a false "exclusive or": Ukraine XOR Russia. But logically it could be an "inclusive or", and a Ukrainian court declared Ukraine can be included: Ukraine AND Russia.
  #84  
Old 12-31-2019, 09:51 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
No, I think he was talking about the hacking when he said Putin denied it in a conversation.
It was a test, and I think the score you earned on it's pretty plain to see. If you can't admit error in such an unambiguous case, what's the point in further discussion?
  #85  
Old 12-31-2019, 09:51 AM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
So no response of substance. Just a snipe at Clinton. You should be on the Trump re-election campaign. Oh, wait.
No not a snipe, just an illustration of how ludicrous it is to think that the small amount of money spent on facebook ads that didn't specifically say "vote for Trump!" were more effective than the billions that the Clinton Campaign spent on media.

Russians did buy facebook ads, but Mueller did not provide evidence that the ads from IRA were at the direction of the Russian Government.
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!

Last edited by EasyPhil; 12-31-2019 at 09:53 AM.
  #86  
Old 12-31-2019, 09:55 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,347
"Billions"? With a "B"?
  #87  
Old 12-31-2019, 09:57 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
But that isn't what he asked of Ukraine, was it? No matter how much you wish it was.
Read the first paragraph on page 3 of the Trump Zelinsky call transcript. He is asking Ukraine to investigate the 2016 election interference.
  #88  
Old 12-31-2019, 09:57 AM
EasyPhil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NYCNYUSA
Posts: 1,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
No, I think he was talking about the hacking when he said Putin denied it in a conversation. The President is not going to ask Putin about Russia buying Facebook ads. It is clear from the other quote I explained, that Trump has no doubt Russia bought Facebook ads, and it would be silly to ask a world leader about Facebook ads on top of that. Trump is not a careful speaker, but here he is being analyzed as if he wrote what he said in a legal document. The Impeachment Articles though, which should be one of the most carefully prepared legal documents in history, contains a false "exclusive or": Ukraine XOR Russia. But logically it could be an "inclusive or", and a Ukrainian court declared Ukraine can be included: Ukraine AND Russia.
Some background on the facebook ads:

Quote:
On May 28, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich called attorneys prosecuting the case into her courtroom for a closed hearing. Although no reporters were allowed inside, it is now known that Friedrich agreed with one defendant’s claims that Mueller had overstated the evidence when he implied in his report to Congress that the trolls were controlled by the Russian government and that the social media operations they conducted during the 2016 presidential campaign were directed by Moscow. News organizations had seized on the highly suggestive wording in his report to report they were part of a Kremlin-run operation.

Concerned that Mueller’s words could prejudice a jury and jeopardize the defendants' right to a fair trial, Friedrich ordered the special prosecutor to stop making such claims and “to minimize the prejudice moving forward” — or face sanction.
Mueller Tied to Double Deception: First in Court, Then Before Congress
__________________
Thinking in, out and around the box!
  #89  
Old 12-31-2019, 10:06 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So, election interference only depends on the margin of victory? If the same exact things happened in 1984 on behalf of Reagan but he wins 59-41 then nothing to see here, no crime?

I think the prior poster's point is well taken. A scary sounding term like "interfering in the election" implies far more than a few stupid memes. I mean, not that I like foreign countries having any say in selecting our representatives, but with the global nature of the internet, such mild influences cannot be stopped, in either direction. I was going to say short of war, but even with war you couldn't stop it.
I've not read any definitive analysis that shows the extent of influence on the 2016 election due to Russian interference. Because it was done mostly through social media and various (mostly unsuccessful, it seems) hacking attacks, it's a difficult value to quantify. Which is not to say it didn't happen or had no effect at all. As I stated, the effects were marginal but sometimes marginal is enough.

What the 2016 election shows is the vulnerability of not just the American election system, but of American society in general. Russian interference did not divide American society, it exploited the existing divisions. I suspect that no one was mores surprised than Russia at how effective their interference campaign was. I'm sure they could not believe their dumb luck at having Trump be the GOP nominee. For that I blame the GOP. And while Russian interference helped around the margins, I blame the ~60M voters who thought electing Trump was a good idea. I can ascribe various motives to those who voted for him, but none of them would be complimentary and we've done this before so no need to repeat them again. Finally, HRC shares some of the blame for inspiring apathy in non-Trump voters. 2016 was the perfect storm, in some sense. But it has been an insightful look at American society and I hope we can learn some lessons from it. I think, "A Republic, if you can keep it", being the most important take away.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #90  
Old 12-31-2019, 10:08 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
There are some where he says he doesn't believe Russia hacked the DNC servers, but that has not been considered proven by US Intelligence. The latest quote I can find on it says "high confidence":
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/u...acked-dnc.html which falls short of "absolute certainty".
As a factual matter, you are inventing a term that is never used by the intelligence community, and then criticizing them for not meeting that term that they never use.

The highest level of confidence used by intelligence agencies is “high confidence.”

In essence, let’s say the highest grade that can be awarded to a student is an A. That student has a paper graded as an A. You then swoop in, and say that an A doesn’t mean anything because it isn’t an A++++superawesome++imgonnagiveyouaBJ. I’m sure you can admit that this is a bullshit criticism of the student’s work.

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Pag...ections.pdf/23
  #91  
Old 12-31-2019, 10:12 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
No not a snipe, just an illustration of how ludicrous it is to think that the small amount of money spent on facebook ads that didn't specifically say "vote for Trump!" were more effective than the billions that the Clinton Campaign spent on media.
Again, it didn't need to be a large amount of money. It just needed to be effective at exploiting the existing divisions. The fact that people freely shared the propaganda without understanding what they were sharing was the brilliance of the entire interference effort. Credit where credit is due. It was masterful in how well it worked for a relatively small investment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
Russians did buy facebook ads, but Mueller did not provide evidence that the ads from IRA were at the direction of the Russian Government.
I have a bridge for you in Leningrad. Low mileage. Good condition. One owner. Interested?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #92  
Old 12-31-2019, 10:19 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
As a factual matter, you are inventing a term that is never used by the intelligence community, and then criticizing them for not meeting that term that they never use.

The highest level of confidence used by intelligence agencies is “high confidence.”

In essence, let’s say the highest grade that can be awarded to a student is an A. That student has a paper graded as an A. You then swoop in, and say that an A doesn’t mean anything because it isn’t an A++++superawesome++imgonnagiveyouaBJ. I’m sure you can admit that this is a bullshit criticism of the student’s work.

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Pag...ections.pdf/23
Great, so the inelligence agencies never stamp anything as "absolutely certain". Thus, unless we enter the Kangaroo Court Zone, I can rest assured that no President will be removed from office for disagreeing with the intelligence agencies.
  #93  
Old 12-31-2019, 10:25 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
Now I see where you get your information - Media Bias Check of RealClearInvestigations:

Quote:
In review, RealClearInvestigations frequently uses emotionally loaded headlines such as this: “2016 Trump Tower Meeting Looks Increasingly Like a Setup by Russian and Clinton Operatives” and “Mueller Still Relying on Discredited Steele Dossier.”

Generally, story selection moderately favors the Right and RealClearInvestigations takes a Pro-Trump stance. RealClearInvestigations typically sources their information to credible sources such as the The Hill, Wall Street Journal, NBC News and the Washington Examiner, however they also source factually mixed sources such as Fox News. For example this snippet from the article: “Investigation worked with employees of Fusion GPS, a Washington-based research firm reportedly paid $1 million (Fox News link) by Clinton operatives to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign.” RealClearInvestigations sourced Fox News who in turn sourced the same information from another factually mixed source the Daily Caller, owned by conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson.

A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check, however some of the sources they utilize have failed fact checks such as the conspiracy website, Zerohedge.
I doubt further discussion will prove fruitful as I don't have the inclination to fact check your every post.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #94  
Old 12-31-2019, 10:25 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
If I recall correctly, you have stated that you are not a Republican and that you are not a Trump supporter. Is this correct?
  #95  
Old 12-31-2019, 10:41 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Now I see where you get your information - Media Bias Check of RealClearInvestigations:



I doubt further discussion will prove fruitful as I don't have the inclination to fact check your every post.
That's not a fact check, it's a bias check. What purported facts in the article EasyPhil cited are false? News flash: mainstream media outlets are highly biased against Trump, and there is often complete mainstream media silence on factual news that helps him or goes against his opponents. So if you want the truth, you will have to read sources others call "too biased in favor of Trump to even consider". And posters here that I debate who are anti-Trump often report having such "news blinders" on. They should take off those blinders. But even if they don't, I am still optimistic, because truth is a force of nature.
  #96  
Old 12-31-2019, 11:09 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
That's not a fact check, it's a bias check. What purported facts in the article EasyPhil cited are false? News flash: mainstream media outlets are highly biased against Trump, and there is often complete mainstream media silence on factual news that helps him or goes against his opponents. So if you want the truth, you will have to read sources others call "too biased in favor of Trump to even consider". And posters here that I debate who are anti-Trump often report having such "news blinders" on. They should take off those blinders. But even if they don't, I am still optimistic, because truth is a force of nature.
Newsflash back at you: Pointing out liars and the lies they tell is not a bias check.

I'm not holding my breath but I too think that truth matters. So if you can convince me, or anyone, that Trump is not a corrupt, incompetent, pathological liar and that media that exposes him for what he is is in fact "fake", then I'm open to such "alternative facts". Until then, I'm going to continue to fact check bullshit cites and posts like the one you're responding about.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #97  
Old 12-31-2019, 11:15 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyPhil View Post
What are the odds that the DNC wasn't hacked but the emails were obtained by WikiLeaks via a leak? Meaning someone inside the DNC provided the emails to WikiLeaks. Perhaps a Bernie supporter dissatisfied about how the DNC was operating with respect to the primary system. Small probability of that, right?
On the same day that Russia stopped hacking? Yes, I'd put that as relatively small likelihood. And we would expect such a person to go to Mother Jones or some other American news agency, since they would be aware that WikiLeaks is a Russian front and, as an American, has reason to keep our political secrets from them.

You will note that the majority of leaks that you see go to American news agencies.

Let's also note that:

a) We're discussing a single footnote in a summary document, where there is more in the summary document, and even more in the actual indictment, and you're already having to invent whole people who don't exist, when we have evidence of motive, opportunity, timing, and modus operandi for a particular suspect again, in just a single footnote. Do you think the case will become better or worse if we include more than one sentences worth of evidence in the discussion?
b) The indictment was issued against Russia by Rod Rosenstein - a Trump appointment. The indictment is still active, and being kept in place by Bill Barr and Rosenstein's replacement, Jeffrey Rosen - both Trump appointments. So we seem to have a least four persons who all agree that the Russians did it, three of whom were hand selected by Donald Trump.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-31-2019 at 11:16 AM.
  #98  
Old 12-31-2019, 11:22 AM
Translucent Daydream is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Valley
Posts: 1,880
I think we are all being shined on in this thread.
__________________
I promise it’s not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #99  
Old 12-31-2019, 11:24 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Go ahead, quote him then.
How many you want?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...16887692234753
  #100  
Old 12-31-2019, 11:27 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream View Post
I think we are all being shined on in this thread.
Well, when all you've got is shinola, you put your best shine on it.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017