""The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.""
The issue on top of everything else is that these people don't even have the courage to admit they've done it until they're caught red handed.
Shadow banning is inherently slimey. I've never seen a need for it.
If someone is out of control or breaking the terms of service then you ban them or whatever. Everything out in the open and above board.
But doing in such a way that they don't even know they were banned?
Slime.
Any admin that does that is slime.
Yes, I know the argument of "what if they make a million sock accounts and keep spamming whatever?"... This is basically an argument of laziness. It also says something about your account creation process.
There are a million ways to address the problem. Account tiers that mature over time for example deals with the problem. You could have low level accounts put at the bottom of discussions and higher level accounts put at the top. Have the tier be based entirely on seniority thus accounts that are made and destroyed every two seconds won't impact the community because they'll only be noticed most of the time after they've been around for some time.
The rate of maturation can be set at whatever rate the admins can keep up with... is a week long enough? A month? A year?
And that's just ONE of a dozen different solutions that is more honest and forthright than a shadowban.
If that's all you've got, then I'm going to have accept your complete surrender before your own towering stupidity.
That's right. I'm not claiming a win here. This is a full self own on your part.
I provided detailed self consistent arguments and all you're vote is "nah uh"... which wasn't convincing in first grade and the quality of that argument hasn't improved over time.
I'm done wasting my time with you. Here you'll probably try to bait with some silly remark but the pathetic display you've put on here is irredeemable. If my posts were as stupid as yours, I'd also post under AC.
Re:Seriously?! (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19, 2018 @10:55AM (#56975502)
how are you capable of typing when your literacy level is that tragically low? in your own words:""
You're an idiot.
And if you think your insult wasn't an insult, then by that same standard, neither was mine.
You're either a very stupid hypocrite or you're so baffled by logic that you think you can create a situation where by a single standard two people that did similar things are not mutually guilty or innocent.
Either way, you're impressively stupid. I mean that sincerely. There are a lot of stupid people on the internet but you're actually doing a pretty stellar job of competing for the 99th percentile of idiocy.
And whilst I'm sure you find your transparently fallacious appeal for civilized argument as a solid chance of winning a moral high ground... The attempt is utterly annihilated by the fact that I've provided links, complete arguments, and only became offensive in RESPONSE to offensive statements from people like you.
Now since you illiterate on top of everything else I doubt this is going to be absorb with any competency by you. You did just challenge me to cite one incident of me being insulted when actually I've received very little from you specifically besides insults.
IF you then say "I'm not THAT AC"... Yes you are. I have no ability to tell you apart. You've gone out of your way to make it impossible for me to tell you apart so I've no choice but to treat you like a singular personality especially when your writing styles are identical and your arguments are identical. I literally cannot tell you apart and you've make proactive efforts to create that situation. You've made your bed. Continue to lie in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...... So YOU throw insults, I provide evidence to show that the insults in question are actually more appropriately labeled upon you... and now you just hypocritically shift to whining about being insulted? You started the insults, you comical internet worm.
Further, unlike your insults, mine were NOT baseless. You insulted ME by saying that I had a poor grasp of the English language and then demonstrated a lack of understanding of a legal term at the core of your argument.
Far from my position being baseless, I provided citations as I have done so throughout this discussion to show you were in error.
Once substanciating my position, I did follow through with "judging" you. But my judgements were based on your statements and citations which justified them.
Now if you have been sufficiently humilitated that you feel you can no longer sustain your arrogant position, then that is progress.
You should have started off respectfully with me. You did not. I am not a stupid man and unlike your positions, mine can supported with evidence and defended.
Next time you engage with me, don't use the AC tag please and treat me with common courtesy at a bare minimum. If you use AC there is a high likelihood that I will ignore your post without reading it. And if you open your discussion with hostility then I'll treat you in kind. As I've demonstrated myself to be more formidable than yourself, this will just lead to you getting wrecked again.
As you appear to not like getting wrecked consider not provoking me. Just an idea.
Its interesting that you criticize my literacy whilst yourself using a word at the center of your argument that you do not know the definition of in the first place.
"Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement"
You said: ""that collusion right there. he had contacts with agents of the russian government and lied to the fbi about it.""
Now, look at the definition and look at what you said.
Collusion would require some sort of illegal intent. The only illegality was in making false statements to the FBI. But that is merely as already patiently explained to you a false statement... and a false statement is not itself collusion. Collusion would require some sort of conspiratorial effort to obtain something that is itself illegal.
Having a contact in the Russian government is not illegal. Assuming for a moment that Trump wins his election to be president which... as we do not live in the past we know he did... it is prudent for a head of state to have such contacts. Every president from the first to the last has had agents that make contact with agents of other governments. That is not illegal.
Talking to Russians is not illegal. It would have to be for you to have a case and since that isn't the case you have no case.
In the future, you may avoid looking like an ass if you avoid insulting people that are better educated and more intelligent than yourself. I know I know... this statement offends you. But you have no right to be offended. You criticized my grasp of the English language whilst proving that your own grasp is quite poor... and in the same post.
This is merely you mindlessly parroting tribalistic political hyperbole from the dying Clinton political machine.
Trump is Hitler Trump is worse than Hitler Trump is a traitor Blah blah blah... its just sputtering REEEEEing from you people at this point. You've made it very clear that you have no integrity, have lost control over yourselves, and will literally stoop to anything to clutch on to power.
And to make all of that all the sadder, YOU personally have nothing to gain from their webs of corruption and nepotism. You're fighting for an aristocrasy that sees people like you as cannon fodder. You're basically a Neo-Peasant. Ignorant, confused, conditioned to charge mindlessly at whatever banner or crest your lords and ladies tell you to.
You're pathetic. You can be more than you are. Be an individual. Have an idea of your own. Don't just be their peon.
""On October 5, 2017, Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to making false statements to FBI agents relating to contacts he had with agents of the Russian government while working for the Trump campaign.""
He plead guilty to making false statements... not colluding... and the false statements don't even matter because nothing he was lying about ultimately was relevant.
Mueller has done this a couple times. Someone gives an interview, says something wrong... and he charges them with false statements to the FBI. Which is part of the reason no one is talking to him anymore.
If he were throwing the book at people that colluded or committed some criminal act that is more than a technicality, then that would be something. But your example here is pretty typical of his investigation. The best he's got is some people making false statements that don't matter.
The guy said he didn't talk to some people when he did... So what? Its not collusion or election fraud. Its just some of his people saying they didn't do something they did. But if they had admitted they did that thing rather than lie... there would be no charges. You're literally just nailing him for making a misstatement/lie. But what he lied about didn't matter.
So for example if I ate pancakes but told Mueller I ate eggs... he could basically charge me with the same crime and it would have about the same significance.
That you feel THIS is something to be proud of is frankly pretty sad.
You've got nothing. Unless a guy lying about breakfast cereal gets you hot.
George Papdopoulos was convicted of lying to the FBI not of colluding with the Russians. What is more, the incident doesn't stretch beyond him thus rendering that a nothing burger.
You need to show collusion. You don't have it and Mueller is signaling that he's going to wrap up that portion of the investigation as there really is no evidence of it.
It is a political circus. Everyone sees it. Deny as you will... its denying the Sun at this point.
Your concession that the two situations are not similar happened here: ""Yep.""
They had actionable evidence on day one in the watergate investigation. Two years into this shit you have not ONE incident of Russian collusion with Americans to bias the election. Nothing.
As it stands there is literally ZERO evidence of collusion between not only the Trump Administration but ANY AMERICAN and the Russians regarding election fraud.
And to make matters even dumber, the Russian interference in the election amounted to some Facebook ads which only a blithering idiot would think were relevant in the fucking unending blizzard of propaganda that bombards voters during an election.
What was in any of those facebook ads that swayed anyone?
Keep in mind, the argument is that it changed votes. Examine the literal facebook memes... they were more memes than ads... name one of those memes that actually changed a vote or was even remotely unique?
Do you HONESTLY think that did anything? Because there is no way that someone that was going to vote for hillary or bernie looked at those fucking things and then said "I have decided to change my vote". They're shit posting at best.
You think a 2 year FBI investigation is worth sustaining over some facebook shit posting. That isn't a question. That is an obvious fact. Feel shame.
I went through them all. They were ignorable because there was a shit load of obviously not russian inspired memes saying the exact same thing that were dramatically more common.
And let us also not forget that the REAL scandal was that Hillary perverted the the DNC against Bernie.
This woman was head of the DNC during the end of the presidential election. She details in there what went wrong.
1. Obama f'ed up the Democratic party by focusing on his own political machine to the exclusion of the party leaving it starved of resources and organization.
2. DWS who was head of the DNC was a best incompetent and possibly corrupt and also ran up a lot of debt leaving the DNC in debt to the tune of 20ish million dollars going INTO the presidential election. Going into that election the Republicans had a cash surplus and the Democrats after 8 years in power were 20 million in debt going into the election. Rather than blaming boogiemen for your failure maybe clean your own house?
3. Hillary bailed the DNC out on condition that she would control it PRIOR to winning nomination from her party. Which meant that the primary was a farce.
It goes on and on and on. And no, it isn't controversial... there is empirical evidence for pretty much all of that. Unlike the Russian collusion circus which has no empirical evidence of Russian collusion.
And all you chuckleheads want to talk about is Russian collusion of when there is more evidence of Obama colluding with the Russians. Or did you forget this: https://youtu.be/keXx0zxTarE?t...
Imagine if you had a video clip of Trump saying that? You would cream your degenerate pants.
But here's the thing. Everything you're doing is predicated on the assumption that people are dumb enough to not follow along. And sure, there are a lot of stupid people for you to prey upon. But you've painted yourself into a corner. Your economic policy. Your political tactics. Your reliance on heavy handed false morality.
You have no credibility, no integrity, and there's no possibly of extending you even common courtesy in this environment so absurdly egregious is this behavior. This political faction you've married yourself to is out of control. And carrying their water in the face of overwhelming evidence is only making it worse.
On what evidence did you launch the investigation? A smear memo from the Clinton campaign. None of it verified.
What evidence of any corroboration do you have to validate your position outside of the REEEEing of the democrats losing an election and YET AGAIN saying that the system has to be changed because they lost.
It is pathetic. Just because you lose an election doesn't mean the system has to be changed or you were cheated.
"""I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office" -- an apparent reference to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe -- "that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 . . . . " Page does not appear to have responded, according to records reviewed by CNN.""
I know why given members of the FBI are perverting the process... the political agendas are pretty clear.
Have you not been listening to the Text Messages that were read aloud in court from FBI agents clearly admitting they were biasing the case for political reasons?
Because... that's already a matter of record.
The jig is up. They were caught red handed. Which is why we're seeing a rather consistent purge of FBI agents and justice department officials WITH EVIDENCE and DUE PROCESS.
Protest as you will, but your dirty little cabal is getting fed feet first into a wood chipper of justice.
the maintenance costs are not properly calculated... which is why despite being told repeatedly that this tech is economically competitive, no private money wants to invest in it absent heavy public support as an investment. Sure, companies might build solar or wind as a publicity or good will campaign move... but to make money?
To be very clear, I want renewable energy to be competitive and efficient and for it to replace most of our grid power.
Appreciate what I just said there.
I want that.
But... if we are to do things responsibly and sustainable then it is very important to not lie on the funding proposal sheet. It may get us to build more things in the short term but it will reduce trust in future proposals and will incline programs that could have been successful to fail because problems could not be addressed early.
In effect, the people pushing this stuff past its legitimate place are sabotaging future more ambitious projects. If the maintenance costs are 50 percent higher than we were initially told, then we need to know that so that we can alter the plan to avoid that problem.
Maybe some wind turbines are better for that then others. It depends. Its something we have to do... put it all in an excel spread sheet and go through a few different scenarios.
What bothers me about these projects is that people believe so much in the "the cause" that they feel they have to lie about the numbers.
You're not helping when you do that. Please stop lying. We can afford to build these things at a loss. And we often go into these projects with our eyes open that it isn't the most economical option. That's okay. But if you lie about the numbers on top of that then it makes everyone very suspicious, nervous, and generally avoidant regarding these projects.
You'd have bigger buy in if the reports were more reliable. Consider that.
... You need to watch more of your grand mother's police procedural. Maybe go to see her and watch some Law and Order or CSI or something.
Your lack of understanding of how a police investigation unfolds is frankly baffling to me.
For your information, the police generally build a case and THEN accuse people of crimes. Not the other way around. If you're not ready to go to trial, then you don't accuse people.
This is why the FBI was taken to court and was made to look a fool by a judge and the opposing lawyers.
This happened.
That was reality.
Why is it that if the FBI is following protocol that they're confusing judges with why they would do things and being made to look foolish?
Because they're not following protocol. As much is obvious.
And why aren't they following protocol? Do they not know what it is? Are they badly trained? Maybe there is some reason why they're violating protocol? Some... agenda?
Its all transparently obvious. Don't embarrass yourself by defending this farce.
Why would they be light on the Hillary investigation and then throw out all these baseless accusations that they can't defend in a court of law in the Trump investigation?
Is it a coincidence that they gave Hillary a pass and are exceeding their mandate with Trump?
Fairly consistent coincidence. Just keeps happening. Almost as if it isn't a coincidence.
And the foaming tribal political partisanship of those that want him to burn WITHOUT evidence of anything taints the credibility of those people to claim they are seeking justice.
That the FBI is not following protocol is something that has been remarked upon both by independent councils and by many FBI agents within the FBI that have expressed disgust at the situation. If you want to deny the obvious, then I don't really know what that accomplishes. It convinces no one and ultimately we are headed to a game of chicken here if people like you don't stop. You can't just change the rules whenever it is convenient for you. That might have worked when you were 4 and your mom didn't want to hear you cry when you lost at shoots and ladders... I'm not your mom... you're not four... and I really don't care if you cry. When you clearly apply two different standards based on whether it is in your political interest, your integrity regarding these matters is forfeit.
Apply a consistent standard. The "Russians colluded with Trump on the election" argument is stupid.
1. The allegation ultimately boils down to some facebook targeted marketing was placed. Literally. 2. Some facebook targeted marketing didn't move the needle remarkably. 3. Every american media source is saturated with political propaganda prior to elections further rendering the relevance of a few posts from the Russians that much more laughable. 4. There are a million NGOs engaging in political activism in elections and many of them are super national NGOs... that is non-domestic. They frequently draw funding from outside the country. Which means if you problem is external funding, you could show some interest in shutting down any of those. Ultimately any argument against the irrelevant contribution of the Russians would be one of paper work. If the activist group cited themselves as an NGO then you'd either have to ban Green Peace from participating as well let it happen. 5. Foreign government involve themselves in US elections all the time. The EU and China are doing as is Canada and Mexico. In fact, its quite a bit easier to find their involvement in that election than it is the Russians. 6. There's literally no evidence that there was collusion and the only source of that story is the Hillary Clinton campaign which is a very biased source of information regarding anything she's salty about. 7. A dirty tricks group that was placing violent protesters at BERNIE SANDERS and Trump rallies was unmasked towards the end of the campaign. That group's job was to create problems for rival campaigns. Frankly this Russia story reads as the last dumb gasp of a sad little smear campaign that got out of control.
And if you think I'm wrong... then why after TWO YEARS do you have NOTHING. You do realize it has been two whole fucking years right? And nothing.
The process is playing out. Its like watching a marathon between two runners... and one of them is slowly bleeding to death.
See, all you're doing is making baseless character assassinations whilst posting under an AC tag. You could and likely are any number of well known asshats on this board that would laughed out of the channel if you made that accusation.
Which is why you post under AC. Because it helps you lie.
notice, no americans in that indictment... and probably there is an expectation that this "accusation" won't be defended.
Foreign governments rarely show up to a US court to argue they were not guilty.
Thus a baseless accusation can stand because there is no due process because there is no trial generally.
I'd like the Russians to show up. Just send some lawyers to represent their clients. Force the Justice Department to actually argue their case in a court of law.
Already, the justice department was surprised when some Russian companies they accused sent lawyers. And the result was effectively a retraction of the accusations almost immediately.
Some people will accuse me of political bias... these people haven't been paying attention to this circus.
Effectively, an accusation was made where there was no belief that there would be a defense because there typically isn't one in these cases. Lawyers showed up unexpectedly... and it turns out that the Mueller team actually isn't ready to argue the case.
Which begs the question of why they would accuse someone.
Is that how the FBI normally works? Accusing people of things they can't prove in court?
Generally not especially when the accusations are formal legal charges.
So why is Mueller not following standard FBI protocol? Why in fact, has everything to do with this cloud of issues not been done according to standard protocol?
Because it is a political game. And its one that I'm actually pretty happy we're having because all the rats are coming out of the wood work. We know who most of the bad apples are in the justice department just by seeing whether or not they follow protocol. If they break protocol... why did they do that? To serve the interests of justice? Or to help grinding a political axe? Because if the former, then very well... but if the latter... they probably shouldn't be in that position.
Slashdot Mirror
""The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.""
The issue on top of everything else is that these people don't even have the courage to admit they've done it until they're caught red handed.
Shadow banning is inherently slimey. I've never seen a need for it.
If someone is out of control or breaking the terms of service then you ban them or whatever. Everything out in the open and above board.
But doing in such a way that they don't even know they were banned?
Slime.
Any admin that does that is slime.
Yes, I know the argument of "what if they make a million sock accounts and keep spamming whatever?"... This is basically an argument of laziness. It also says something about your account creation process.
There are a million ways to address the problem. Account tiers that mature over time for example deals with the problem. You could have low level accounts put at the bottom of discussions and higher level accounts put at the top. Have the tier be based entirely on seniority thus accounts that are made and destroyed every two seconds won't impact the community because they'll only be noticed most of the time after they've been around for some time.
The rate of maturation can be set at whatever rate the admins can keep up with... is a week long enough? A month? A year?
And that's just ONE of a dozen different solutions that is more honest and forthright than a shadowban.
Stubborn denial is not an argument.
If that's all you've got, then I'm going to have accept your complete surrender before your own towering stupidity.
That's right. I'm not claiming a win here. This is a full self own on your part.
I provided detailed self consistent arguments and all you're vote is "nah uh"... which wasn't convincing in first grade and the quality of that argument hasn't improved over time.
I'm done wasting my time with you. Here you'll probably try to bait with some silly remark but the pathetic display you've put on here is irredeemable. If my posts were as stupid as yours, I'd also post under AC.
""
Re:Seriously?! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19, 2018 @10:55AM (#56975502)
how are you capable of typing when your literacy level is that tragically low? in your own words:""
You're an idiot.
And if you think your insult wasn't an insult, then by that same standard, neither was mine.
You're either a very stupid hypocrite or you're so baffled by logic that you think you can create a situation where by a single standard two people that did similar things are not mutually guilty or innocent.
Either way, you're impressively stupid. I mean that sincerely. There are a lot of stupid people on the internet but you're actually doing a pretty stellar job of competing for the 99th percentile of idiocy.
And whilst I'm sure you find your transparently fallacious appeal for civilized argument as a solid chance of winning a moral high ground... The attempt is utterly annihilated by the fact that I've provided links, complete arguments, and only became offensive in RESPONSE to offensive statements from people like you.
Now since you illiterate on top of everything else I doubt this is going to be absorb with any competency by you. You did just challenge me to cite one incident of me being insulted when actually I've received very little from you specifically besides insults.
IF you then say "I'm not THAT AC"... Yes you are. I have no ability to tell you apart. You've gone out of your way to make it impossible for me to tell you apart so I've no choice but to treat you like a singular personality especially when your writing styles are identical and your arguments are identical. I literally cannot tell you apart and you've make proactive efforts to create that situation. You've made your bed. Continue to lie in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ... So YOU throw insults, I provide evidence to show that the insults in question are actually more appropriately labeled upon you... and now you just hypocritically shift to whining about being insulted? You started the insults, you comical internet worm.
Further, unlike your insults, mine were NOT baseless. You insulted ME by saying that I had a poor grasp of the English language and then demonstrated a lack of understanding of a legal term at the core of your argument.
Far from my position being baseless, I provided citations as I have done so throughout this discussion to show you were in error.
Once substanciating my position, I did follow through with "judging" you. But my judgements were based on your statements and citations which justified them.
Now if you have been sufficiently humilitated that you feel you can no longer sustain your arrogant position, then that is progress.
You should have started off respectfully with me. You did not. I am not a stupid man and unlike your positions, mine can supported with evidence and defended.
Next time you engage with me, don't use the AC tag please and treat me with common courtesy at a bare minimum. If you use AC there is a high likelihood that I will ignore your post without reading it. And if you open your discussion with hostility then I'll treat you in kind. As I've demonstrated myself to be more formidable than yourself, this will just lead to you getting wrecked again.
As you appear to not like getting wrecked consider not provoking me. Just an idea.
Its interesting that you criticize my literacy whilst yourself using a word at the center of your argument that you do not know the definition of in the first place.
Collusion... read the definition:
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
"Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement"
You said:
""that collusion right there. he had contacts with agents of the russian government and lied to the fbi about it.""
Now, look at the definition and look at what you said.
Collusion would require some sort of illegal intent. The only illegality was in making false statements to the FBI. But that is merely as already patiently explained to you a false statement... and a false statement is not itself collusion. Collusion would require some sort of conspiratorial effort to obtain something that is itself illegal.
Having a contact in the Russian government is not illegal. Assuming for a moment that Trump wins his election to be president which... as we do not live in the past we know he did... it is prudent for a head of state to have such contacts. Every president from the first to the last has had agents that make contact with agents of other governments. That is not illegal.
Talking to Russians is not illegal. It would have to be for you to have a case and since that isn't the case you have no case.
In the future, you may avoid looking like an ass if you avoid insulting people that are better educated and more intelligent than yourself. I know I know... this statement offends you. But you have no right to be offended. You criticized my grasp of the English language whilst proving that your own grasp is quite poor... and in the same post.
This is merely you mindlessly parroting tribalistic political hyperbole from the dying Clinton political machine.
Trump is Hitler
Trump is worse than Hitler
Trump is a traitor
Blah blah blah... its just sputtering REEEEEing from you people at this point. You've made it very clear that you have no integrity, have lost control over yourselves, and will literally stoop to anything to clutch on to power.
And to make all of that all the sadder, YOU personally have nothing to gain from their webs of corruption and nepotism. You're fighting for an aristocrasy that sees people like you as cannon fodder. You're basically a Neo-Peasant. Ignorant, confused, conditioned to charge mindlessly at whatever banner or crest your lords and ladies tell you to.
You're pathetic. You can be more than you are. Be an individual. Have an idea of your own. Don't just be their peon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
""On October 5, 2017, Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to making false statements to FBI agents relating to contacts he had with agents of the Russian government while working for the Trump campaign.""
He plead guilty to making false statements... not colluding... and the false statements don't even matter because nothing he was lying about ultimately was relevant.
Mueller has done this a couple times. Someone gives an interview, says something wrong... and he charges them with false statements to the FBI. Which is part of the reason no one is talking to him anymore.
If he were throwing the book at people that colluded or committed some criminal act that is more than a technicality, then that would be something. But your example here is pretty typical of his investigation. The best he's got is some people making false statements that don't matter.
The guy said he didn't talk to some people when he did... So what? Its not collusion or election fraud. Its just some of his people saying they didn't do something they did. But if they had admitted they did that thing rather than lie... there would be no charges. You're literally just nailing him for making a misstatement/lie. But what he lied about didn't matter.
So for example if I ate pancakes but told Mueller I ate eggs... he could basically charge me with the same crime and it would have about the same significance.
That you feel THIS is something to be proud of is frankly pretty sad.
You've got nothing. Unless a guy lying about breakfast cereal gets you hot.
George Papdopoulos was convicted of lying to the FBI not of colluding with the Russians. What is more, the incident doesn't stretch beyond him thus rendering that a nothing burger.
You need to show collusion. You don't have it and Mueller is signaling that he's going to wrap up that portion of the investigation as there really is no evidence of it.
It is a political circus. Everyone sees it. Deny as you will... its denying the Sun at this point.
Your concession that the two situations are not similar happened here:
""Yep.""
They had actionable evidence on day one in the watergate investigation. Two years into this shit you have not ONE incident of Russian collusion with Americans to bias the election. Nothing.
As it stands there is literally ZERO evidence of collusion between not only the Trump Administration but ANY AMERICAN and the Russians regarding election fraud.
And to make matters even dumber, the Russian interference in the election amounted to some Facebook ads which only a blithering idiot would think were relevant in the fucking unending blizzard of propaganda that bombards voters during an election.
What was in any of those facebook ads that swayed anyone?
Keep in mind, the argument is that it changed votes. Examine the literal facebook memes... they were more memes than ads... name one of those memes that actually changed a vote or was even remotely unique?
Here is a New York Times article where they link a bunch of them:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...
Do you HONESTLY think that did anything? Because there is no way that someone that was going to vote for hillary or bernie looked at those fucking things and then said "I have decided to change my vote". They're shit posting at best.
You think a 2 year FBI investigation is worth sustaining over some facebook shit posting. That isn't a question. That is an obvious fact. Feel shame.
I went through them all. They were ignorable because there was a shit load of obviously not russian inspired memes saying the exact same thing that were dramatically more common.
And let us also not forget that the REAL scandal was that Hillary perverted the the DNC against Bernie.
SHE EVEN WROTE A FUCKING BOOK ABOUT IT:
https://www.amazon.com/Hacks-I...
This woman was head of the DNC during the end of the presidential election. She details in there what went wrong.
1. Obama f'ed up the Democratic party by focusing on his own political machine to the exclusion of the party leaving it starved of resources and organization.
2. DWS who was head of the DNC was a best incompetent and possibly corrupt and also ran up a lot of debt leaving the DNC in debt to the tune of 20ish million dollars going INTO the presidential election. Going into that election the Republicans had a cash surplus and the Democrats after 8 years in power were 20 million in debt going into the election. Rather than blaming boogiemen for your failure maybe clean your own house?
3. Hillary bailed the DNC out on condition that she would control it PRIOR to winning nomination from her party. Which meant that the primary was a farce.
It goes on and on and on. And no, it isn't controversial... there is empirical evidence for pretty much all of that. Unlike the Russian collusion circus which has no empirical evidence of Russian collusion.
And all you chuckleheads want to talk about is Russian collusion of when there is more evidence of Obama colluding with the Russians. Or did you forget this:
https://youtu.be/keXx0zxTarE?t...
Imagine if you had a video clip of Trump saying that? You would cream your degenerate pants.
But here's the thing. Everything you're doing is predicated on the assumption that people are dumb enough to not follow along. And sure, there are a lot of stupid people for you to prey upon. But you've painted yourself into a corner. Your economic policy. Your political tactics. Your reliance on heavy handed false morality.
You have no credibility, no integrity, and there's no possibly of extending you even common courtesy in this environment so absurdly egregious is this behavior. This political faction you've married yourself to is out of control. And carrying their water in the face of overwhelming evidence is only making it worse.
You're running out of floor, machacho.
Putting on a brave face isn't going to stop this.
How many of them are about Russian collusion?
Name one.
Watergate?
They had actionable court evidence INSTANTLY in the watergate investigation. They literally arrested people that they could red fucking handed.
And you want to compare that to "this".
You have nothing you can take to court after two years. In watergate there was something to take to court ON DAY ONE.
On. Day. One.
And you compare that to a case that has NOTHING after two years?
Do you want me to go through the watergate investigation in embarressing detail to show all the ways in which that was an absolutely horrible example?
or do you want to concede that one too?
Stay down.
https://youtu.be/s35rVw1zskA?t...
The entire investigation is baseless.
On what evidence did you launch the investigation? A smear memo from the Clinton campaign. None of it verified.
What evidence of any corroboration do you have to validate your position outside of the REEEEing of the democrats losing an election and YET AGAIN saying that the system has to be changed because they lost.
It is pathetic. Just because you lose an election doesn't mean the system has to be changed or you were cheated.
Sometimes it means you just lost.
Grow up.
This is pathetic. The legs of your position were blown off and you're just crawling around. Just stop.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/12...
"""I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office" -- an apparent reference to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe -- "that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 . . . . " Page does not appear to have responded, according to records reviewed by CNN.""
I know why given members of the FBI are perverting the process... the political agendas are pretty clear.
Have you not been listening to the Text Messages that were read aloud in court from FBI agents clearly admitting they were biasing the case for political reasons?
Because... that's already a matter of record.
The jig is up. They were caught red handed. Which is why we're seeing a rather consistent purge of FBI agents and justice department officials WITH EVIDENCE and DUE PROCESS.
Protest as you will, but your dirty little cabal is getting fed feet first into a wood chipper of justice.
Tell me if you want to cite facts... because every time I go to documentation, the cultists run away like cowards.
the numbers prove you at best wrong... assuming you're ignorant on top of wrong. If you're not ignorant, then the numbers prove you a liar as well.
Want to cite numbers or run away?
Because every time I challenge one of you clowns, you run away.
For "some" reason.
Until it has been presented to a court, that is hearsay and inadmissible in this discussion.
As the plaintiff has shown contempt for the discussion and has been unable to present any material evidence, this case is closed.
You are free to appeal, however you are advised to actually have evidence.
the maintenance costs are not properly calculated... which is why despite being told repeatedly that this tech is economically competitive, no private money wants to invest in it absent heavy public support as an investment. Sure, companies might build solar or wind as a publicity or good will campaign move... but to make money?
To be very clear, I want renewable energy to be competitive and efficient and for it to replace most of our grid power.
Appreciate what I just said there.
I want that.
But... if we are to do things responsibly and sustainable then it is very important to not lie on the funding proposal sheet. It may get us to build more things in the short term but it will reduce trust in future proposals and will incline programs that could have been successful to fail because problems could not be addressed early.
In effect, the people pushing this stuff past its legitimate place are sabotaging future more ambitious projects. If the maintenance costs are 50 percent higher than we were initially told, then we need to know that so that we can alter the plan to avoid that problem.
Maybe some wind turbines are better for that then others. It depends. Its something we have to do... put it all in an excel spread sheet and go through a few different scenarios.
What bothers me about these projects is that people believe so much in the "the cause" that they feel they have to lie about the numbers.
You're not helping when you do that. Please stop lying. We can afford to build these things at a loss. And we often go into these projects with our eyes open that it isn't the most economical option. That's okay. But if you lie about the numbers on top of that then it makes everyone very suspicious, nervous, and generally avoidant regarding these projects.
You'd have bigger buy in if the reports were more reliable. Consider that.
... You need to watch more of your grand mother's police procedural. Maybe go to see her and watch some Law and Order or CSI or something.
Your lack of understanding of how a police investigation unfolds is frankly baffling to me.
For your information, the police generally build a case and THEN accuse people of crimes. Not the other way around. If you're not ready to go to trial, then you don't accuse people.
This is why the FBI was taken to court and was made to look a fool by a judge and the opposing lawyers.
This happened.
That was reality.
Why is it that if the FBI is following protocol that they're confusing judges with why they would do things and being made to look foolish?
Because they're not following protocol. As much is obvious.
And why aren't they following protocol? Do they not know what it is? Are they badly trained? Maybe there is some reason why they're violating protocol? Some... agenda?
Its all transparently obvious. Don't embarrass yourself by defending this farce.
Just remember, the wheel turns. See yourself asking people to be reasonable when you weren't.
The shoe will be on the other foot and actions will be remembered.
no, the blunders are consistent and form a larger pattern.
Just as the Hillary investigation not following protocol either.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Why would they be light on the Hillary investigation and then throw out all these baseless accusations that they can't defend in a court of law in the Trump investigation?
Is it a coincidence that they gave Hillary a pass and are exceeding their mandate with Trump?
Fairly consistent coincidence. Just keeps happening. Almost as if it isn't a coincidence.
And the foaming tribal political partisanship of those that want him to burn WITHOUT evidence of anything taints the credibility of those people to claim they are seeking justice.
That the FBI is not following protocol is something that has been remarked upon both by independent councils and by many FBI agents within the FBI that have expressed disgust at the situation. If you want to deny the obvious, then I don't really know what that accomplishes. It convinces no one and ultimately we are headed to a game of chicken here if people like you don't stop. You can't just change the rules whenever it is convenient for you. That might have worked when you were 4 and your mom didn't want to hear you cry when you lost at shoots and ladders... I'm not your mom... you're not four... and I really don't care if you cry. When you clearly apply two different standards based on whether it is in your political interest, your integrity regarding these matters is forfeit.
Apply a consistent standard. The "Russians colluded with Trump on the election" argument is stupid.
1. The allegation ultimately boils down to some facebook targeted marketing was placed. Literally.
2. Some facebook targeted marketing didn't move the needle remarkably.
3. Every american media source is saturated with political propaganda prior to elections further rendering the relevance of a few posts from the Russians that much more laughable.
4. There are a million NGOs engaging in political activism in elections and many of them are super national NGOs... that is non-domestic. They frequently draw funding from outside the country. Which means if you problem is external funding, you could show some interest in shutting down any of those. Ultimately any argument against the irrelevant contribution of the Russians would be one of paper work. If the activist group cited themselves as an NGO then you'd either have to ban Green Peace from participating as well let it happen.
5. Foreign government involve themselves in US elections all the time. The EU and China are doing as is Canada and Mexico. In fact, its quite a bit easier to find their involvement in that election than it is the Russians.
6. There's literally no evidence that there was collusion and the only source of that story is the Hillary Clinton campaign which is a very biased source of information regarding anything she's salty about.
7. A dirty tricks group that was placing violent protesters at BERNIE SANDERS and Trump rallies was unmasked towards the end of the campaign. That group's job was to create problems for rival campaigns. Frankly this Russia story reads as the last dumb gasp of a sad little smear campaign that got out of control.
And if you think I'm wrong... then why after TWO YEARS do you have NOTHING. You do realize it has been two whole fucking years right? And nothing.
The process is playing out. Its like watching a marathon between two runners... and one of them is slowly bleeding to death.
Your position has become a joke. Even SNL is laughing at you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Its been two years. You've got nothing but self delusion.
You've been trying to get something... anything for 2 years. And "this" is the best you've got so far.
I could say more but that's all you deserve. Two years and nothing. You're not scaring anyone with this stuff.
Really, so did I forget who you are? Mr AC?
See, all you're doing is making baseless character assassinations whilst posting under an AC tag. You could and likely are any number of well known asshats on this board that would laughed out of the channel if you made that accusation.
Which is why you post under AC. Because it helps you lie.
Everyone knows. ;)
Two years of you people circle jerking and all you've done thus far is make a sweaty degenerate mess of each other.
At what point will you be able to do a trial?
Because it seems clear that you don't have evidence and simply want to draw out the process indefinitely to create problems.
Bad faith has been demonstrated repeatedly and several judges have directly said so in a court of law regarding this cloud of cases.
I'm not bewildered by the process. It is very clear what is going on here.
if you've got evidence then why can't you go to trial?
Because people are running their mouths and actually don't have evidence.
I know I know... bluster and hummms and hahs... take it to court or its just hot air.
notice, no americans in that indictment... and probably there is an expectation that this "accusation" won't be defended.
Foreign governments rarely show up to a US court to argue they were not guilty.
Thus a baseless accusation can stand because there is no due process because there is no trial generally.
I'd like the Russians to show up. Just send some lawyers to represent their clients. Force the Justice Department to actually argue their case in a court of law.
Already, the justice department was surprised when some Russian companies they accused sent lawyers. And the result was effectively a retraction of the accusations almost immediately.
Some people will accuse me of political bias... these people haven't been paying attention to this circus.
https://www.washingtonexaminer...
https://www.politico.com/story...
Effectively, an accusation was made where there was no belief that there would be a defense because there typically isn't one in these cases. Lawyers showed up unexpectedly... and it turns out that the Mueller team actually isn't ready to argue the case.
Which begs the question of why they would accuse someone.
Is that how the FBI normally works? Accusing people of things they can't prove in court?
Generally not especially when the accusations are formal legal charges.
So why is Mueller not following standard FBI protocol? Why in fact, has everything to do with this cloud of issues not been done according to standard protocol?
Because it is a political game. And its one that I'm actually pretty happy we're having because all the rats are coming out of the wood work. We know who most of the bad apples are in the justice department just by seeing whether or not they follow protocol. If they break protocol... why did they do that? To serve the interests of justice? Or to help grinding a political axe? Because if the former, then very well... but if the latter... they probably shouldn't be in that position.