CNN cuts off Chris Collins for telling the Truth about Hillary.
140 replies, posted
This is Clickhole/Onion tier stuff here, the dudes reaction after it happened had me stitches.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51228543]I've criticized Clinton numerous times.[/QUOTE]
I legitimately spat out my drink and started laughing. This post is almost as good as the video is. You're great Raidyr, you really are.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51228558]Except you don't even know it was a technical mishap or not either, and nor can you easily demonstrate that at this moment.
It's more like were at a impasse right now, but instead of even talking about the idea of media corruption, just better to label people as conspiracists right off the bat.
I don't mind if it turns out that CNN has really inconvenient satellite break ups, but so far the other side hasn't even bothered to present any proof besides hearsay.[/QUOTE]
if someone on the news was talking about how great the dallas cowboys are and was cut off due to what appear to be technical difficulties, would you assume that it's plausible that the technical difficulties were actually fake and it was just a plot by the station to silence positive comments on the dallas cowboys
would you say someone who thought it was just technical difficulties and someone who thought it was an anti cowboys plot would have equally good reasons to believe what they believe
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51228543]I've criticized Clinton numerous times.[/QUOTE]
Easily made my day with that statement.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51228519]it seems more apathetic to me to not question tbh[/QUOTE]
Who said I'm not questioning? Questioning =\= conspiracy which is where we're at already
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51228577]if someone on the news was talking about how great the dallas cowboys are and was cut off due to what appear to be technical difficulties, would you assume that it's plausible that the technical difficulties were actually fake and it was just a plot by the station to silence positive comments on the dallas cowboys
would you say someone who thought it was just technical difficulties and someone who thought it was an anti cowboys plot would have equally good reasons to believe what they believe[/QUOTE]
I would just say that is a retarded comparison cause the implications of opinions on sports is nowhere near as charged as politics.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51228578]Easily made my day with that statement.[/QUOTE]
it's true though
[editline]19th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tudd;51228587]I would just say that is a retarded comparison cause the implications of opinions on sports is nowhere near as charged as politics.[/QUOTE]
do you have any more proof that this was intentional than the hypothetical cowboys truther?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51228588]it's true though[/QUOTE]
I've seen him begrudgingly criticize her at best, and bend over backwards to defend her alot more in comparison.
And just by reaction I think people can see that.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51228543]I've criticized Clinton numerous times.[/QUOTE]
You can have your personal opinions and I'm not going to be one of those people who accuse anyone acting positive or neutral towards Clinton as being a "Correct the Record shill" or anything like that, but I've offhandedly noticed several posts of yours that seem oddly dismissive of concerning topics like this or the DNC scandal.
I recognize it's your personal opinion, but if you like a candidate, you should hold them to high standards so that they don't get complacent, instead of hand waving away blatant scandals or issues. Yeah, Republicans have had it in for Clinton for several years - and yes, Clinton does have positive thing she brings to the table, but not everything that comes out as a scandal is some Republican hit-piece/Russian conspiracy/etc. Some issues are genuine, and do need to be confronted.
Clinton has her positive traits, and Bernie definitely dropped the ball in some areas like strong minority outreach (in case anyone wants to see me criticize who my preferred candidate was), but there is a difference between focusing on the positive and dismissing the negative. Again, this is purely anecdotal on my part as I don't extensively follow your posting history and this is just my off handed observations in election/debate threads we've both posted in.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51228588]
do you have any more proof that this was intentional than the hypothetical cowboys truther?[/QUOTE]
No, but I don't label people as conspiracy nuts just because I don't like their opinion.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51228596]I've seen him begrudgingly criticize her at best, and bend over backwards to defend her alot more in comparison.
And just by reaction I think people can see that.[/QUOTE]
consensus isn't evidence
your characterizing of his criticism as "begrudging" doesn't mean his criticism isn't real
[QUOTE=jonoPorter;51227892]One of the reasons I hope Trump wins is that all these lefty biased, corrupt as fuck news outlets get blasted the fuck out for trying to cover up wikileak reveals about Clinton.[/QUOTE]
because having the country tear it's self apart in racism and hate crime and sending us back another century at an socioeconomic level is well worth dealing with corrupt news that you can outright ignore.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51228603]No, but I don't label people as conspiracy nuts just because I don't like their opinion.[/QUOTE]
the premise that this was actually CNN secretly silencing someone for bringing up wikileaks is by definition a conspiracy
[quote]Conspiracy (civil), an agreement between people to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights or to gain an unfair advantage[/quote]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51228588]do you have any more proof that this was intentional than the hypothetical cowboys truther?[/QUOTE]
It happening twice on the same topic makes it seem more than just coincidence. Does CNN lose connection to their reporters often?
what benefits does having "conspiracy" be a bad word have for the general populace?
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51228633]what benefits does having "conspiracy" be a bad word have for the general populace?[/QUOTE]
Should we really take them seriously?
Moon landing, JFK, 9/11, let's give those people some credit? No.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51228638]Should we really take them seriously?
Moon landing, JFK, 9/11, let's give those people some credit? No.[/QUOTE]
this is exactly what i mean. you lump all conspiracies into one you could let a lot of actually bad shit slide. watergate was a conspiracy by definition, does that mean it was a farce?
[editline]19th October 2016[/editline]
there are a lot of crackpot conspiracies out there, but if the definition of conspiracy is
[quote]Conspiracy (civil), an agreement between people to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights or to gain an unfair advantage[/quote]
then it seems fairly reasonable to assume that the concept of conspiracy is not that farfetched
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51228627]It happening twice makes it seem more than just coincidence. Does CNN lose connection to their reporters often?[/QUOTE]
you know the funny thing about coincidences is that they happen
Again, what possible reason does CNN have to silence Trump supporters who are stating things that have already been stated multiple times on their network? What do they have to gain from doing that? Assuming this plot is real, what was accomplished here?
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51228645]this is exactly what i mean. you lump all conspiracies into one you could let a lot of actually bad shit slide. watergate was a conspiracy by definition, does that mean it was a farce?[/QUOTE]
Watergate had evidence.
If you start acknowledging it as if it's real the people who are determined enough to believe this shit are getting a lot of validation letting them go on to make more elaborate lies.
how do YOU know which ones to validate? You don't. So in my eyes it's all or nothing for these people.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51228657]you know the funny thing about coincidences is that they happen
Again, what possible reason does CNN have to silence Trump supporters who are stating things that have already been stated multiple times on their network? What do they have to gain from doing that? Assuming this plot is real, what was accomplished here?[/QUOTE]
To make Clinton look like the more favorable candidate by hiding her faults. That should be very obvious.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51228657]you know the funny thing about coincidences is that they happen
Again, what possible reason does CNN have to silence Trump supporters who are stating things that have already been stated multiple times on their network? What do they have to gain from doing that? Assuming this plot is real, what was accomplished here?[/QUOTE]
An effective conspiracy wouldn't make this question so obvious so I don't know how this IS a conspiracy
[editline]19th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51228668]To make Clinton look like the more favorable candidate by hiding her faults. That should be very obvious.[/QUOTE]
So why air it in the first place...?
[editline]19th October 2016[/editline]
Like how many hoops do you have to jump through to make this make sense
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51228645]this is exactly what i mean. you lump all conspiracies into one you could let a lot of actually bad shit slide. watergate was a conspiracy by definition, does that mean it was a farce?
[editline]19th October 2016[/editline]
there are a lot of crackpot conspiracies out there, but if the definition of conspiracy is
then it seems fairly reasonable to assume that the concept of conspiracy is not that farfetched[/QUOTE]
this is a fairly complex topic, but I'll try to be brief
The problem with what is typically referred to as "conspiratorial" thinking is that you're taking isolated events, connecting them together, assuming that because they seem related they must have been orchestrated by the same agent, and then working backwards to explain that agent's behavior.
You notice that these two events where someone is cut out on CNN due to technical problems seem related. Because they seem to form a pattern, you assume they were both orchestrated by someone. And because you think they were orchestrated by someone, you think they're evidence of CNN trying to suppress Trump supporters.
It's a flaw with the way humans process information and seek patterns. It isn't something that just comes up with conspiracy theories. If you've ever heard someone say "I think the world was created by God because when I look at the plants and animals I know they must have been made by someone", you're dealing with the exact same problem.
[editline]19th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51228668]To make Clinton look like the more favorable candidate by hiding her faults. That should be very obvious.[/QUOTE]
then why let any trump supporters on at all
like if their plan is to just not let them speak, they can not invite them
and if the plan is to not let them speak, why have they already let so many speak?
guys its illegal to view this video just like its illegal to read wikileaks please go away
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51228669]
So why air it in the first place...?
[/QUOTE]
Well, i assume it was happening live like most news stations. :v:
[editline]b[/editline]
If you mean this one specifically, anyway.
Judging by the reaction I was thinking that this was going to be somewhat serious, but holy shit it's literally this:
"What do you think Trump needs to do to win?"
"Well Clinton sucks, she is a liar, just check Wikile--"
Oh no, he mentioned Wikileaks! I bet Wikileaks have never been mentioned on CNN before! This is clearly the liberal media suppressing any mention of Wikileaks, despite extensively covering Wikileaks themselves!
[QUOTE=phaedon;51228748]Judging by the reaction I was thinking that this was going to be somewhat serious, but it's literally this:
"What do you think Trump needs to do to win?"
"Well Clinton sucks, she is a liar, just check Wikile--"
Oh no, he mentioned Wikileaks. I bet Wikileaks have never been mentioned on CNN before![/QUOTE]
are you trying to imply that the people monitoring the feed weren't waiting to press the "fake technical difficulties" button at the first mention of wikileaks on order of the elites, and that the host's response wasn't him revealing the scheme which he is clearly also in on?
thank you for Correcting the Record ;)
-H
did they get him back since he said they were gonna try
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51228762]are you trying to imply that the people monitoring the feed weren't waiting to press the "fake technical difficulties" button at the first mention of wikileaks on order of the elites, and that the host's response wasn't him revealing the scheme which he is clearly also in on?[/quote]
You know, I just realized that not a week ago there was this tweet criticizing CNN for hiring Trump-supporting professional bullshit artists.
[media]https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/786926956075855872[/media]
His argument is as shit as some in this thread, I am just amazed at how easy it is to have CNN accused of having a right-wing or a left-wing bias within the same timeframe.
It's great evidence of how bipartisan and divided the US has become, how insulated both camps are, and how pathetic they are about impotently whining about media bias with the slightest provocation.
[quote]thank you for Correcting the Record ;)
-H[/quote]
Could you guys pay me in euros? :v:
"Oh nooo we just lost the satellite feed"
That's not what a lost feed looks like you liar.
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;51228808]"Oh nooo we just lost the satellite feed"
That's not what a lost feed looks like you liar.[/QUOTE]
so you know what every conceivable technical problem looks like? and the people responsible for staging this wicked plot don't know what any of them look like?