• Senator Feinstein's Office releases Fusion GPS interview transcript after GOP chair silence
    163 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53039219]Yeah, I know, you won't 'theorize past that' but you'll say 'you guys are conspiracy theorists' for looking at the evidence and going 'yeah, that seems pretty reasonable'. It's more credible a theory - and one supported by a so far well-self-establishing dossier - and one that's supported in respects by surrounding intelligence.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;53039213] I'm calling the theory of "X had hookers killed" a conspiracy theory, not the tape. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that.[/QUOTE] I'm saying "you guys are conspiracy theorizing" because you guys are coming up with conspiracy theories involving government mandated murders of hookers from unreleased blackmail tapes that we'll never see.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53039139]So your assertion is that the intelligence agencies of the world are just throwing together conspiracy theories based on their 'gut' or something? This is just me but that sounds [I]profoundly[/I] more a conspiracy theory.[/QUOTE] Gaslighting. They are trying to portray this as ~wacky conspiracy theories~, but this shit is literally coming from the most credible sources in the world. If we're all crazy wackos, then so is every intelligence agency in the Western world. The irony of this argument is that, in arguing that it's all just a witch hunt, [I]they[/I] are the ones promoting wacky theories.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;53039223]I'm saying "you guys are conspiracy theorizing" because you guys are coming up with conspiracy theories involving government mandated murders of hookers from unreleased blackmail tapes that we'll never see.[/QUOTE] So just to be clear, you think it's a conspiracy theory that Putin murders his political opponents? Do you think it's a conspiracy theory that the Russian government is corrupt? Do you think it's a conspiracy theory that Russia is headed by a russian Spymaster who has abused his position of power and connections to jail, murder, and malign the people of Russia and the world at large to increase his personal power? Do you think it's a conspiracy theory that Russia jails or murders people who find themselves in a position of knowledge or power that the Government wants for itself? I'm basically asking if you're stating that 'Russia would definitely make an exception with these purported hookers and saying otherwise is merely a conspiracy theory'. Given what we know of Russia, I'm inclined to immediately believe that these girls, being in possession of information that is literally a weapon that can be used against the United States, would not be allowed to walk the streets freely - whether they're kept by the state or murdered to ensure they don't get to tell a narrative that Russia doesn't want to tell.
I think this discussion has stalled. So what's the takeaway from the new documents? I got the impression that lots of republicans knew about trump's ties to russia well in advance of the election. Is that accurate, and is there anything else important?
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53039230]So just to be clear, you think it's a conspiracy theory that Putin murders his political opponents?[/quote] Hookers are political opponents? [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53039230] Do you think it's a conspiracy theory that the Russian government is corrupt?[/quote] Nah because we have [i]evidence to back that claim up. We're not sitting here theorizing on that with little to nothing to back up those claims [/i] [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53039230] Do you think it's a conspiracy theory that Russia is headed by a russian Spymaster who has abused his position of power and connections to jail, murder, and malign the people of Russia and the world at large to increase his personal power?[/Quote] See above [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53039230] Do you think it's a conspiracy theory that Russia jails or murders people who find themselves in a position of knowledge or power that the Government wants for itself?[/quote] See above [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53039230] I'm basically asking if you're stating that 'Russia would definitely make an exception with these purported hookers and saying otherwise is merely a conspiracy theory'.[/QUOTE] I'm not denying the plausibility of these hookers, who may or may not exist, being murdered. What I'm pointing out here is that there is absolutely no evidence, from intelligence or anywhere else, to suggest that they have been. Whats happening here is you're coming up with a theory that plays further into your narrative. This discussion is at the exact same level as the Clinton Death Squad conspiracy theories. Its ridiculous.
[quote=Cyke Lon Bee]Whats happening here is you're coming up with a theory that plays further into your narrative.[/quote] No, what's happening here is I'm making reasonable propositions of motives and moves Russia might make from available evidence. You can't even answer my questions straightly because you know I'm spot-on and doing so would undermine your shtick that 'y'all are just making conspiracy theories and saying they're the truth'. If (A) the tape exists then (B) it's likely the people on that tape are jailed or dead because (C) that is how Russia routinely deals with people who have information useful or damaging to the state. That's literally the whole thing; less a theory, more a statement that 'it'd probably go exactly how it seems to always go'. What you're 'pointing out' is that 'there's absolutely no evidence'. The problem is [I]there is[/I]. My problem with you is that it's not [I]concrete[/I] evidence and so you're just throwing it out as 'no evidence at all'. [quote]This discussion is at the exact same level as the Clinton Death Squad conspiracy theories. Its ridiculous.[/quote] Post intelligence agencies talking about said conspiracy theories, stating that 'she [I]has[/I] killed in the past according to our sources', or delete this part of your post and concede your point. If it's on the same level it's on the same level. If it's not, then you're the one who's spreading 'conspiracy theories'.
So will there come a day that all this concludes and Mueller sits down and lays out their findings?
[QUOTE=OvB;53039263]So will there come a day that all this concludes and Mueller sits down and lays out their findings?[/QUOTE] There will, yes, but whether or not we'll hear what those findings were is actually not certain. When Mueller (e: whoops, listening to MSNBC at the same time as making a post makes for occasional weird substitutions, sorry) makes his recommendation to the AG about charges to file and the evidence he has compiled in his time as special counsel there's no obligation for that information to become public -- or for the AG to spread the conclusions Mueller arrives at or his recommendation with the DoJ/Congress. That said - if that happens I imagine that the leakless ship Mueller has built will immediately detonate into a thousand leaked papers - but my imagination is a poor substitute for a guarantee. Additionally, the time that day will come is similarly uncertain. Theoretically, so long as Mueller keeps making reports and the AG keeps approving those reports and continuing the SC office's funding, the SC could continue investigating indefinitely.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53039255]No, what's happening here is I'm making reasonable propositions of motives and moves Russia might make from available evidence. You can't even answer my questions straightly because you know I'm spot-on and doing so would undermine your shtick that 'y'all are just making conspiracy theories and saying they're the truth'. If (A) the tape exists then (B) it's likely the people on that tape are jailed or dead because (C) that is how Russia routinely deals with people who have information useful or damaging to the state. That's literally the whole thing. What you're 'pointing out' is that 'there's absolutely no evidence'. The problem is [I]there is[/I]. My problem with you is that it's not [I]concrete[/I] evidence and so you're just throwing it out as 'no evidence at all'. Post intelligence agencies talking about said conspiracy theories, stating that 'she [I]has[/I] killed in the past according to our sources', or delete this part of your post and concede your point. If it's on the same level it's on the same level. If it's not, then you're the one who's spreading 'conspiracy theories'.[/QUOTE] I'll ask again, can you quote me where an intelligence agency has stated that these hookers were killed by a government? Thus far you've provided that the tapes exist, I'll concede that, but past that theres nothing Yes, the tapes exist according to intelligence agencies. Anything past that is a [i]theory [/i]because there is no evidence, concrete or otherwise, to suggest that. What you're doing is called making an "assumption". You have a plausible basis for said assumption, but its still an assumption.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;53039271]I'll ask again, can you quote me where an intelligence agency has stated that these hookers were killed by a government? Thus far you've provided that the tapes exist, I'll concede that, but past that theres nothing Yes, the tapes exist according to intelligence agencies. Anything past that is a [i]theory [/i]because there is no evidence, concrete or otherwise, to suggest that. What you're doing is called making an "assumption". You have a plausible basis for said assumption, but its still an assumption.[/QUOTE] Quote an intelligence agency stating anything about Clinton Death Squads or drop your point about 'y'all have no evidence and all this is ridiculous', I'm getting tired of bandying about the bush. As far intelligence agencies stating 'these hookers were killed by a government' I'm not aware of any such chatter. However I am aware of a [I]bevy[/I] of evidence where people in Russia were killed simply due to having information the state felt they shouldn't have, were political rivals, or might state something different than the Russians would like to state. Insofar it would be [I]surprising to learn[/I] that if there were hookers that they weren't killed/kidnapped because that's precisely what routinely happens to people in similar situations who have information or a perspective that is of interest to the state to either protect or ensure does not spread. There's more to 'the tapes' than you want to admit. Past the part where you say 'there's nothing past this' is admissions from said intelligence agencies that [I]said tapes do contain sexual acts similar to the acts reported in the dossier[/I]. In other words: They're not stating they have this exact tape - but they [I]do[/I] have tapes just like it. That's more than 'no evidence, concrete or otherwise'. That's not an assumption. That's a conclusion derived from available evidence that is [I]directly suggested[/I] by that evidence. Hell, the tapes [I]they[/I] have may be 'the tape in question' to begin with!
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53039148]I think what people are trying to point out is the tape at the very least is not something we can be certain exists, it's not really credible yet. It could be, but it isn't yet. The concept that hookers who may or may not have existed at all being killed is one that's on the fringe. Personally I don't know that I do believe, but if people did testify that people have died(Which this part did happen), and the tape does happen to exist, I don't think there's a huge stretch to say no name russian girls were killed in a country that still has an active and large sex trade. But I still don't have any evidence of that, none of us do.[/QUOTE] Yes, I think this is a much more cohesive view of the issue. It's just uncomfortable to admit that we're looking at events so high up the food chain, so global-reaching, receiving never-before-seen amounts of attention and coverage, and yet we can't even be certain of shit we heard about a year ago. But it's necessary. (and yes, i tried, and failed, to come up with a way to end that point without sounding like i'm quoting interstellar)
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53039282]Quote an intelligence agency stating anything about Clinton Death Squads or drop your point about 'y'all have no evidence and all this is ridiculous', I'm getting tired of bandying about the bush. As far intelligence agencies stating 'these hookers were killed by a government' I'm not aware of any such chatter. However I am aware of a [I]bevy[/I] of evidence where people in Russia were killed simply due to having information the state felt they shouldn't have, were political rivals, or might state something different than the Russians would like to state. There's more to 'the tapes' than you want to admit. Past the part where you say 'there's nothing past this' is admissions from said intelligence agencies that [I]said tapes do contain sexual acts similar to the acts reported in the dossier[/I]. In other words: They're not stating they have this exact tape - but they [I]do[/I] have tapes just like it. That's more than 'no evidence, concrete or otherwise'. That's not an assumption. That's a conclusion derived from available evidence that is [I]directly suggested[/I] by that evidence.[/QUOTE] So long story short theres no evidence of government mandated murders surrounding these tapes.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;53039288]So long story short theres no evidence of government mandated murders surrounding these tapes. Will you admit that making assumptions of government mandated murders of hookers is blatant conspiracy theories so we can end this discussion?[/QUOTE] Sure, except for the one guy who was killed by the state specifically because of the dossier - which we do have testimony about that was stated before congress -- which would be a federal crime by itself if it were a lie. And this dossier specifically surrounds said tape. Will you admit that it's not just 'pulled from thin air' so that you can end your one-man crusade against sense and sensibility?
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53039291]Sure, except for the one guy who was killed by the state specifically because of the dossier - which we do have testimony about that was stated before congress -- which would be a federal crime by itself if it were a lie. And this dossier specifically surrounds said tape. Will you admit that it's not just 'pulled form thin air' so that you can end your one-man crusade against sense and sensibility?[/QUOTE] One guy being killed, with no details being disclosed as of yet to my knowledge, is not an indication or evidence of hookers being murdered. Am I really in the wrong here, or ~crusading~, for not being cool with conspiracy theories? And theorizing hookers being killed is literally being pulled from nothing other than assumption.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;53039304]One guy being killed, with no details being disclosed as of yet to my knowledge, is not an indication or evidence of hookers being murdered. [/quote] Oh ok, glad to hear that if the state is proven to be willing to murder people over this dossier that lends no credence that [I]they'd be willing to murder people over this dossier.[/I] [quote]Am I really in the wrong here, or ~crusading~, for not being cool with conspiracy theories?[/quote] In a word: Yes. In more words: [...] because you're ignoring the surrounding context so that you can call them 'conspiracy theories'. Here, let me show you how wrong it is! Everything you've written is a conspiracy theory. The post you're going to respond to this post with? Conspiracy theory. You have no evidence of anything you're about to say. No evidence of anything you could say. Because, you see, your sources aren't credible, you're biased, and you're a conspiracy theorist. See? It's easy! I just begin by assuming you're a crazy conspiracy theorist who hasn't thought a minute about anything you're talking about and work backwards until I'm right and you continue to be wrong. [quote]And theorizing hookers being killed is literally being pulled from nothing other than assumption.[/QUOTE] (A) If there were hookers (B) the state sequestered or slaughtered them (C) because that's what they have done and continue to do to people just like them. Let's match that up with the Dossier: It says there were hookers. How well respected is the man who gathered this intelligence? Highly. How much of what he's written down in the dossier has proven to be wrong so far? Nothing. So it's likely there were hookers. Which means: see the above (A) -> (B) -> (C). It's not just an assumption; it's a prediction built off historical evidence!
I give up dood. Ill drop it. Have a good evening.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;53039319]I give up dood. Ill drop it. Have a good evening.[/QUOTE] See you next time when you'll 'undrop it'.
so can somebody answer my question now
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53039332]See you next time when you'll 'undrop it'.[/QUOTE] Do you have evidence of these murders of these prostitutes yes or no. Can you prove it happened
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53039344]Do you have evidence of these murders of these prostitutes yes or no. Can you prove it happened[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, you've got me! That was the point I was making, yep. My evidence is that the dossier states that there were prostitutes and that Russia routinely sequesters and murders those it finds inconvenient to its political strategy -- which these two hookers absolutely would be. The dossier was built by a man who's very highly respected in the intelligence community, the subject matter of the tape can be found across the world in a smattering of tapes like the alleged one, and so on and so forth. I don't have direct evidence, no. I have a smorgasbord of evidence that backs the claim the dossier makes which, if it is accurate, means that these prostitutes were murdered or sequestered -- or Putin's losing his touch, which he certainly doesn't seem to be. I'm sure that won't be enough for you though. I have evidence that backs the dossier that makes the claim which [I]would[/I] be direct evidence if you'd accept it but no evidence of such besides from the dossier's claim that there was a tape of Trump in a Russian hotel with hookers and the involved urine -- and that that was being used to blackmail Trump. What I [I]do[/I] have is evidence that many such tapes exist, involving the same sorts of acts, which are presently in the possession of intelligence agencies. So while I do not have direct evidence that that specific tape exists - I do have evidence that [I]blackmail material[/I] of the President exists, of which one is believed to be a genuine unmanipulated article - which would be Kompromat in and of itself - which would substantiate the base claim that Russia is holding blackmail on the President of a salacious nature because if 4 intelligence agencies have tapes of that sort on file, it'd be difficult to imagine Russia not having similar tapes. If said tape exists, which it appears at least one genuine one does, then if the people shown in that tape are nobodies in Russia, which the Dossier purports, then said nobodies are likely either sequestered or murdered -- because that is historically how Russia treats people in just such a position. [quote=JXZ]So what's the takeaway from the new documents? I got the impression that lots of republicans knew about trump's ties to russia well in advance of the election. Is that accurate, and is there anything else important?[/quote] The biggest takeaways from the interview so far is the defeat of many, many, GOP talking points. For instance, Grassley characterized the interview with Simpson as 'uncooperative, colluding with Russia, and colluding with the Democrats'. That is a bald-faced lie to anyone who reads the transcript.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53039148]I think what people are trying to point out is the tape at the very least is not something we can be certain exists, it's not really credible yet. It could be, but it isn't yet. The concept that hookers who may or may not have existed at all being killed is one that's on the fringe. Personally I don't know that I do believe, but if people did testify that people have died(Which this part did happen), and the tape does happen to exist, I don't think there's a huge stretch to say no name russian girls were killed in a country that still has an active and large sex trade. But I still don't have any evidence of that, none of us do.[/QUOTE] The tape doesn't have to exist of trump, it could very well be A Trump given how fiercely he defends his family
[quote]If he were as "fucked" as everyone is making him out to be, then mueller would have already formally presented the charges against him, and everyone else. [/quote] No, that's just a lie you're saying there. Mueller will present his charges and so forth at the time he concludes his investigation. Any charges he files now are only being filed to flip witnesses and gather more information. He simply will not present charges until he concludes his investigation -- that's the entire point of his investigation. The 'amount of fucked' Trump is has no real bearing on when Mueller will present his charges. If [U]anything[/U] the 'more fucked' Trump is, the longer it'll be until those charges are presented because that's just more reason for Mueller to not just slam dunk the case but go down in history with the most airtight case in recent prosecutorial history.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53039469]So what you're saying is, in a legal sense.. is trump's not fucked yet. Which is the entire crux of this argument. You keep thinking that this is another nail in the coffin. It's not. It's nowhere near a nail in the coffin. It's the iron ore that makes the nail, for a coffin that's not made yet either. Until the investigation concludes, the only people who are fucked are the people who get charges against them, and right now that's not the president. Much to my disdain, the dorito remains a president.[/QUOTE] "Not fucked in a legal sense" what? Dude if a bus is about to drive over the cliff, I think we can say 'the bus is fucked' before its tires physically and fully leave the ground. This is another nail in the coffin, and I know you apparently hate that, but it is.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53039477]Except, this case is anything but certain. Congress flat out could just refuse a case to go forward, SCOTUS could refuse to issue a ruling, OR rule in favor of the sitting president. In legal terms, no one is fucked until the judge or judges say so. To say he's driving the bus off a cliff is a poor analogy. The bus is still sitting in the depot still. I do SINCERELY hope that he gets prosecuted. I really do. I think he's a sapient orange with an IQ to match (truely a scientific marvel worthy of study). I don't want to sit and hear for the 8th million time that trump's totally fucked now, I don't want to sit and speculate about what evidence is going to be introduced. I don't want to bother speculating about charges, because there's a VERY real chance that even with all of mueller's work, trump will still continue being president. And that bothers me, and isn't helped in the slightest by the whole "oh man, everyone's gonna go down, it's gonna be amazing, real drain of swamp".[/QUOTE] What happens if nobody decides to do anything despite there being a President who 'is fucked': [U]They're fucked[/U] or [U]we're fucked[/U]. I don't expect a lot from people -- but I do generally expect that for each individual living in America, if there's going to be a fucking over then their preference is going to be the one fucking the other over - not the one being fucked over.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53039227]Gaslighting. They are trying to portray this as ~wacky conspiracy theories~, but this shit is literally coming from the most credible sources in the world. If we're all crazy wackos, then so is every intelligence agency in the Western world. The irony of this argument is that, in arguing that it's all just a witch hunt, [I]they[/I] are the ones promoting wacky theories.[/QUOTE] uhh, zukriuchen isn't the type of person to promote wacky conspiracy theories, this is more like gaslighting than people saying "slow your roll fam you're veering into conspiracy theory territory"
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53039487]By whom? The apathetic voters? A revolution that certainly isn't going to happen, as much as everyone is screaming about it? A constitutional crisis that will have no actual positive outcome? I do hope that he gets prosecuted, and I do hope that everyone goes down with him. I hope that turnout is strong this year, and the "blue wave" happens. But that's a whole lot of hope to have, with a whole little of actual tangible proof that it's going to happen.[/QUOTE] Yes, by the people who'll learn that they've been fucked over. There's many things Americans tolerate. Injustice that affects them specifically - that's something they don't mess around with; a primal thing that they refuse to tolerate. Certainly more than enough to shake a lot of people from their apathy. Tangible proof is already here. Seats that were supposed to be secure in deep red states have already started flipping - results we haven't seen in 80+ years are suddenly coming in droves. People are starting to get angry -- because they're starting to understand that they've been fucked over.
why would a germaphobe want to watch some whores piss on obama's bed?
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53039515]My friend, the apathy runs far deeper than either of us imagine. To think that anything short of their TV's not working or the internet suddenly cutting off due to government interference, would get people out of their tiny, sheltered lives, is wishful thinking. I get what you're saying. But IMO that America is dead and gone. It died in the 70's and 80's, as things got even easier, and as information grew more and more accessible. And was fully killed by the internet and the advent of the smart phone. Don't get me wrong, i'm not bashing any of these things, nor am I suggesting that we go back to a time before the internet. I simply think that there's no going back to the age of "get things done" that we had, things are to comfortable, and people are too easy to control.[/QUOTE] Eh, I think you're just stuck in a sphere where you're not seeing the people who're getting mad. I don't think it's wishful thinking to expect that people who don't like getting fucked over then proceed to do something to stop being fucked over. That is still happening all over America all the time. I don't think people's outrage died in the 70s and 80s. I think it's alive and well; just in a different format than it used to be. [quote=svinnik]why would a germaphobe want to watch some whores piss on obama's bed?[/quote] In a word: Hate. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4[/media]
it is a bit of a hobby of mine to dive into the conspiracy theory community, mostly just to see what's up, and i am seeing a lot of similarity in language and defense tactics being employed itt. take that as you will.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53039550]it is a bit of a hobby of mine to dive into the conspiracy theory community, mostly just to see what's up, and i am seeing a lot of similarity in language and defense tactics being employed itt. take that as you will.[/QUOTE] OK. For the record the only communities I'm a part of presently are Facepunch and Reddit's /r/politics and /r/games. The only language and 'defense tactics' I'm using are my own. Most of the people itt who're attempting to tear down my arguments (really, most of the arguments) seem to be taking talking points from particular sources they're so uniform. Take that as you will.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.