*

Offline Ghost Spaghetti

  • *
  • Posts: 908
  • Don't look in that mirror. It's absolutely furious
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #920 on: March 11, 2017, 07:24:26 PM »
CIA Plan:
-Hack Hilary Clinton's Emails
-Release them under the pretence that it was the Russians wot did it.
-Help Donald Trump get elected
-Try to link Trump with the hack

I'm not sure what the CIA's plan was supposed to be here...

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #921 on: March 12, 2017, 08:04:04 AM »
CIA Plan:
-Hack Hilary Clinton's Emails
-Release them under the pretence that it was the Russians wot did it.
-Help Donald Trump get elected
-Try to link Trump with the hack

I'm not sure what the CIA's plan was supposed to be here...

P sure that is 5D underwater Korean Starcraft

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #922 on: March 12, 2017, 08:32:23 AM »
CIA Plan:
-Hack Hilary Clinton's Emails
-Release them under the pretence that it was the Russians wot did it.
-Help Donald Trump get elected
-Try to link Trump with the hack

I'm not sure what the CIA's plan was supposed to be here...
This only works if...
1) the CIA knew Trump would win back in July
2) Knew Trump's future picks would meet with Russian officials.




I think OnHere is stating that the CIA is blaming Russia anyway, no matter what.
Or that the hackers spooded a  Russian IP address and the CIA is too stupid to know that.


Both of which sound stupid when you remember that Trump now controls the CIA.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #923 on: March 12, 2017, 10:54:11 AM »
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_WIRETAP?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

According to this, we should know very soon if Trump is lying or not cause he has until Monday to present evidence.

If this gets shot down, I bet OnHere is gonna call it a conspiracy or "Trump didn't mean literal wiretaps" or "There's evidence everywhere they were just too lazy to read it"
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #924 on: March 13, 2017, 11:47:02 AM »
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_WIRETAP?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

According to this, we should know very soon if Trump is lying or not cause he has until Monday to present evidence.

If this gets shot down, I bet OnHere is gonna call it a conspiracy or "Trump didn't mean literal wiretaps" or "There's evidence everywhere they were just too lazy to read it"

What makes you think that Trump is lying about this matter?

As the Commander in Chief of the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the other US intelligence agencies, I would suspect that he may know a little more about the situation than you or CNN.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #925 on: March 13, 2017, 11:53:09 AM »
It's certainly an interesting turn of events. When people claimed, without evidence, that Trump has sexually abused women*, the expectation was that we believe in the accusations (or at the very least take them very, very seriously) because won't somebody please think about the women! But when Trump claims, also without evidence, that he's been wiretapped, it's an obvious lie that nobody should even consider!

How about we assume a consistent approach? Either you believe in unsubstantiated accusations (round earthers, SJWs, and other deplorable people), or you don't.

* - nb. this is distinct from him frivolously talking about how celebrities can easily sexually assault women
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Trump
« Reply #926 on: March 13, 2017, 01:02:14 PM »
round earthers, SJWs, and other deplorable people

lol

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #927 on: March 13, 2017, 03:13:05 PM »
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_WIRETAP?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

According to this, we should know very soon if Trump is lying or not cause he has until Monday to present evidence.

If this gets shot down, I bet OnHere is gonna call it a conspiracy or "Trump didn't mean literal wiretaps" or "There's evidence everywhere they were just too lazy to read it"

What makes you think that Trump is lying about this matter?

As the Commander in Chief of the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the other US intelligence agencies, I would suspect that he may know a little more about the situation than you or CNN.
Yes, I would too.
But here's why I suspect him of either lying or just being wrong:
1. He hates(or claims to) Obama so why would he not share his evidence?
2. He has, on multiple occasions, tweeted information that was blatantly wrong despite having access to the entire US intelligence agencies and google.
3. He has often shown he takes his information from sources such as Fox News and Breitbart News.

It's certainly an interesting turn of events. When people claimed, without evidence, that Trump has sexually abused women*, the expectation was that we believe in the accusations (or at the very least take them very, very seriously) because won't somebody please think about the women! But when Trump claims, also without evidence, that he's been wiretapped, it's an obvious lie that nobody should even consider!

How about we assume a consistent approach? Either you believe in unsubstantiated accusations (round earthers, SJWs, and other deplorable people), or you don't.

* - nb. this is distinct from him frivolously talking about how celebrities can easily sexually assault women
This is a reasonable thing to ask.  However...
I think we jump on it because victims of sexual assault often have little evidence to present and even more often, are afraid to speak up.  In contrast, Donald Trump has stated, very clearly, he has evidence.  We're simply asking him to, you know, show it.  I don't think that's unreasonable.  We asked the women to show evidence as well and they dropped their lawsuits.

If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Trump
« Reply #928 on: March 13, 2017, 03:50:21 PM »
What makes you think that Trump is lying about this matter?

because he regularly displays a categorical disregard for the truth.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #929 on: March 13, 2017, 03:58:02 PM »
I wouldn't support convicting Trump of sexual assault without further evidence, but given the sheer number of allegations against him, it's not a stretch to conclude that there's probably some fire to the smoke. Trump, on the other hand, is a notorious bullshitter who lies very frequently and very blatantly, even for a politician. His accusation would be taken more seriously if he hadn't destroyed his credibility. Also, microwaves can turn into cameras.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Re: Trump
« Reply #930 on: March 13, 2017, 04:12:56 PM »
i wrote a poem:

hey i wonder who leaked all the documents about cia wiretapping to wikileaks
what remarkable timing
i hope these people die in prison
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1537
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #931 on: March 13, 2017, 04:16:39 PM »

* - nb. this is distinct from him frivolously talking about how celebrities can easily sexually assault women

Not just "can", did;
Trump, in a 2005 conversation with a television host that was caught on a live microphone, describes a failed seduction, saying: “I did try and fuck her, she was married,” and says that when he meets beautiful women he feels able to “grab them by the pussy”.

“You can do anything,”

How could we ever suspect him of sexual assault?
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #932 on: March 13, 2017, 04:43:54 PM »
I wouldn't support convicting Trump of sexual assault without further evidence, but given the sheer number of allegations against him, it's not a stretch to conclude that there's probably some fire to the smoke. Trump, on the other hand, is a notorious bullshitter who lies very frequently and very blatantly, even for a politician. His accusation would be taken more seriously if he hadn't destroyed his credibility. Also, microwaves can turn into cameras.

Eh...
you could use microwave radiation to view stuff but it's pretty limited.  I mean, you could read the background microwave radiation bouncing off objects (especially when you have a microwave oven running) but it would probably be just a bunch of blobs.  Good for seeing if there's someone in a room, but useless to see what they're doing or who they are.

Of course, if she meant a microwave oven that got turned into a literal camera even though it isn't one now, that's another issue.  Or should could have meant a microwave oven that had a camera built in secretly.

And the Samsung TVs (or any smart TV really) is a known issue.  Same with certain barbie dolls and really anything that has voice processing since the voice commands go to a server on the internet somewhere to get processed then relayed back to the device.  Samsung even has a warning: "Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition."
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #933 on: March 13, 2017, 09:12:51 PM »
I wouldn't support convicting Trump of sexual assault without further evidence, but given the sheer number of allegations against him, it's not a stretch to conclude that there's probably some fire to the smoke.
Meh. He's a loaded guy with a history of saying some pretty chauvinistic stuff. Given the few high-profile false rape accusations we've seen in America recently, I would be very cautious to read too much into unsubstantiated allegations against him.

Trump, on the other hand, is a notorious bullshitter who lies very frequently and very blatantly, even for a politician. His accusation would be taken more seriously if he hadn't destroyed his credibility.
fwiw, I'm not suggesting that his allegation should be taken seriously at all. If he has evidence, he needs to present it. If he doesn't have tangible evidence but at least has some reasoning to offer as to why he thinks it's happened, he needs to present it. If he doesn't explain his allegation, then it should be assumed to be bullshit.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #934 on: March 13, 2017, 09:20:34 PM »
What should be very curious is that the white house basically clammed up instantly on the subject.

Almost like he tweeted something massive and everyone around him went "What the fuck?! DO NOT SAY ANYTHING MORE!  You're gonna screw us all over!"


Also, apparently Sean Spicer just passed the buck to the DoJ saying they should be providing evidence, not Trump.

Which just asked for more time.

Remember that, OnHere: Your president has so little evidence that the justice department needs more than a week to find it.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2017, 11:12:21 PM by Lord Dave »
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #935 on: March 14, 2017, 01:15:59 PM »
i wrote a poem:

hey i wonder who leaked all the documents about cia wiretapping to wikileaks
what remarkable timing
i hope these people die in prison
haha yeah how inconvenient that there are all these facts that prevent us from just locking on to a single narrative
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Trump
« Reply #936 on: March 14, 2017, 01:20:07 PM »
i wrote a poem:

hey i wonder who leaked all the documents about cia wiretapping to wikileaks
what remarkable timing
i hope these people die in prison
haha yeah how inconvenient that there are all these facts that prevent us from just locking on to a single narrative

yep that's obviously exactly what i mean

ninja edit: ugh FINE i'll add some substance to my sarcasm

things i have no trouble admitting:  i genuinely hate donald trump.  hate is the only word for it.  i don't mean it as a platitude when i say that i hope he dies in prison.  so i'm not trying to pretend that my viewpoint is 'objective' in any sense of the word.  i want him to fail.  except to the extent that his failure hurts other people.  i don't want him to start a disastrous war or anything like that.  but if he could get caught in some kind financial treason (that's a thing, right?), then that would be great.

and, it's absolutely true that i am willing to believe that trump is, for example, ultimately responsible for the cia leaks without any direct evidence (although i'm not suggesting that a court of law should do the same).  i don't expect others to see it my way, and i'm sure that my opinion on this is influenced by my prior opinion that donald trump is a worthless piece of shit who has actively and knowingly undermined our democracy.

things that may appear true but really aren't: i don't hate conservative politics, and i don't hate conservative politicians.  i don't hate trump because he supports policies i disagree with.  lots of liberals and conservatives alike support policies i disagree with.  my worldview has no trouble accomodating the success of conservative politics. 

my worldview also has no trouble accommodating that the cia has an arsenal of electronic surveillance tools at its disposal.  i already figured they did.  if wikileaks reveals that the cia is doing anything illegal, then i'm all ears; but, this is, to my understanding, just a list of capabilities and tools.  my worldview only disdains a sitting president orchestrating the leaking of intelligence information to create public support for his made-up bullshit ramblings about obama.  which, again, i fully agree that i can't directly support.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2017, 02:11:47 PM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Re: Trump
« Reply #937 on: March 14, 2017, 03:38:09 PM »
Someone just needs to smash his phone or something. I can't take a twitter rampage every week.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #938 on: March 14, 2017, 03:41:25 PM »
but, this is, to my understanding, just a list of capabilities and tools.
And, among other things, a detailed description of social engineering in attempt to influence the political discourse of the USA - something that we were previously told Big Bad Russia did to get Literally Hitler elected.

At this point, the best case scenario is that both parties were corrupt as fuck and tried to socially engineer the election in ways that are, at the very least, of questionable legality.

Someone just needs to smash his phone or something. I can't take a twitter rampage every week.
But JOBS tho.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #939 on: March 14, 2017, 03:59:40 PM »
I wonder how many of those jobs were from Obama's policies prior...
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.