Ah yes, the old "always accuse your opponent of doing what you're doing." Correct the Record actually exists. Has FEC filings and everything. Show me the tiniest bit of evidence of paid Trump shills.
But WikiLeaks has always been a political actor. Their goal has been to expose the secrets of governments and the powerful. This is always going to influence politics and elections. That's the entire point.
You had no problem when it was Iraq war horror shows he was exposing, because that fit with your politics. You're only pissed off because he's leaking your side's dirty laundry.
This says more about you than it does about Assange. When Assange leaked stuff that countered my political views, I changed my political views to accommodate the truth. You just want to kill the messenger. Maybe you think Hillary should drone strike him?
Actually, I'd very much be curious to see equivalent material stolen from the other side.
I would, too. I suspect it would help Trump, as the RNC email would consist of the GOP establishment shitting on Trump. It would help prove his claims of a "rigged" system in the Republican primaries.
You're kind of handwaving away the damaging parts of the leaks, though, aren't you?
I don't think most people knew before the leaks that Hillary gets the debate questions from CNN ahead of time. Kind of helps prove the whole thing about politics and the media just being a biased propaganda show? Is that worthwhile?
you'd think the same if you just googled the blogs yourself
While the far left spouts their own brand of bullshit, they rarely work this hard to tear down every reputable source that disagrees. Why is that?
Yes you do. You just said you don't trust the evil right-wing blogs. Who exactly do you think is going to bother compiling evidence that left-wing fact-checking sites are biased? Left-wingers? Of course not! So if I linked to a site exposing the bias of Politifact, you'd just dismiss it and attack the source, which would necessarily be right-wing. So why bother? You've already made up your mind.
Unemployment statistics are notoriously flaky because of the definition of "unemployed." Both men took liberties with the numbers to make a point: that lots of minorities are not working and need help. But when Bernie does it his numbers "have merit" and are "mostly true." When Trump does it he's "misleading" and "mostly false." Fuck you politifact.
They do this kind of biased garbage, or just cherry-pick which claims they're going to examine. Ignore Hillary's lies/screw-ups, only "fact check" her true statements. Ignore Trump's true statements. Only "fact check" his lies/screw-ups. Then use these biased results for propaganda. "According to unbiased politifact, everything Trump says is a lie but Queen Hillary tells the truth!" Bull shit.
While the far left spouts their own brand of bullshit, they rarely work this hard to tear down every reputable source that disagrees. Why is that?
Yes they do. The very first attack the left goes for when presented with an alternative viewpoint is ad hominem, attack the source, discredit, defame, poison the well, muddy the waters. Breitbart could have a perfectly well-sourced, factual article, but no leftist will read it. "It's Breitbart! Run!"
WikiLeaks reveals DNC corruption. "It's teh ebil Russians don't look WikiLeaks is bad now it's illegal to look also they're fake can't we drone strike this guy?!?!"
O'Keefe puts out his undercover videos showing damning evidence of DNC political operatives inciting riots, commiting violence, staging violence, and committing voter fraud. "Ah mah gerd O'Keefe is discredited his videos were fake!" No they weren't. Yeah, he edited them for humor, but the court vindicated his actual points. While he didn't dress up as a pimp while talking to ACORN, he absolutely presented himself as one during the interviews. The content of the undercover video and the conclusions drawn were entirely accurate. But because of a humorous "false" edit he's forever defamed and discredited to the left. Bet they'll keep watching CNN, though. They'd never do anything like that.
Don't give me this "the left doesn't tear down" opposing sources. That's the left's entire arsenal. RACIST SEXIST XENOPHOBE HOMOPHOBE ISLAMOPHOBE LITERALLY DOUBLE MEGA HITLER. Why do you think that is? Is it maybe because any actual scrutiny of the underlying premises of their ideology causes their worldview to fall apart?
No, I'm serious, I want a wall. I think the idea that we can build the interstate highway system, send a man to the moon, but HOLY SHIT A WALL THAT'S CRAZY TALK is a ridiculous argument. Walls aren't hard.
Probably because he thought better of it. But he's the bad guy, for not doing it, and the good guys are the Democrats, who pay their thugs' legal bills. Got it.
Have you seen the pictures of the two? Yes, same race, but also same build, same scraggly chin beard, same length hair. I certainly would have pulled him over.
The story fell out of the news though. I wonder if they ever determined whether or not he was actually the armed robber?
Castille matched far more than race and nose. Same build, same scraggly chin beard, same long hair... The officer might have only said nose on the radio, but there was certainly more to go on there.
Regardless, relevant information that CNN and others never bothered to publish, and instead said something false (broken taillight). My wife got a journalism degree. Getting a fact wrong in a story was an instant -50 points. Why do you think CNN reported the story incorrectly?
I'm pretty sure he said "they let you do it." Almost as if there are women who enjoy getting their pussies grabbed by famous musicians, TV & movie stars, etc, and seek them out for that very purpose.
Hillary's said her priority for Syria is the removal of Assad. That's going to put her on a collision course with Russia.
I've seen no evidence that this wasn't a Russian state-sponsored attack
Isn't the burden of proof on the accuser? All we have is the word of "sources" in the "intelligence community" in the US government. I guess that's good enough to fully endorse attacks against Russia in response. After all, the US government would never lie to us.
Didn't the guy you were talking to say "rigging" isn't necessarily "electoral fraud?"
The definition of rigged in this context is "To manipulate dishonestly for personal gain." Doesn't a debate where one side gets the questions ahead of time count as manipulated, dishonestly, and for personal gain? How about the DNC hiring thugs and the mentally ill to pose as Bernie supporters and start fights with Trump supporters at his Chicago rally, dishonestly manipulating the media narrative and public opinion of both campaigns? That one had me fooled. I honestly thought it was Bernie fans starting that shit, but it was really Hillary's thugs. What about the New York DNC guy admitting they bus people around to different precincts to vote multiple times? Is that rigging?
What would somebody have to do, in your mind, for an electoral process to be rigged?
Slashdot Mirror
If Hillary seizes, shits her pants and falls over you finish the bottle.
This is rotten to the core. And you're excusing it. Why are you gargling plutocrat cock? Are they nice masters for you?
New DNC smear campaign Assange sided with the emus.
Ah yes, the old "always accuse your opponent of doing what you're doing." Correct the Record actually exists. Has FEC filings and everything. Show me the tiniest bit of evidence of paid Trump shills.
Yes that's totally a thing that happened and not a completely obvious DNC smear campaign.
So if Trump's tax returns look good you'll vote for him? Rich as fuck, gave lots to charity, no money from Russians, he's got your vote?
But WikiLeaks has always been a political actor. Their goal has been to expose the secrets of governments and the powerful. This is always going to influence politics and elections. That's the entire point.
You had no problem when it was Iraq war horror shows he was exposing, because that fit with your politics. You're only pissed off because he's leaking your side's dirty laundry.
This says more about you than it does about Assange. When Assange leaked stuff that countered my political views, I changed my political views to accommodate the truth. You just want to kill the messenger. Maybe you think Hillary should drone strike him?
Actually, I'd very much be curious to see equivalent material stolen from the other side.
I would, too. I suspect it would help Trump, as the RNC email would consist of the GOP establishment shitting on Trump. It would help prove his claims of a "rigged" system in the Republican primaries.
You're kind of handwaving away the damaging parts of the leaks, though, aren't you?
I don't think most people knew before the leaks that Hillary gets the debate questions from CNN ahead of time. Kind of helps prove the whole thing about politics and the media just being a biased propaganda show? Is that worthwhile?
you'd think the same if you just googled the blogs yourself
While the far left spouts their own brand of bullshit, they rarely work this hard to tear down every reputable source that disagrees. Why is that?
Yes you do. You just said you don't trust the evil right-wing blogs. Who exactly do you think is going to bother compiling evidence that left-wing fact-checking sites are biased? Left-wingers? Of course not! So if I linked to a site exposing the bias of Politifact, you'd just dismiss it and attack the source, which would necessarily be right-wing. So why bother? You've already made up your mind.
Just for the hell of it though, this is the kind of crap that annoys us: Bernie Sanders' statistic on black, Hispanic unemployment has merit, but may be out of date: Mostly True
Trump misleadingly puts black youth unemployment rate at 59 percent: Mostly False
Unemployment statistics are notoriously flaky because of the definition of "unemployed." Both men took liberties with the numbers to make a point: that lots of minorities are not working and need help. But when Bernie does it his numbers "have merit" and are "mostly true." When Trump does it he's "misleading" and "mostly false." Fuck you politifact.
Barack Obama issued a decree "demanding that every public school now allow grown men and boys into the little girls’ bathroom." False. And why is it false? Because Transgender boys aren't girls. Fuck you politifact.
They do this kind of biased garbage, or just cherry-pick which claims they're going to examine. Ignore Hillary's lies/screw-ups, only "fact check" her true statements. Ignore Trump's true statements. Only "fact check" his lies/screw-ups. Then use these biased results for propaganda. "According to unbiased politifact, everything Trump says is a lie but Queen Hillary tells the truth!" Bull shit.
While the far left spouts their own brand of bullshit, they rarely work this hard to tear down every reputable source that disagrees. Why is that?
Yes they do. The very first attack the left goes for when presented with an alternative viewpoint is ad hominem, attack the source, discredit, defame, poison the well, muddy the waters. Breitbart could have a perfectly well-sourced, factual article, but no leftist will read it. "It's Breitbart! Run!"
WikiLeaks reveals DNC corruption. "It's teh ebil Russians don't look WikiLeaks is bad now it's illegal to look also they're fake can't we drone strike this guy?!?!"
O'Keefe puts out his undercover videos showing damning evidence of DNC political operatives inciting riots, commiting violence, staging violence, and committing voter fraud. "Ah mah gerd O'Keefe is discredited his videos were fake!" No they weren't. Yeah, he edited them for humor, but the court vindicated his actual points. While he didn't dress up as a pimp while talking to ACORN, he absolutely presented himself as one during the interviews. The content of the undercover video and the conclusions drawn were entirely accurate. But because of a humorous "false" edit he's forever defamed and discredited to the left. Bet they'll keep watching CNN, though. They'd never do anything like that.
Don't give me this "the left doesn't tear down" opposing sources. That's the left's entire arsenal. RACIST SEXIST XENOPHOBE HOMOPHOBE ISLAMOPHOBE LITERALLY DOUBLE MEGA HITLER. Why do you think that is? Is it maybe because any actual scrutiny of the underlying premises of their ideology causes their worldview to fall apart?
But not in defense of another. It would be justified.
No, I'm serious, I want a wall. I think the idea that we can build the interstate highway system, send a man to the moon, but HOLY SHIT A WALL THAT'S CRAZY TALK is a ridiculous argument. Walls aren't hard.
What's wrong with what he said? If you see someone about to throw an Assault Fruit, you wouldn't punch them?
Probably because he thought better of it. But he's the bad guy, for not doing it, and the good guys are the Democrats, who pay their thugs' legal bills. Got it.
The Chinamen have a pretty sweet wall. WE CAN'T LET THE CHINESE BEAT US ON WALLS.
(fuck the lameness filter)
Did the other debaters get the questions ahead of time too?
Have you seen the pictures of the two? Yes, same race, but also same build, same scraggly chin beard, same length hair. I certainly would have pulled him over.
The story fell out of the news though. I wonder if they ever determined whether or not he was actually the armed robber?
Castille matched far more than race and nose. Same build, same scraggly chin beard, same long hair... The officer might have only said nose on the radio, but there was certainly more to go on there.
Regardless, relevant information that CNN and others never bothered to publish, and instead said something false (broken taillight). My wife got a journalism degree. Getting a fact wrong in a story was an instant -50 points. Why do you think CNN reported the story incorrectly?
But nobody else is going to stop the Mexican rapists.
I'm pretty sure he said "they let you do it." Almost as if there are women who enjoy getting their pussies grabbed by famous musicians, TV & movie stars, etc, and seek them out for that very purpose.
Hillary's said her priority for Syria is the removal of Assad. That's going to put her on a collision course with Russia.
I've seen no evidence that this wasn't a Russian state-sponsored attack
Isn't the burden of proof on the accuser? All we have is the word of "sources" in the "intelligence community" in the US government. I guess that's good enough to fully endorse attacks against Russia in response. After all, the US government would never lie to us.
No u.
Didn't the guy you were talking to say "rigging" isn't necessarily "electoral fraud?"
The definition of rigged in this context is "To manipulate dishonestly for personal gain." Doesn't a debate where one side gets the questions ahead of time count as manipulated, dishonestly, and for personal gain? How about the DNC hiring thugs and the mentally ill to pose as Bernie supporters and start fights with Trump supporters at his Chicago rally, dishonestly manipulating the media narrative and public opinion of both campaigns? That one had me fooled. I honestly thought it was Bernie fans starting that shit, but it was really Hillary's thugs. What about the New York DNC guy admitting they bus people around to different precincts to vote multiple times? Is that rigging?
What would somebody have to do, in your mind, for an electoral process to be rigged?
The wack jobs on the right want the Jews to go to Israel. The wack jobs on the left want Israel destroyed. Hmmm....
It's almost as if you can't force a meme...