Comey to Trump: The Russians Didn't Influence the Election - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51535674]Oh come on, you dont really think thats good enough do you? Like it or not, there are a lot of people that read SH. When you post an article, you're contributing to the sphere of public perception, and I think you know that. SH, despite its name, does have slightly more stringent rules on sources. People that read stuff on here tend to either take it as fact or keep it somewhere in the back of their mind. Perceptions formed here spread elsewhere as well, SH doesn't operate in a vaccum. I'm not expecting "thesis levels of dissertation" but I feel like we hold ourselves to a better standard than something like reddit at least.[/QUOTE] Oh I can totally agree with that, but I am honest when I post. And it's not like I am coming out with this source going, "Aha look at what Comey said." The ironic thing is that I actually think this kind of news if true is more hurtful than anything. There is a very convincing argument to be made that Comey is playing a sort of meta game that I think both sides can agree is curiously terrible. [quote]“The FBI had this material for a long time but Comey, who is of course a Republican, refused to divulge specific information about Russia and the presidental election,” Reid told MSNBC’s AM Joy on Saturday. Comey testified to Congress in July that he was no longer a registered Republican, though he belonged to the party most of his life. “Everyone should know WikiLeaks was involved from the very beginning,” Reid continued. “They leaked the information as if it was run by one of the great political operatives in America when in fact it was run by the political operatives in Russia. Pressed on whether he believed Comey had information on Russia’s influence and sat on it, Reid replied: “That’s right, that is true.” “I am so disappointed in Comey. He has let the country down for partisan purposes and that’s why I call him the new J Edgar Hoover, because I believe that,” Reid added, calling for the director’s resignation. “I think he should be investigated by the Senate. He should be investigated by other agencies of the government including the security agencies because if ever there was a matter of security it’s this … I don’t think any of us understood how partisan Comey was.”[/quote] [url]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/fbi-russia-trump-election-harry-reid-james-comey-wikileaks[/url]

[QUOTE=Tudd;51535637]Well much like Huffington post that has some of the shittiest blog news that people take seriously, Townhall.com has it too.[/QUOTE] Tu quoque?

This is pretty funny because comey is the one who handed the election to trump.

[QUOTE=ZachPL;51535788]This is pretty funny because comey is the one who handed the election to trump.[/QUOTE] Nah, Clinton's shite campaigning did. It was over even before then.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51535800]Nah, Clinton's shite campaigning did. It was over even before then.[/QUOTE] she still won the popular vote

Putin and all of the Kremlin are probably laughing at this whether they did anything or not.

[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;51535370]"Trump is crazy for thinking the elections could be rigged" ... "the election was rigged by the Russians" "Russia hacked the dnc and released emails detailing corruption, collusion against sanders, and a subversion of the democratic process by the dnc" ... "wow fucking Russia how dare they try to influence our elections"[/QUOTE] The difference is that he asserted that the elections were rigged against him, not potentially rigged in general.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51535880]she still won the popular vote[/QUOTE] Not in the places it counted

[QUOTE=Conscript;51536113]Not in the places it counted[/QUOTE] The places it counts is in the hearts and minds of the two million people who voted against Trump

[QUOTE=jaegerisacunt;51534832]fucking lol this is fast emerging to becoming a battle between the FBI and the CIA, which ive suspected would eventually happen.[/QUOTE] Life imitates "art". Wasn't this a really dumb plot device in GTA V?

[QUOTE=Paramud;51536371]The places it counts is in the hearts and minds of the two million people who voted against Trump[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/12/clintons_popular_vote_lead_ove.html]She has a more than 2.8 million vote lead over him in the national popular vote now[/url]. Also, the good news is [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-more-americans-believe-popular-vote-should-decide-the-president/]more and more Americans are starting to feel that the national popular vote should be what determines who becomes president[/url]. She won. And this man is clearly not qualified to be our president on so many different levels. The EC voting for him on the 19th will be the greatest indictment against them that proves they're nothing but an archaic institution that needs to be destroyed, and it will be wonderful ammunition to use against them when his administration turns into the predictable disaster that it's going to be.

The last time I can remember American intelligence agencies fighting and not co-operating was in the lead up to the 9/11 attacks. This is a potentially dangerous situation that needs to be resolved.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51535800]Nah, Clinton's shite campaigning did. It was over even before then.[/QUOTE] I agree that Clinton and Clinton's campaign were to blame for the loss, but honestly, looking at the margins in Pennsylvania and Florida, it could've been the straw that broke the camel's back. Either way, there nothing to do about it at this point, and the camel's structural integrity shouldn't have been shit.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51536493]The last time I can remember American intelligence agencies fighting and not co-operating was in the lead up to the 9/11 attacks. This is a potentially dangerous situation that needs to be resolved.[/QUOTE] What worries me is that a major terrorist attack by Islamic extremists would likely just bolster Trump's supporters and set us back even further in regards to Islamophobia.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51535296]Also shame on anyone not looking at the source lmao Townhall is a heavy conservative news site, and the article is by a columnist who writes articles such as: [img]http://i.imgur.com/O1hIdwG.png[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/Hkoe5wv.png[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/DWYQINO.png[/img] On top of that, the columnist cites no sources whatsoever. He just says that there was this phonecall. The only other news sites picking up on it: [url]www.americasfreedomfighters.com[/url] [url]www.teaparty.org[/url] So yeah, posting in a Tudd thread.[/QUOTE] Do you remember that time tudd said he "just uses common sense to filter out the bad news from /pol/"? lol because I do

The Democrats' leadership are just plain acting stupid. The average American doesn't give a fuck where the information comes from, just that it is accurate (which no one is denying). By trying to blame this shit on everyone but themselves, the Democratic party is losing votes by the hour.

[QUOTE=matt000024;51538267]The Democrats' leadership are just plain acting stupid. The average American doesn't give a fuck where the information comes from, just that it is accurate (which no one is denying). By trying to blame this shit on everyone but themselves, the Democratic party is losing votes by the hour.[/QUOTE] yes, i like that out-of-your-butt analysis of the situation where you provide us with shit meaningless rhetorics instead of arguments

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51535880]she still won the popular vote[/QUOTE] I'm aware of that. But she won it through hardcore Democrats alone, just how Trump only had around the same vote as his predecessors because of hardcore Republicans. All it shows is that there is now a hardcore Democrat majority. Clinton just did not inspire voters to vote for her like Obama did. Don't excuse America's system being pants on head stupid, but it is what it is. I hope it is changed for the next election.

[QUOTE=Mechanical43;51538578]yes, i like that out-of-your-butt analysis of the situation where you provide us with shit meaningless rhetorics instead of arguments[/QUOTE] can you prove anything i just said wrong? democrats are killing the messenger instead of the message.

So in light of [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1545548&p=51539476#post51539476"]this [/URL]it seems this story was a complete fabrication

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51539492]So in light of [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1545548&p=51539476#post51539476"]this [/URL]it seems this story was a complete fabrication[/QUOTE] I already contacted a mod about it to close the thread.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51539500]I already contacted a mod about it to close the thread.[/QUOTE] you should've did that the moment we pointed out it was garbage

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51539524]Just like [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1544224]this one?[/url][/QUOTE] im sorry but did i create that thread

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51539555]It was also doubted from the start but wasn't confirmed until later. Should we just close all threads when someone thinks they're not legitimate?[/QUOTE] How many fake stories does Yahoo run? CBS News? Compared to ROFLBURGER's [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=51535296#post51535296"]screengrabs[/URL]. Nobody could so thorughly prove the sources as fake, I'd argue because it's impossible. There is a difference between a legitimate news source reporting a story then that story turning out to be false and a website spinning narratives out of thin air. I also can't help but notice that despite that threads OP mentioning it, Tudd hasn't deigned to post an update in this one. The takeaway here shouldn't be "Well the other side did it too so that means it's okay when we do it" (partly because that isn't accurate) but maybe investigate your source a little bit more than not at all rather than pulling whatever trash you can from /pol/ or T_D to "balance the discussion" on FP.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51539555]It was also doubted from the start but wasn't confirmed until later. Should we just close all threads when someone thinks they're not legitimate?[/QUOTE] It's more of a "know" than a think. If you have a provenly shit source, from a provenly shit columnist, with provenly shit evidence and citations (none at all!), then you shouldn't post it until you have a better source. I'm not speaking from a rule-breaking standpoint. I'm talking from a discussion based standpoint. Posting this kind of shit does nothing to help reasonable discussion. [editline]4[/editline] Even if I witnessed a crime for myself and wanted to post about it, I wouldn't dare post about it if the only source was the Liberal Guardian.