Tocky on 26/6/2020 at 02:08
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
From that email:
She was informed by multiple sources that QATAR was providing aid to ISIL yet she courted their financial contributions to
her re-election campaign.
Who is illiterate?
I am not a Republican.
You are. Nowhere did it say she "courted financial contributions to her re-election campaign" from them. Here is what it did say-
While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.
Admittedly I may have glossed over this because everyone knows they support the Sunni. They also kill journalists. Where is the part where she "courted financial contributions"?
nbohr1more on 26/6/2020 at 16:09
Quote Posted by Tocky
You are. Nowhere did it say she "courted financial contributions to her re-election campaign" from them. Here is what it did say-
While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.
Admittedly I may have glossed over this because everyone knows they support the Sunni. They also kill journalists. Where is the part where she "courted financial contributions"?
(
https://www.wsj.com/articles/foreign-government-gifts-to-clinton-foundation-on-the-rise-1424223031)
That is the context of these messages.
These quotes in the messages corroborate that reporting:
Quote:
We should be thoughtful about any group that wants to rent Friend of Hillary list now because there is interest. This is also probably best discussed off email.
Quote:
Morocco: No matter what happens, she will be in Morocco hosting CGI on May 5-7, 2015. Her presence was a condition for the Moroccans to proceed so there is no going back on this. Important that you know background.
nbohr1more on 26/6/2020 at 16:18
Quote Posted by catbarf
I picked this claim out and wasted five minutes of my life reading through the entirety of both. There is not a damned thing in either link about 'paying people to incite violence and unrest at Trump rallies'. The first link is a strategy discussion about upcoming speeches, and the second link is expressing support for students who peacefully protested and convinced the venue to pull the Trump rally.
Absolutely par for the course for Gish gallop conspiracy bullshit- it takes far longer to disprove than it does to assert.
Corroborated here:
(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY)
(
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15202) "Priorities SuperPAC"
Robert Creamer (from the video) visited the White House over 300 times...
Renzatic on 27/6/2020 at 00:07
At first it was weird. Then it got funny. Now it's just sad.
Tocky on 27/6/2020 at 02:06
I don't know what to even say anymore. I do appreciate that he cut out the bits he thinks proves something. That's an improvement right?
Perhaps fan cat can help.
[video=youtube_share;W-DzyVBkGxc]https://youtu.be/W-DzyVBkGxc[/video]
Renzatic on 27/6/2020 at 02:26
Fan cat always helps.
PigLick on 27/6/2020 at 14:18
You know I never have MY camera on when my cat does that
also poor cat
Al_B on 27/6/2020 at 15:19
I wouldn't worry - it's fake :)
PigLick on 27/6/2020 at 15:38
thank god
nbohr1more on 27/6/2020 at 17:59
Quote Posted by faetal
Nbohr - I am totally 100% open to believing anything which is true.
Knowing that it is true is just a simple case of providing decent source.
Sure it's not a long form article we're writing here, but you are making BIG claims. These require BIG evidence.
You can say what you like on a forum, but you can't make other people think the same way as you without a decent level of justification, and the wilder the ideas, the more solid the justification needs to be.
No one's saying Hilary is awesome here, but suggesting that she is complicit in engineering a virus which is killing people all over the world in order to make Trump look bad is a pretty huge claim.
The fact that this claim is not being investigated by ANYONE AT ALL means either that it isn't true, or that there is a global (i.e. every world leader seeing eye to eye on this stuff) conspiracy to make sure nothing is investigated and that the entire world's scientific community are somehow in on it. This replaces a big wild hypothesis, with a bigger, wilder hypothesis. Ockham's razor says no by default, but if there is compelling evidence to the contrary, then it could be considered. But if there is compelling evidence, then we're back to why no one is doing anything about it? And if there isn't compelling evidence, then how do you know it to be true?
There's no personal axe being ground here, other than my projecting my general dismay of post-truth internet discourse onto you (my bad a bit, but you are kind of doing that thing).
If you have good info, then that is all that is needed - no amount of convincing will be done by gesticulating wildly about the deep state.
Just the facts - then the conclusions more or less write themselves, without the need for embellishment, over-extrapolation, or appeals to incredulity.
My problem is that most of the grouchy people who moan about "post-truth" don't back-up their claims with things that can be verified either.
If the Washington Post offered an expose and the source of their story could be corroborated via encrypted block-chain digital forensics then I would accept
their reporting at face value. But instead we get such gems as "sources familiar with the president's thinking" as "evidence".
The wikileaks releases are the last news that we can count on. Everything else is just partisan opinion pieces dressed as news.
In the same breath, someone can screech "facts matter!" and become irritated when someone right-leaning person presses for "factual data" about the Kavanaugh accusers.
The news treats everyone who wears a baseball cap and behaves badly as a "part of Trump's fascist army" but anyone who follows the money to figure out who is
funding ANTIFA violence is a "wacko conspiracy theorist who is conflating bad individuals with the overall group".
Have we forgotten that documents can be forged?
Have we forgotten that actors exist?
Have we forgotten about Photoshop?
There are so many ways that a Political organization can use "guilt by association" tactics and the reporting takes all of them at face value ( Jussie Smollett ).
And it is all so dumb.
We live in a Technocrat Surveillance state. The NSA sees all. The CIA sees all. And their partners Google and Facebook see all.
The major news media have access to all of the above through their political connections.
There should have been NO GUESSING about whether Jussie Smollett was attacked by a Trump supporter.
Just sue the state for access to collections data > read the emails > and figure out how much Jussie paid the fake attackers.
DIGITAL TRAIL OF EVIDENCE.
This should apply to all parties.
The problem happens when one party has full access to all of that surveillance and they use it to control the flow of information and then pretend they don't have that level of access.
