General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary

[Seattle Husker]

SH
I have never said there should not be an investigation
In addition to that IF Dems believe the Russians were trying to influence the election against Hillary they need to ask the media why they helped Russia.
If the info in the docs had not been reported over and over the voter would not have known the crap the DNC etc pulled on the voters.

Is the media a single entity? I'm sure Brietbart would have gladly said "this is unethical to report on this information." Heck, Donald Trump tweeted it out! How do you ask them not to print gossip when that was what was driving ratings?

Someone broke into the bank and we should blame the media for telling us what they stole? I'm still not following.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Since we have caught you in a moment of lucidity --
Since the election you guys have gone from
(1) recount, to
(2) fake news, to
(3) THE RUSSIANS!

We all know you guys will move on from this too, but what is next?

"You guys"? I don't claim a side. I will say Russia involvement with Wikileaks was called out long before the election. Any statement that it's just now an issue is untruthful, especially someone so adept at nabbing tweets/articles from months ago to demonstrate hypocrisy. In fact, here is an article pointing out the myriad of times during the election cycle before the election that Russian hacking was an issue. You can put that Trump propaganda point away.

Personally, I've spent this election cycle pointing out fake news that you post. You don't like it and will never admit to being a purveyor of it but I've pointed out countless times.

Recount? Eh.

 

[Joe Fan]

"You guys"? I don't claim a side. .....

Baloney

Why dont you put up a poll here about that, lets see how that goes for you?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Baloney

Why dont you put up a poll here about that, lets see how that goes for you?

A poll for the cheerleader squad? I'm left of you but that's not a big leap.

I see you sidestepped this too.

Russia involvement with Wikileaks was called out long before the election. Any statement that it's just now an issue is untruthful, especially someone so adept at nabbing tweets/articles from months ago to demonstrate hypocrisy. In fact, here is an article pointing out the myriad of times during the election cycle before the election that Russian hacking was an issue. You can put that Trump propaganda point away.

Personally, I've spent this election cycle pointing out fake news that you post. You don't like it and will never admit to being a purveyor of it but I've pointed out countless times.

 

[Joe Fan]

...
I see you sidestepped this too....

No, that's not it. The reality is that I have typed so much about this stuff already that it's a waste of time to re-type it all (just for you). I dont know the exact stats but my guess is I have probably posted more on this issue than anyone else here. So, instead of trying to make me do that, it is much more efficient if you stop being so lazy and just go back and read it?

 

[Joe Fan]

Did the Vladimir Putin and Russia also steal the liberals big-boy pants?

 

[Joe Fan]

I seem to remember someone posting something about this already?

"AN ally of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has said the hack of the Democratic Party in the run up to the US elections was not Russia but instead an 'inside job'. "
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...inton-hack-inside-job-NOT-Russia-Oliver-Stone


"Former British ambassador Craig Murray said he has met the person who handed over the e-mails and they WERE from the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

The e-mails were released by Mr Assange's site and caused damage to Hillary Clinton's reputation with a number of shock revelations among tens of thousands of e-mails.

Speaking to The Guardian, Mr Murray said: “I know who leaked them.

“I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

“As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two.

* * *

He said: “And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.”"

 

[Joe Fan]

Oh yeah, here it is .....

There is zero evidence of an outside "hack."
Remember both Snowden and Manning were inside jobs.
With regard to Podesta and the DNC, there is just as much evidence to point to Dem staffer Seth Rich as the Russians. And Rich was murdered.

 

[Joe Fan]

Which brings us back to the unanswered question --

Your analysis is always so faulty
The jump the shark moments have already been listed
(1) Recount!
(2) Fake news!
(3) THE RUSSIANS!
(4) What next!?

 

[Joe Fan]

Even Wackadoodle Oliver Stone admits it --

"......Mr Stone, who has recently produced a biopic of Edward Snowden, said he believed the hack was perpetrated by Democrats within the committee.
* * *
During an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour, Mr Stone called the accusations a "great fiction" and suggested foul play by the DNC.

The director revealed intelligence experts he spoke to indicated the DNC hack was "probably an inside job."

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[NJlonghorn]

Since we have caught you in a moment of lucidity --
Since the election you guys have gone from
(1) recount, to
(2) fake news, to
(3) THE RUSSIANS!

We all know you guys will move on from this too, but what is next?

I assume you consider me to be part of the "you guys" category. If so, my response is that I don't give a crap about the recount, and I think the Russia issue is worth investigating but I'm not putting much stock in it.

My only issue with you is, and has consistently been, that you don't have a shred of credibility. You post fake news so fast that it would take an army of "you guys" to keep up with rebutting it. When I do show that something you say is patently false, or at least highly suspect, you go into radio silence on that issue and shout louder about other things, often equally false.

 

[Joe Fan]

I assume you consider me to be part of the "you guys" category. If so, my response is that I don't give a crap about the recount, and I think the Russia issue is worth investigating but I'm not putting much stock in it.

My only issue with you is, and has consistently been, that you don't have a shred of credibility. You post fake news so fast that it would take an army of "you guys" to keep up with rebutting it. When I do show that something you say is patently false, or at least highly suspect, you go into radio silence on that issue and shout louder about other things, often equally false.

The one thing you get right is that I often ignore you

 

[Seattle Husker]

The one thing you get right is that I often ignore you

And that JoeFan is often wrong but will never admit it.

 

[Joe Fan]

And that JoeFan is often wrong but will never admit it.

Why is it wrong to ignore that guy?
His modus operandi is personal insult, and not much else.
Arent we taught from a young age that the prudent course is to "just ignore them?"

 

[Seattle Husker]

I seem to remember someone posting something about this already?

"AN ally of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has said the hack of the Democratic Party in the run up to the US elections was not Russia but instead an 'inside job'. "
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...inton-hack-inside-job-NOT-Russia-Oliver-Stone


"Former British ambassador Craig Murray said he has met the person who handed over the e-mails and they WERE from the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

The e-mails were released by Mr Assange's site and caused damage to Hillary Clinton's reputation with a number of shock revelations among tens of thousands of e-mails.

Speaking to The Guardian, Mr Murray said: “I know who leaked them.

“I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

“As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two.

* * *

He said: “And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.”"

Are you sure you want to stand behind the claims of Craig Murray, the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan ('02-04) who was removed from his post and has subsequently lost 2 MP elections with 5% and 2.8% support in each respective election? The same Craig Murray who has been in trouble with the British government for exposing MI6 intelligence?

Imagine Julian Assange's credibility if the US exposes that he's a Russian stooge?

It seems you are grasping at straws to support conspiracy theories disregarding a volume of more credible evidence. That's not a new strategy for you though.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Even Wackadoodle Oliver Stone admits it --

"......Mr Stone, who has recently produced a biopic of Edward Snowden, said he believed the hack was perpetrated by Democrats within the committee.
* * *
During an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour, Mr Stone called the accusations a "great fiction" and suggested foul play by the DNC.

The director revealed intelligence experts he spoke to indicated the DNC hack was "probably an inside job."

Oliver Stone's conspiracy theories would seem to fit in with the alt-right crowd. Maybe he's trying to cultivate a new audience?

 

[Joe Fan]

Are you sure you want to stand behind the claims of Craig Murray, the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan ('02-04) who was removed from his post and has subsequently lost 2 MP elections with 5% and 2.8% support in each respective election? The same Craig Murray who has been in trouble with the British government for exposing MI6 intelligence?.....

You always fall into this trap.
The issue here is not who said it, but rather the truth of falsity of the issue at hand.
It doesnt matter who published it.
You always go down this rabbit hole. It's excuse-making. It's a bad habit.

 

[Joe Fan]

Oliver Stone's conspiracy theories would seem to fit in with the alt-right crowd. Maybe he's trying to cultivate a new audience?

But Stone is not advancing a new theory
What he is doing here is simply conceding a point
Gosh, your analytical skills need help.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Why is it wrong to ignore that guy?
His modus operandi is personal insult, and not much else.
Arent we taught from a young age that the prudent course is to "just ignore them?"

Every expert on logic/discourse draws an important distinction between irrelevant personal insults and attacking a person's credibility. Modern philosopher/ethicist Edward Feser summarizes as follows:

For example, suppose what is at issue is whether a certain person is a reliable witness or an unbiased source of information, as in a court case. Then there is no fallacy whatsoever in showing that his track record reveals him to be a compulsive liar, or to have a bad memory or bad eyesight, or to have been drunk at the time of the events he claims to have witnessed, or to have a personal stake in the outcome of the case. These are ad hominem criticisms -- criticisms directed “against the man” himself -- but there is no fallacy involved, because the credibility of the man himself is precisely what is at issue.

On this forum, I do not insult you personally. Instead, I regularly point out that things you say are false and/or unsupported. I then draw the conclusion that your perpetual spreading of falsehoods makes you unreliable, such that there should be a presumption that things you say are BS. You can't get around that by crying about how I'm saying mean things about you. Your credibility is precisely what is at issue.

 

[Joe Fan]

You always fall into this trap.
The issue here is not who said it, but rather the truth of falsity of the issue at hand.
It doesnt matter who published it.
You always go down this rabbit hole. It's excuse-making. It's a bad habit.

You did this with Wikileaks-Podesta/DNC.
For awhile there, you were suggesting all those thousands of emails were fake or fabricated. Even though none of the Dems (other than Brazile) were denying their authenticity.
Remember that?
I guessed you have stopped this theory now?

 

[Joe Fan]

...
On this forum, I do not insult you personally.....

You just did!
Or, are you claiming the Russians did that?


---------------------
Going to lunch now, do i have to start posting this warning to y'all?

 

[Joe Fan]

....My only issue with you is, and has consistently been, that you don't have a shred of credibility. .....

 

[mchammer]

You just did!
Or, are you claiming the Russians did that?


---------------------
Going to lunch now, do i have to start posting this warning to y'all?

And shower breaks and meals with family, etc.

 

[Garmel]

You just did!
Or, are you claiming the Russians did that?


---------------------
Going to lunch now, do i have to start posting this warning to y'all?

Make sure you let them know when you go to sleep at night too.

 

[Seattle Husker]

You did this with Wikileaks-Podesta/DNC.
For awhile there, you were suggesting all those thousands of emails were fake or fabricated. Even though none of the Dems (other than Brazile) were denying their authenticity.
Remember that?
I guessed you have stopped this theory now?

Unlike you, I'm not saying everything I've proven is prescient especially when prognosticating. In fact, unlike you, I've often admitted when I was incorrect. At this point, it's very likely that the email were factual.

Are you ready to admit that Podesta/HRC are not part of a pedophile ring? Remember when you didn't like being called out for that? That's just one of many examples where you very conveniently sidestep the questionable accuracy of what you post, let it linger than post something else all the while the cheerleaders continue to believe it true.

 

[Joe Fan]

,,,,
Are you ready to admit that Podesta/HRC are not part of a pedophile ring? ....

I am still suspicious of that family.
Have you seen the art Podesta's brother chose the hang all over his walls?

 

[Mr. Deez]

His modus operandi is personal insult, and not much else.

I can literally think of no one on this forum about whom this is less true (myself included). NJ's modus operandi is to be respectful of everybody and to approach issues with intelligent thought and careful consideration. That doesn't mean he's perfect. He's a human being, and I do take issue with him (See the Ohio abortion thread.), but the guy never spouts things recklessly. Furthermore, I've never known him to really call BS on somebody without a pretty lengthy pattern of behavior from that person.

 

[Joe Fan]

Unlike you, I'm not saying everything I've proven is prescient especially when prognosticating. In fact, unlike you, I've often admitted when I was incorrect. At this point, it's very likely that the email were factual......

You do some of this, it's true. But, again, you miss the real issue. Time and time again, it has been shown to you in here that your overall analysis is flawed. Your critical thinking is off. When a new issue presents itself, you almost reflexively ask the wrong question and/or fail to grasp the material issue(s). I do not know what is going on with you in this regard but, if I were you, this is what i would focus on.

 

[Seattle Husker]

You do some of this, it's true. But, again, you miss the real issue. Time and time again, it has been shown to you in here that your overall analysis is flawed. Your critical thinking is off. When a new issue presents itself, you almost reflexively ask the wrong question and/or fail to grasp the material issue(s). I do not know what is going on with you in this regard but, if I were you, this is what i would focus on.

Ask the wrong question or simply question the source? More people need to do the latter.