CIA Found Putin's Direct Order to Help Trump

[CargoKing]

Yes we do, it's called creating a narrative based on lies with the hope that people like you eat it up without question.

Tell me more about what I eat up. Does it taste like YouTube videos and reddit? Clown.

 

[HockeyBjj]

No, you should expect every news outlet to give the identity of their sources with every story.... to ensure they never get info from those sources again.

Because who needs sources right?



You guys are saying the issue is "anonymous sources" like that hasn't been the foundation of investigative journalism since the inception of the concept.

Don't like the Washington Post, that's fine. But this idea that all info is fake unless a source is named and exposed is absolutely retarded. And it shows you guys just don't understand journalism.

I agree with you fully about anonymous sources being the backbone of investigative journalism, but a big problem is that it seems recently 95% of the "anonymous sources" about negative Trump news are 100% false.

Almost as if certain publications Completely make up a story and say "anonymous sources tell us" since that can't be completely refuted

 

[StrikerKing]

For those who think this is "fake news", so you honestly think the Russians did not try and meddle in the election? Its already a verifiable fact that hacked government servers, so why is this suddenly not true?

 

[JosephDredd]

I agree with you fully about anonymous sources being the backbone of investigative journalism, but a big problem is that it seems recently 95% of the "anonymous sources" about negative Trump news are 100% false.

Almost as if certain publications Completely make up a story and say "anonymous sources tell us" since that can't be completely refuted

You're pulling numbers out of your ass. Has anything they've written been confirmed as wrong? (meaning the truth came out, not someone in power disagreed with them but couldn't provide proof.)

There are two sources of information right now -- Trump and the media -- and only one of those has told willful and misleading lies across the board. Trump supporters are confused about which is the obvious den of lies.

 

[HamPhan]

You're pulling numbers out of your ass. Has anything they've written been confirmed as wrong? (meaning the truth came out, not someone in power disagreed with them but couldn't provide proof.)

There are two sources of information right now -- Trump and the media -- and only one of those has told willful and misleading lies across the board. Trump supporters are confused about which is the obvious den of lies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...c90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html

Wrong - Tried to create narrative

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/15/media/new-york-times-editorial-palin-giffords-correction/index.html

Wrong - Tried to rewrite history

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ate-to-make-hillary-clinton-look-less-guilty/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ate-to-make-hillary-clinton-look-less-guilty/
Wrong - Lynch talked to Comey and tried to convince him to say something other than an investigation in regards to the Hillary " matter "

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-evidence-free-claim-about-trump-and-russia/

Wrong - Trying to start a narrative

And last but not least, their first version of this " new " article that they decided to put out again, ...for the first time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ck-745p:homepage/story&utm_term=.dbe68acabe86

 

[mike sherry]

The bus leaking is different from a foreign nation executing a successful plan to undermine the likely next president.

this would only be true if the news organization leaking it was not trying to influence the election.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

No, you should expect every news outlet to give the identity of their sources with every story.... to ensure they never get info from those sources again.

Because who needs sources right?



You guys are saying the issue is "anonymous sources" like that hasn't been the foundation of investigative journalism since the inception of the concept.

Don't like the Washington Post, that's fine. But this idea that all info is fake unless a source is named and exposed is absolutely retarded. And it shows you guys just don't understand journalism.

One of the axiomatic cornerstones of Aristotelian logic is:

"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

If the people putting forward these claims refuse to support the claims with any kind of evidence, or allowing the claim maker to face scrutiny, then the public at large has no choice but to dismiss the claims without further analysis.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

No one except Trump supporters has ever dismissed major security breaches by a foreign government as something to be expected. The reason you can't find it is because it only exists in your mind.

So glad you were able to try to pivot to blind, vitriolic nonsense in your ass-covering, btw.

We understand the importance of security.. that's why HC having a private server that FBI said was less secure than Gmail was a BIG problem.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

That is true but you also dismissed our intelligence agencies findings though.

You do know that spies lie? Kind of alot. It's what they do for a living.

 

[ShadowRun]

Hahaha I laughed I lost this is the YLYL thread right ?

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Is there any sensible (read: non-"deep state" bullshit) reason why the Washington Post's seeming ties with the CIA would invalidate their reporting on Trump? And does any affirmative answer you have likewise apply to Trump's relationship with Fox, Alex Jones and Breitbart?

Wikileaks revealed that the Washington Compost was caught engaging in illegal fundraising for the Democratic party in the leadup to the 2016 election.




Any reader of the Washington Compost needs to understand just how politically compromised that establishment is.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Do half of Trump voters (older Americans from the middle of the country and the south) even know how to use the internet?

Next time, if you want to prevent voters from being influenced, don't run the worst candidate in modern history.

I often post on sherdog from the middle of my corn fields. Technology bringing the world together!

 

[DoomPatrol]

You do know that spies lie? Kind of alot. It's what they do for a living.

Spies gather intelligence for the nation and do counter intelligence against our enemies. They often hide things for national security reasons. On occasion individuals within the organization do bad things. I have no particular love for our intelligence agencies. I'm trashing the CIA in another thread right now.

The idea of a global intelligence agency conspiracy to pretend like Russians are doing criminal acts to influence American politics is silly though. We catch literal Russian spies in the United States. People from the Cold War are still alive and doing things. Yes, I think Russia spent an estimated $200 million to have hackers attack our democratic process. I think they did it to get Donald Trump in because he does a lot of business with Russia and would be softer against them because he has a monetary interest in cooperating with Russia. I think they knew Hillary had a more hard-line approach. And yes I think Putin had a direct hand in it.

I don't think President Trump had some evil phone call in the dark with Putin to plan conspiracies. I do think he encouraged it as a candidate. I do think he took advantage of a hostile act to better his position rather than condemn an attack against America. I think he tried to stifle the investigation against Russia and collision because he knew it would make him look bad and bring to light other shady behavior.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Spies gather intelligence for the nation and do counter intelligence against our enemies. They often hide things for national security reasons. On occasion individuals within the organization do bad things. I have no particular love for our intelligence agencies. I'm trashing the CIA in another thread right now.

The idea of a global intelligence agency conspiracy to pretend like Russians are doing criminal acts to influence American politics is silly though. We catch literal Russian spies in the United States. People from the Cold War are still alive and doing things. Yes, I think Russia spent an estimated $200 million to have hackers attack our democratic process. I think they did it to get Donald Trump in because he does a lot of business with Russia and would be softer against them because he has a monetary interest in cooperating with Russia. I think they knew Hillary had a more hard-line approach. And yes I think Putin had a direct hand in it.

I don't think President Trump had some evil phone call in the dark with Putin to plan conspiracies. I do think he encouraged it as a candidate. I do think he took advantage of a hostile act to better his position rather than condemn an attack against America. I think he tried to stifle the investigation against Russia and collision because he knew it would make him look bad and bring to light other shady behavior.

It's interesting.

In this post you say some form of "I think" 7 times.

Not once did you say "I know".

Right now we're dealing with claims posing as facts.

Spies are very good at making a claim seem like a fact. Remember that.

 

[DoomPatrol]

It's interesting.

In this post you say some form of "I think" 7 times.

Not once did you say "I know".

Right now we're dealing with claims posing as facts.

Spies are very good at making a claim seem like a fact. Remember that.

Well going by that standard we can never truly know anything and we should never act on anything until we're staring it in the face. Which also makes everything you think worth jack shit too. I'm going to guess you only do that with things you don't want to believe to begin with.

Are you seriously saying you don't think Russia attacks the United States?

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Well going by that standard we can never truly know anything and we should never act on anything until we're staring it in the face.

No. You simply need to have evidence to support your claims.

Like the Aristotelian axiom say:
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

Which also makes everything you think worth jack shit too.

Nope, afraid not. I don't make claims without a supporting argument or supporting evidence.

I'm going to guess you only do that with things you don't want to believe to begin with.

No. I simply pointed out that your post was filled with several "I think", and not one "I know".

You're speaking in very definitive language for someone with little more than an "I think" to contribute to the conversation.

Are you seriously saying you don't think Russia attacks the United States?

I'm saying your claims have no evidence to support them. If you did, you would present them.

 

[DoomPatrol]

No. You simply need to have evidence to support your claims.

Like the Aristotelian axiom say:
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."


Nope, afraid not. I don't make claims without a supporting argument or supporting evidence.


No. I simply pointed out that your post was filled with several "I think", and not one "I know".

You're speaking in very definitive language for someone with little more than an "I think" to contribute to the conversation.


I'm saying your claims have no evidence to support them. If you did, you would present them.

The collective whole of the intelligence agencies have provided as much evidence as the average citizen needs and other evidence has already been presented. You just choose to dismiss the evidence because you feel like it, not that you have information that invalidates their findings.

It's easy to just dismiss whatever you don't like without legitimate reasoning.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

We have interfered in regime changes in many different countries too.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

And what is difference between Putin, and some wall street banker trying to influence election. Frankly, I rather have a somebody llike Putin in charge of something anything than a guy like Mnuchin or Jared Kushner.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

The collective whole of the intelligence agencies have provided as much evidence as the average citizen needs and other evidence has already been presented.

No verifiable evidence has been presented.

Show me the evidence that you found convincing.

If you don't, it confesses a lack of confidence in the evidence that you found convincing, when faced with the possibility of scrutiny.

You just choose to dismiss the evidence because you feel like it, not that you have information that invalidates their findings.

It's easy to just dismiss whatever you don't like without legitimate reasoning.

I dismiss claims that the claimant refuses to support.