Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 49 of 111 FirstFirst ... 3947484950515999 ... LastLast
Results 3,601 to 3,675 of 8309
  1. #3601
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Trump, Brexit, Dueterte, Colombia's vote for peace, whatever else I'm not aware of - what gives? I've been looking around for an explanation. (if you only read one, the first one is probably the best)

    Anthropologist right after Trump secured the nom

    https://zeroanthropology.net/2016/05...united-states/

    Guy on Quora

    https://www.quora.com/Are-people-who...usty?srid=iqSO

    This back and forth on a reddit sub, the post before this one read

    "The (likely false) promise of jobs and a sense of economic security. All these people saying "the freedom to be racist" need to go back and fucking read that link or liberals will continue to lose horribly in important contests."

    https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDr...y_the/d9t7ix6/

    This commentary

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commenta...election-2016/

    And this one

    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/...son-of-brexit/

    I think they're all close to the central issue with the Dems and Hillary dropping the ball so hard. Oh and the pollsters, and the betting markets, and the statisticians, and the media, and pretty much everyone that wasn't trying to Make America Great Again.

    When your bubble pops as hard as it did Tuesday night, you assess the debris, not quickly blow up another and hop in. NPR still hasn't learned its lesson. It's still trying to paint Hillary supports as righteous and Trump supporters as racist and what not. This morning they said that Trump supporters prayed in demonstrations, while Hillary supporters protested in demonstration.

    It all really crystallizes a lot that I've been hearing from NPR for the past year+. I remember when they were obviously supporting Hillary during the Bernie run, doing things like introducing bernie's comment in an interview where he uh's and um's and then cutting to Hillary's pseudo-response during an upswell of soaring rhetoric during a rally. Whatever, that's all fine and good, I'd think, but I really wish they'd just all admit once in a while that they're all Hillary supporters.

    Or in other instances when NPR would constantly talk about racial divides in America and then cut to Shanker Vidantham (wrong spelling) with new discoveries in social science, Shanker? "Oh yes, Steve, what we've discovered is that your prejudice against women/other races/other religions is unconscious and invisible to you always. The only thing there is for you to do is to always work to make amends for the original sins of racism and sexism and whatever else research discovers tomorrow."

    It does seem like there's a sense on the left that you tow-the-line lest you become otherized and demonized. And why would you want to be otherized from the side that gets Global Warming? The side that sympathizes with those out of power? The side that cares for the world in 10 generations? The side with the open mind? Especially when the others want to drill-baby-drill, cling to their guns and bibles, and forget the world beyond the horizon?


    https://youtu.be/D96LstZ2KEM



    I didn't see Trump's support because I didn't look. I trusted clever media to see the world for me and bring it to me as it actually was. And they failed, so utterly and completely, that I see that I was trapped in just like those republicans with their fox news during the last two presidential elections. Sad!
    That you recognize this so quickly after the election, shows that you are indeed an intelligent person.
  2. #3602
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It may seem counter-intuitive, but there is evidence of this actually being a thing throughout history. It tends to take a very powerful person whose power does not arise from political ties for the little guy to get an adversary at the top.
    You're right, there are billionaires out there who care about the little people. But Trump has never been one of them; he's about the least philanthropic billionaire there is.
  3. #3603
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    If America is not a noticeably better place by 2020, he will lose reelection and be considered a joke for the rest of his children's lives.

    Contrast this to Obama, who will be considered a victor forever due to being the first black President. Trump is what we want in the White House, a President who has little choice but to perform lest he be a failure.
    Couldn't Trump also be considered a victor forever as the man who bucked the system? He could fail miserably in the next four years, throw up his hands and say 'it's rigged, i could't do what i wanted to do', and 9/10th of his supporters will buy it.
  4. #3604
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Maybe I'm ignorant, but how does being a lobbyist qualify you to set up a government department? Seems to me it should disqualify you if anything.
    Right now, of the people who know the interworkings of the federal government, close to all of them have lobby or congressional experience.

    The lobby isn't wrong itself. It's an integral aspect of a functioning government. It's private citizens speaking on behalf of other private citizens. We want to have this.

    What Trump has discussed is how the law should be changed so that there isn't as great of incentive for corruption between Congress and the lobby. Scroll down for the five-point plan: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-swamp/504569/

    I'll be a bit upset if he doesn't put a great deal of effort into this ethics plan. It would be very fantastic reform. However, him using people with lobby experience for his transition isn't hypocritical to this or other things he has said.
  5. #3605
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Couldn't Trump also be considered a victor forever as the man who bucked the system? He could fail miserably in the next four years, throw up his hands and say 'it's rigged, i could't do what i wanted to do', and 9/10th of his supporters will buy it.
    I'd say closer to 4/10ths of his supporters would buy it. And the rest of the country? We'd think he's a joke.

    If his strategy was to boost his brand without making America great again, he would have been better off losing the election. He would have kept all his fans then. But now that he won, people will be expecting results, because, well, most of us who voted for him did so because of what he said he would do.
  6. #3606
    Two photos I wanted to use for my avatar but didn't because they don't resize well enough. Sad!



  7. #3607
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    That you recognize this so quickly after the election, shows that you are indeed an intelligent person.
    The problem is people don't get objective news from anywhere because there's no such thing and never will be. People don't watch 'the news' they watch 'the news they want to hear'. If you liked Clinton you probably watched MSM or liberal youtube channels cause they told you Clinton would win. If you liked Trump you got your news from places that said Trump would win. The truth is, none of those media people knew for a fact who was gonna win because the votes weren't counted yet ffs. People who have the arrogance to think they can read the minds of 100 million people are not smart, they're fools.

    For example, when i was watching the Young Turks coverage of the election on youtube, they started out all 'haha Trump's an idiot he'll never win' and i'm thinking 'why are they being so smug? There's lots of ways he could win'.

    And sorry, but I don't understand why so many people are shocked by what happened. It's not like she was up 50 points or anything, it was close. Some polls even had Trump winning. Maybe it's just for the reasons I stated above, because they only watch the news they want to see.

    Edit: There's also a degree to which I think people tend to assume that a majority of the populace share their own experience and perceptions because they, the person doing the thinking, are 'right'. When you take a step back from that idea and realise that people all have different experiences and different interpretations of what goes on, it's a lot easier to understand how they can think and do things that seem so 'wrong' to you.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 11-11-2016 at 07:18 PM.
  8. #3608
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Right now, of the people who know the interworkings of the federal government, close to all of them have lobby or congressional experience.
    Meh, don't really understand how it all works but it's hard to see how a Verizon lobbyist is going to set up a fair and impartial FCC, for example.
  9. #3609
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    And sorry, but I don't understand why so many people are shocked by what happened. It's not like she was up 50 points or anything, it was close. Some polls even had Trump winning. Maybe it's just for the reasons I stated above, because they only watch the news they want to see.
    I think it is that as well as the media told them that Trump can't win because Trump is Literal Hitler and there's no way America is Evil Enough to elect Literal Hitler.

    I attend one of the more conservative and "respectability culture" universities in the country (though it is in the Pac NW, so it can't be that conservative), and we had protest marches the night Trump won. There has since been a surprising amount of crybabying to the administration, students claiming oppression and whatever bullshit. Even though I don't know the exact story, signs are pointing to a dude in one of my classes getting expelled because of an altercation the night of the election. So many people here are shocked. Why? Maybe because they've been hoaxed by the media into thinking Trump is Evil Incarnate, and now they're confronted with the "reality" of their world being Nazi Germany Viet Cong Gulag and don't know how to deal.
  10. #3610
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Meh, don't really understand how it all works but it's hard to see how a Verizon lobbyist is going to set up a fair and impartial FCC, for example.
    You'll get no contest from me. This is one of the drawbacks of government. Impartiality is in many ways a myth.
  11. #3611
  12. #3612
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I think it is that as well as the media told them that Trump can't win because Trump is Literal Hitler and there's no way America is Evil Enough to elect Literal Hitler.

    I attend one of the more conservative and "respectability culture" universities in the country (though it is in the Pac NW, so it can't be that conservative), and we had protest marches the night Trump won. There has since been a surprising amount of crybabying to the administration, students claiming oppression and whatever bullshit. Even though I don't know the exact story, signs are pointing to a dude in one of my classes getting expelled because of an altercation the night of the election. So many people here are shocked. Why? Maybe because they've been hoaxed by the media into thinking Trump is Evil Incarnate, and now they're confronted with the "reality" of their world being Nazi Germany Viet Cong Gulag and don't know how to deal.
    I agree there is a fair bit of overreaction going on. A couple of points though:

    1. It isn't just the media that portrayed Trump as the bad guy. He did say some things that could be construed as a tad extreme, or at the very least inappropriate.

    2. It's hard to argue hypotheticals, but I'm not sure the scene would have been any less ugly had Clinton won. There might have been less than a gracious acceptance from the other side too.
  13. #3613
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You're right, there are billionaires out there who care about the little people. But Trump has never been one of them; he's about the least philanthropic billionaire there is.
    Oh come on. How can you say this with any shred of credibility? Have you met every billionaire on the planet? I haven't, but I'll tell you one characteristic most of them share... what's the opposite of philanthropy?

    I'll grant you Bill Gates. There might be a handful of less famous guys out there like him. But the vast majority of rich people who give away money do so for ulterior motives... perhaps because it boosts their profile, or perhaps the "charity" they are donating to is a crooked foundation of the type that the Clintons set up for the purpose of corruption. Very few of them give a flying fuck about the little guy. Trump was probably one of them when all he cared about was business. Now he cares about the little guy because he wants their votes next time around.

    I'm not suggesting Trump is a Bill Gates, he has his ulterior motives. But those motives are real, and he's now in a position to make a real difference, instead of merely throwing money at charities to look good.

    I do not think for one minute that Trump is the most misanthropist (I looked it up) of the billionaire club, far from it.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  14. #3614
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I agree there is a fair bit of overreaction going on. A couple of points though:

    1. It isn't just the media that portrayed Trump as the bad guy. He did say some things that could be construed as a tad extreme, or at the very least inappropriate.

    2. It's hard to argue hypotheticals, but I'm not sure the scene would have been any less ugly had Clinton won. There might have been less than a gracious acceptance from the other side too.
    I agree with #1. I think he suffered a lot because of it, too. But I think the media went way overboard too.

    #2 I also agree with, but I do think there would have been less of it in the same line that the amount of violence during the election was much higher on the Clinton side than the Trump side.
  15. #3615
    I think there was only a serious risk of Trump supporters kicking up a fuss in the event of a Clinton win if there was evidence of a stitch up.

    Which, I'll be honest, I'm still surprised didn't happen. Maybe they knew they needed to fix too many states, it's not like Florida was the difference this time around.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  16. #3616
    On another note, who the fuck cares what Ben & Jerry's think about the election? They sell ice cream for fuck's sake. How does ice cream have a political opinion? Why does it need sharing?

    Next time we have an election, maybe I'll ask my Solero who to vote for.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  17. #3617
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I think there was only a serious risk of Trump supporters kicking up a fuss in the event of a Clinton win if there was evidence of a stitch up.

    Which, I'll be honest, I'm still surprised didn't happen. Maybe they knew they needed to fix too many states, it's not like Florida was the difference this time around.
    What if I told you

    That they did fix it, and Trump actually won by 4 more points than the vote tallies show.



    Do I believe this? Well......maybe about 5% of me believes it. Maybe 11%. I ain't ruling it out.
  18. #3618
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Oh come on. How can you say this with any shred of credibility? Have you met every billionaire on the planet?
    Do I need to have met every billionaire on the planet for my argument to be credible?


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I haven't, but I'll tell you one characteristic most of them share...
    Ok, didn't think so.


    How's this?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...-a6758066.html

    https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl...p+philanthropy
  19. #3619
    Soros is on that list.

    I mean fucking really.

    Soros.

    If ever you wanted an example of a prize cunt who gives away money for ulterior motives, he's your man.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  20. #3620
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Soros is on that list.

    I mean fucking really.

    Soros.

    If ever you wanted an example of a prize cunt who gives away money for ulterior motives, he's your man.

    Now 85, he has piled huge funds into causes including the fight against Apartheid and the emergence of democracy behind the iron curtain. His Open Society Foundations promote justice, public health and a free press and he's political, too. He backed Barack Obama to the tune of millions and, before that, piled even more cash into trying to oust George W Bush, promising to give away his whole fortune for the cause "if someone guaranteed it". He's now taking on Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose general prosecutor last week banned the charity on the grounds that it posed a threat to state security and the Russian constitution.[/B]
    Be honest. You're just mad about the bolded bit.
  21. #3621
    lol "the fight against Apartheid".

    I bet he doesn't use that word to decrsibe the current Israeli policy of segregation.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  22. #3622
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What if I told you

    That they did fix it, and Trump actually won by 4 more points than the vote tallies show.



    Do I believe this? Well......maybe about 5% of me believes it. Maybe 11%. I ain't ruling it out.

    Source?
  23. #3623
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    lol "the fight against Apartheid".

    I bet he doesn't use that word to decrsibe the current Israeli policy of segregation.

    Good point. But Soros isn't the president-elect, Trump is. And it's hard to find evidence that he's given much money to anything. Or maybe he's just so modest he prefers to keep it quiet.
  24. #3624
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Source?
    I'm not making a claim or being entirely serious. I only believe what I said about 5-11% of the time.

    Does rigging happen? Probably. It would have to be real damn hard for elections to be 100% pure. Was this election rigged? Maybe, but I have no clue.
  25. #3625
    The Soros thing is interesting. I certainly don't think he's on the up and up, but I haven't seen compelling enough evidence that he is everything the theorists say. However, I think it's possible they're right. I mean, a month ago, the smart money was that Alex Jones was off his rocker when he said the top government elites are Devil worshipers, but then the Podesta Spirit Cooking Extravaganza happened. Makes you wonder.
  26. #3626
    So if you say enough crazy shit some of it has to be true?

    Lol, if a million Alex Joneses sat on a million youtube channels making up conspiracy theories...

    What is the PSCE exactly? I'm ashamed to admit I ignored the Satanic Hillary claims. Though it would explain why her voice sounds like the Wicked Witch of the West.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 11-11-2016 at 08:23 PM.
  27. #3627
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    So if you say enough crazy shit some of it has to be true?
    My thought is more along the lines of enough of the crazy shit has been proven that maybe some of the other crazy shit isn't so crazy.

    What is the PSCE exactly? I'm ashamed to admit I ignored the Satanic Hillary claims. Though it would explain why her voice sounds like the Wicked Witch of the West.
    If I recall correctly, Wikileaks showed John Podesta setting up Spirit Cooking dinners with Marina Abramovic. There are videos online of her doing Satanic rituals. There is IIRC a photo in Podesta's house of him having a sculpture of a person whose soul is being consumed by the Devil. It has also been claimed that he has other works of art by an artist (I forget the name of the artist, but I looked up the work and can confirm) who depicts very pedophilic and disturbing stuff. This artist is reported to be one of Podesta's favorites.

    I don't recall if the links are any closer to Hillary. I'm pretty sure she and Bill rode the Lolita Express several times though. But frankly I'm not big into this stuff so I don't know much about it.
  28. #3628
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The Soros thing is interesting. I certainly don't think he's on the up and up, but I haven't seen compelling enough evidence that he is everything the theorists say. However, I think it's possible they're right. I mean, a month ago, the smart money was that Alex Jones was off his rocker when he said the top government elites are Devil worshipers, but then the Podesta Spirit Cooking Extravaganza happened. Makes you wonder.
    It's actually happening. Normal people like wuf (I kept a straight face), rather than conspiracy nuts like me (I smirked), are starting to see the world for what it really is.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  29. #3629
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It's actually happening. Normal people like wuf (I kept a straight face), rather than conspiracy nuts like me (I smirked), are starting to see the world for what it really is.
    I've spent waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time on r/the_donald (which means not enough time). I've been burned a few times by them already. They'll believe any ol theory.

    But they have been the leader in pushing some stories that the rest of the media ignored. The Orlando terrorist attack is one.
  30. #3630
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Good point. But Soros isn't the president-elect, Trump is. And it's hard to find evidence that he's given much money to anything. Or maybe he's just so modest he prefers to keep it quiet.
    I never suggested Trump was a particularly generous person. I just think when we use the word "philanthropist", we have to disect what it actually means. Giving money away doesn't make you a philanthropist. You have to do it because you love humankind. That's what the word literally means. Phile - lover of... anthropy - relating to humans. It has to be done for no reason other than kindness. Then we can talk about philanthropy.

    I'd be very surprised if Soros fits the bill there.

    Trump, he has his chance now to prove what he's all about.

    There's a very good chance that in four years time, I'll hate him. I liked Obama to begin with, he came across as intelligent after the disaster that was Bush. Then again, a dog would've looked smart in comparison.

    Now I see Obama as just another puppet. It's not out of the question that Trump will be in that same boat in time.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  31. #3631
    i literalold

  32. #3632
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I never suggested Trump was a particularly generous person. I just think when we use the word "philanthropist", we have to disect what it actually means. Giving money away doesn't make you a philanthropist. You have to do it because you love humankind. That's what the word literally means. Phile - lover of... anthropy - relating to humans. It has to be done for no reason other than kindness. Then we can talk about philanthropy.
    Whether or not you think Soros should be on that list is irrelevant, and I don't know why you keep talking about him. We're talking about Trump here.

    I know what the word philanthropy means. One way in which philanthropy is judged is by donations to charity. And it's a pretty good measure - what else are you gonna do, count the number of times they've helped a little old lady cross the street? Or helped a neighbour build a fence? By the charity measure, what I said about Trump is wholly credible. He gives away very little money relative to a lot of billionaires.
  33. #3633
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    My thought is more along the lines of enough of the crazy shit has been proven that maybe some of the other crazy shit isn't so crazy.



    If I recall correctly, Wikileaks showed John Podesta setting up Spirit Cooking dinners with Marina Abramovic. There are videos online of her doing Satanic rituals. There is IIRC a photo in Podesta's house of him having a sculpture of a person whose soul is being consumed by the Devil. It has also been claimed that he has other works of art by an artist (I forget the name of the artist, but I looked up the work and can confirm) who depicts very pedophilic and disturbing stuff. This artist is reported to be one of Podesta's favorites.

    I don't recall if the links are any closer to Hillary. I'm pretty sure she and Bill rode the Lolita Express several times though. But frankly I'm not big into this stuff so I don't know much about it.
    That may or may not be true. It's not hard to forge emails. There's no signature on the bottom, it just says 'from X to X'. You can say 'well then how do they forge 20 000 emails?' Well, maybe they use keywords and computers generate plausible sounding emails. Or maybe they have a bigger staff than they let on. Or maybe they have the originals, but they just doctor the ones they want to doctor, which gives it all an air of legitimacy. It's as easy as this:


    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I support Trump. I think he'll be good for the country.
    "Sure sounds like Wuf."

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Capitalism is great. We should abolish all government controls and regulations.
    "Yep, its Wuf for certain."

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I worship Satan. Come over to my house tonight for some pentagrams and free coffee. Oh and if we have time we'll kick some puppies too.
    "OMG I can't believe what Wuf is a Satanist who kicks puppies."


    Now try to prove you never said that. How are you going to do it? Your name is right there, after all.


    This is what in my mind makes Wikileaks difficult to assess. There's no way of disproving anything they post. And though they claim to be interested in uncovering government corruption and be all high and moral, it's possible their motives are less pure than that.

    Who's to say the whole thing is not just the trick of some unfriendly foreign power to undermine the West? How do we know Wikileaks is not just a giant scam being perpetrated by Iran or Russia or China? Or maybe Assange and his ilk are just some anarchists who hate government and want to embarrass it.

    Don't assume Wikileaks' motives are all pure and simple. Don't assume everything they put up there is true or that it's 'proven' because they're 'quoting from the source'. It might be, but it also might not be partly or wholly made up for other reasons.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 11-12-2016 at 07:05 AM.
  34. #3634
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    One way in which philanthropy is judged is by donations to charity. And it's a pretty good measure...
    Nah it's a shit measure. It basically says rich people can be more philanthropic than poor people, which is obviously bollocks.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  35. #3635
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Don't assume Wikileaks' motives are all pure and simple. Don't assume everything they put up there is true or that it's 'proven' because they're 'quoting from the source'. It might be, but it also might not be partly or wholly made up for other reasons.
    The same could be said for any whistleblower that ever walked the planet. So let's just ignore whistleblowers and assume everything is alright? Is that the message here?

    Craig Murray attempted to expose the UK government's complicity in Uzbek torture. Is he lying to undermine the west? If we say "maybe", do we just ignore what he's saying? Or do we come to our own conclusions based on how we think the world works?

    Your problem is that you refuse to entertain the idea that anything you deem ridiculous can be true. You find it easier to believe that Wikileaks, or whoever, would lie, than it would be for them to be truthful. Because what they say is ridiculous. It should be said that if I wanted to spread lies to undermine global leaders, I'd probably focus on corruption allegations, the kind of shit the average taxpayer might buy into, rather than go balls deep in Satantic rituals.

    And this isn't new. These allegations have been doing the rounds for some time. It's only now that non-conspiracy type people are starting to listen to what's being said.

    These are interesting times.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  36. #3636
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    He gives away very little money relative to a lot of billionaires.
    I never argued against this point. I'm arguing that this doesn't make him less philanthropic than others who do give away money. I'm not satisfied that giving away money = loving humankind. Soros is a perfect example. His motive is power, influence. Look at the causes he's given money to... "democracy" in the former Soviet region. Democracy is how foreign people infiltrate and influence governments. They fund those who they want in power, and when they get voted in, they have influence over those people. Why do you suppose we're supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine? Why do you suppose Russia has a problem with that?

    Soros is no pilanthropist, not unless we're going to distort the meaning of the word to simply mean "give money away", without any interest in the motive for doing so.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  37. #3637
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Nah it's a shit measure. It basically says rich people can be more philanthropic than poor people, which is obviously bollocks.
    No, it says some rich people can be more philanthropic than other rich people. You keep trying to change what the argument is about.
  38. #3638
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    This is what in my mind makes Wikileaks difficult to assess. There's no way of disproving anything they post.
    Imagine if they surreptitiously edited 1 in ever 1000 emails. Maybe no one notices, but if one of their edits catches fire, it could change the game.

    Across 50,000 emails, if you make the edits juicy, one might just catch fire.

    This is why it's hard to know the world today. It takes leg-work that I'm investing into other avenues. I used to believe some people were investing leg-work into figuring this shit out for me, but now I realize almost everyone is blind.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  39. #3639
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    Your problem is that you refuse to entertain the idea that anything you deem ridiculous can be true. You find it easier to believe that Wikileaks, or whoever, would lie, than it would be for them to be truthful. Because what they say is ridiculous. It should be said that if I wanted to spread lies to undermine global leaders, I'd probably focus on corruption allegations, the kind of shit the average taxpayer might buy into, rather than go balls deep in Satantic rituals.
    What better way to undermine them than call them some form of freak? Saying their corrupt is like saying their like every other politician.

    You're willingness to consider anything that might support your view of politicians as inherently evil is the problem here. The fact that I'm not willing to go deep into fantastic ideas like Satanist Hillary just because they might conceivably be true just shows I'm not a sucker for a good story. Am I supposed to entertain what the National Enquirer says too (or whatever the UK equivalent is, Daily Mail or whatever)?

    When someone gets painted as 'pure evil' that's a red flag in my book that whoever is doing the painting has an agenda.
  40. #3640
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I never argued against this point. I'm arguing that this doesn't make him less philanthropic than others who do give away money. I'm not satisfied that giving away money = loving humankind. Soros is a perfect example. His motive is power, influence. Look at the causes he's given money to... "democracy" in the former Soviet region. Democracy is how foreign people infiltrate and influence governments. They fund those who they want in power, and when they get voted in, they have influence over those people. Why do you suppose we're supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine? Why do you suppose Russia has a problem with that?

    Soros is no pilanthropist, not unless we're going to distort the meaning of the word to simply mean "give money away", without any interest in the motive for doing so.
    Ok, forget about how we define phlianthropy, since it's obviously a sticking point for you. Let's look at it a different way:

    If you have $10b and you'd rather spend a big chunk of it building yourself a house with everything coated in gold than give that chunk away, it's easier for me to believe you're a selfish cunt than that you're a lover of humanity.
  41. #3641
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The same could be said for any whistleblower that ever walked the planet. So let's just ignore whistleblowers and assume everything is alright? Is that the message here?
    You might like that to be the message because it would make me look like a simpleton.

    Questioning their motives != ignoring them or discounting everything they say.

    Accepting everything they say without question is just as bad as discounting everything they say.
  42. #3642
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Imagine if they surreptitiously edited 1 in ever 1000 emails. Maybe no one notices, but if one of their edits catches fire, it could change the game.

    Across 50,000 emails, if you make the edits juicy, one might just catch fire.

    This is why it's hard to know the world today. It takes leg-work that I'm investing into other avenues. I used to believe some people were investing leg-work into figuring this shit out for me, but now I realize almost everyone is blind.
    Exactly. It's impossible to know who's legit and who's pulling fast ones.

    Everyone (including me) starts out with a bias. Everyone (including me) looks for things to confirm that bias and everyone (including me) tries to explain away things that don't. It's hard-wired into our brains to be that way. The challenge is to try to recognize our own biases and stay objective.
  43. #3643
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    No, it says some rich people can be more philanthropic than other rich people. You keep trying to change what the argument is about.
    I'm arguing about what philanthropy means. You seem to think it's all about money, that it comes from the wallet, not the heart. I disagree.

    You're willingness to consider anything that might support your view of politicians as inherently evil is the problem here.
    This isn't my problem. I don't think politicians are inherently evil.

    The fact that I'm not willing to go deep into fantastic ideas like Satanist Hillary just because they might conceivably be true just shows I'm not a sucker for a good story.
    This could be my problem. I am a sucker for a good story.

    When someone gets painted as 'pure evil' that's a red flag in my book that whoever is doing the painting has an agenda.
    For sure. We all have our agendas. But... get this... maybe that agenda is to create a better world for the little guy. Certainly, I would like to be in a position to achieve this goal. Sadly I'm not.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  44. #3644
    It's hard-wired into our brains to be that way. The challenge is to try to recognize our own biases and stay objective.
    You're no more objective than I am. We're just on different sides of the bias here.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  45. #3645
    Here's why I'm saying the Satanist Hillary thing is probably bunk. Let's do some Bayesian reasoning here. What are the a priori odds that someone is a Satanist? In other words, what proportion of the population worships Satan? I think if you said 1/1000 you'd be overreaching, but let's say that. So without knowing anything about someone at all and with no evidence one way or another, there's a priori a 0.1% chance they're a Satanist and 99.9% chance they aren't.

    Take this person and assume they make it to 68 or whatever Hillary's age is and no-one ever calls her a Satanist. Then suddenly, when she's running for president, a website that has been trying to discredit her for months comes out with some evidence she's a Satanist. How should that change our estimate? Should we now believe it's 10%, 50%, 90%, 100% likely she worships the Devil? Or should we think it's closer to where it started, maybe 1%.

    How we adjust our estimate should be based on how we view the source. Are they pro-Clinton, or anti-Clinton? Is the evidence verifiable or not? In other words, how credible do we find them? These are the questions one needs to ask.
  46. #3646
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You're no more objective than I am. We're just on different sides of the bias here.
    That's fair enough.
  47. #3647
    I repeat, these allegations have been doing the rounds for some time. It's only because of the Wikileaks thing that normal people are starting to think there might be something to it. Wikileaks didn't start this, and neither did Alex Jones.

    The evidence is abundant in the music industry, and in Hollywood. See how many uber-successful artists have Satanic imagary on their album covers, and in concerts. Notice these same people playing concerts for Clinton at her rallies. This leads me to believe it's institutionalised, that people only tend to get into positions of influence if they sell their soul, so to speak. Therefore, that probability is going to rise dramatically when we remove people like me and you, leaving only those who are super-famous.

    We're talking about the elite here. They're already referred to as the 1%. Does that mean it's unlikely that Hillary is an elite? Because only 1% of people are elite, therefore it's ludicrous to suggest she's one of them?

    The whole world isn't the sample size here.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  48. #3648
    Did anyone notice what Lady Gaga was wearing at the Clinton rally? Can someone tell me why that didn't kick up a huge fuss?

    If Trump had people in Nazi costumes parading around at his rally, well we all know how hard the media would've jumped on that.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  49. #3649
    RE: wikileaks. Apparently a bunch of their releases have been verified authentic using forensics like DKIM. Not all of their releases can be verified this way, but none have been verified false. They have a 10 year track record. Verifying as false would probably be very easy to do, too. Podesta could, for example, verify an email of his authentic which is different than the slightly altered one released by Wikileaks. This would destroy Wikileaks' credibility. But this hasn't been done.

    Donna Brazile got fired over what the leaks showed she did. Debbie Wasserman Schultz did too. All signs converge on the leaks being correct. None of this shit would fly if there was even the slightest way to show the leaks are false.
  50. #3650
    You'd think that if Wikileaks were presenting false information, someone would try to sue them. Of course, that involves making a statement in court, which, if false, would be a very serious offence. We call it perjury here, it's what Lord Ashcroft went to prison for. He successfully sued a tabloid for libel, and was later proven to have lied.

    Why isn't anyone suing Wikileaks? I fucking would if they suggested I'm a Satanist.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  51. #3651
  52. #3652
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I repeat, these allegations have been doing the rounds for some time. It's only because of the Wikileaks thing that normal people are starting to think there might be something to it. Wikileaks didn't start this, and neither did Alex Jones.
    Ok it wasn't started by Wikileaks, it was started by someone else. Did that person have any evidence?


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The evidence is abundant in the music industry, and in Hollywood. See how many uber-successful artists have Satanic imagary on their album covers, and in concerts. Notice these same people playing concerts for Clinton at her rallies. This leads me to believe it's institutionalised, that people only tend to get into positions of influence if they sell their soul, so to speak. Therefore, that probability is going to rise dramatically when we remove people like me and you, leaving only those who are super-famous.
    Satanic imagery on album covers? That's proof you're a Satanist? Here's another idea - it's a way of saying i'm a rebel. Piss off your mom and dad kids by buying my album. Not the same thing at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    We're talking about the elite here. They're already referred to as the 1%. Does that mean it's unlikely that Hillary is an elite? Because only 1% of people are elite, therefore it's ludicrous to suggest she's one of them?

    The whole world isn't the sample size here.
    I never said there weren't other ways you might change your estimate, I only said you should start at the base. If you had evidence Satanism was more or less prevalent in any of a number of categories she belongs to, then you should change your estimate based on that.

    So yah, if you up her likelihood because the elite is made up largely of Satanists, that's perfectly logical on your part. But then the question becomes what the evidence is that a large proportion of elites are Satanists. I don't think album covers and concert backdrops are going to cut it as evidence though, sorry. Try harder.
  53. #3653
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Did anyone notice what Lady Gaga was wearing at the Clinton rally? Can someone tell me why that didn't kick up a huge fuss?

    If Trump had people in Nazi costumes parading around at his rally, well we all know how hard the media would've jumped on that.
    She was wearing a Nazi costume?
  54. #3654
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    RE: wikileaks. Apparently a bunch of their releases have been verified authentic using forensics like DKIM. Not all of their releases can be verified this way, but none have been verified false. They have a 10 year track record. Verifying as false would probably be very easy to do, too. Podesta could, for example, verify an email of his authentic which is different than the slightly altered one released by Wikileaks. This would destroy Wikileaks' credibility. But this hasn't been done.

    Donna Brazile got fired over what the leaks showed she did. Debbie Wasserman Schultz did too. All signs converge on the leaks being correct. None of this shit would fly if there was even the slightest way to show the leaks are false.
    Who's to say DKIM can't be forged?

    Also, what if someone hacked his account and sent the email so it looked legit?

    Presumably if these people are computer savvy enough to hack into servers and email accounts, they can get around some of this other shit as well.
  55. #3655
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You'd think that if Wikileaks were presenting false information, someone would try to sue them. Of course, that involves making a statement in court, which, if false, would be a very serious offence. We call it perjury here, it's what Lord Ashcroft went to prison for. He successfully sued a tabloid for libel, and was later proven to have lied.

    Why isn't anyone suing Wikileaks? I fucking would if they suggested I'm a Satanist.
    Would you really? I would just laugh myself because no-one who knows me would believe it. Plus I can't be bothered to go to court cause someone said some ridiculous shit about me.
  56. #3656
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Who's to say DKIM can't be forged?

    Also, what if someone hacked his account and sent the email so it looked legit?

    Presumably if these people are computer savvy enough to hack into servers and email accounts, they can get around some of this other shit as well.
    I don't know the answers. It's discussed somewhat in the comments on the article I linked.

    Even so, the milieu of it all strongly suggests they are not doctored. The reactions from accused align far better with them being real than with them being fake.
  57. #3657
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I don't know the answers. It's discussed somewhat in the comments on the article I linked.

    Even so, the milieu of it all strongly suggests they are not doctored. The reactions from accused align far better with them being real than with them being fake.
    Some of the leaks can be legit while others aren't though. If they build their credibility over a number of years by releasing valid docs, then when they start making shit up, it's harder to question them. Not saying that's what happened, just that it's a possibility.
  58. #3658
    From here:

    https://luxsci.com/blog/7-common-mis...inst-spam.html

    With DKIM, there is only one signing key for your entire domain. A valid signature only proves that someone with access to that key sent the message. Usually, this means someone with access to your email provider’s servers. E.g. any individual in your organization or some server administrator at your email server provider, or some malicious software that has hijacked one of your user’s email programs and is using it to send out messages though your email service provider (where they are being DKIM-signed). This is why DKIM does not provide complete protection from identity theft (forgery), falsely sent messages, and the ability for the sender to deny that s/he sent a message.
    So much for DKIM being proof an email was legit.
  59. #3659
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Would you really? I would just laugh myself because no-one who knows me would believe it. Plus I can't be bothered to go to court cause someone said some ridiculous shit about me.
    Suing someone isn't just about clearing one's name, it's also about getting compensation for the lies. Yes I'd sue anyone who published an article that claimed I was indulging in Satanic rituals, becuase I would win. Anyone who is famous and has an image to protect, well they'll get more money than little ol' me, seeing as the libel would be more damaging. So yes, anyone who was wrongly accused of being a Satanist would consult their lawyers very quickly. People regularly get sued for much less.

    Anyway, I'm a bit busy right now. In the meantime, I suggest you watch some shit on youtube relating to Satanism in the music industry. We're not talking about rebellion here, we're talking about triangles, covering one eye, the kind of shit that relates to the pyramid with the eye on the dollar. It's not obvious. If it was obvious, I'd be more inclined to think it's rebellion or image. There is a relentless string of mega-successful artists who keep on doing this. Why? Just to fuck with the lieks of me?

    There's obviously more to it than triangles, I'm just spewing words here. Watch something.

    Lady Gaga - http://www.nme.com/news/people-think...-rally-1835433

    That's an article that claims it wasn't a Nazi uniform. I'm all for balance. Make your own mind up.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  60. #3660
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Donna Brazile got fired over what the leaks showed she did. Debbie Wasserman Schultz did too. All signs converge on the leaks being correct. None of this shit would fly if there was even the slightest way to show the leaks are false.
    By what I just posted, all of this could have been made up.

    What're you going to do if you Schultz or Brazile and this comes out on Wikileaks? Say those emails from my email account talking about things I would talk about weren't from me? Take Wikileaks to court saying they must have hacked your account (well obviously they did and that's how they got the emails) and sent some emails from it to damage you? How do you prove that?

    What's funny about all of this is how WL never seemed interested in hacking emails from Trump or his staff. Everything they leaked came from Clinton's side. Why is that do you think?
  61. #3661
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Anyway, I'm a bit busy right now. In the meantime, I suggest you watch some shit on youtube relating to Satanism in the music industry.
    My time is worth more to me than to pursue this also. If you ever want to post some hard evidence, then please do.
  62. #3662
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yes I'd sue anyone who published an article that claimed I was indulging in Satanic rituals, becuase I would win.
    If they hacked your email and sent emails from your account, you would not win a lawsuit. You'd have to prove a) they (not someone else) hacked you, and b) they (not you or someone else) sent the emails. There is no way to do that afaik.
  63. #3663
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    By what I just posted, all of this could have been made up.

    What're you going to do if you Schultz or Brazile and this comes out on Wikileaks? Say those emails from my email account talking about things I would talk about weren't from me? Take Wikileaks to court saying they must have hacked your account (well obviously they did and that's how they got the emails) and sent some emails from it to damage you? How do you prove that?

    What's funny about all of this is how WL never seemed interested in hacking emails from Trump or his staff. Everything they leaked came from Clinton's side. Why is that do you think?
    For obvious reasons.

    Why do you find it strange that an organization whose express purpose is to counter government corruption would focus on the person running for President who was already confirmed by the FBI to have committed acts consistent with criminality?

    BTW the above about DKIM doesn't exactly confirm it's not reliable here. It appears that it would require some very major hacks of very major institutions that do not appear to have happened.
  64. #3664
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Slagging off protests is a form of protest. Stop trying to stop me from protesting.

    I'm not saying they can't do it, just that they are stupid for doing so.
    You literally said they should so x or nothing at all. At least read your own posts, I know it's not fun.
  65. #3665
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    For obvious reasons.

    Why do you find it strange that an organization whose express purpose is to counter government corruption would focus on the person running for President who was already confirmed by the FBI to have committed acts consistent with criminality?
    A plausible story I guess. I just wonder if they'll stay as vigilant now that Trump is in charge.



    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    BTW the above about DKIM doesn't exactly confirm it's not reliable here.
    Actually it does. It says someone can hack your account and send emails from it and there's no way to show they weren't from you.



    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It appears that it would require some very major hacks of very major institutions that do not appear to have happened.
    And how does a major institution know it's been hacked? If someone dumps a bunch of your emails, that's a pretty good sign. Or did you mean something else?
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 11-12-2016 at 11:20 AM.
  66. #3666
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    A plausible story I guess. I just wonder if they'll stay as vigilant now that Trump is in charge.
    It would be a problem if they didn't.

    Actually it does. It says someone can hack your account and send emails from it and there's no way to show they weren't from you.
    This doesn't much help explain the situation regarding the leaks

    And how does a major institution know it's been hacked? If someone dumps a bunch of your emails, that's a pretty good sign.
    Two different things. Podesta was hacked, not Google.
  67. #3667
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This doesn't much help explain the situation regarding the leaks



    Two different things. Podesta was hacked, not Google.

    So...what? They have his emails. What does this have to do with Google?
  68. #3668
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    So...what? They have his emails. What does this have to do with Google?
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-1...ntic-heres-how

    What this means is that the only way this email could’ve been doctored is if there has been an enormous, nation-state level hack of Google to steal their signing key. It’s possible, of course, but extraordinarily improbable. It’s conspiracy-theory level thinking. Google GMail has logs of which emails went through its systems — if there was a nation-state attack able to forge them, Google would know, and they’d be telling us. (For one thing, they’d be forcing password resets on all our accounts).
  69. #3669
    You missed my argument entirely then. They're just saying the emails weren't doctored. They're not saying they can verify that Podesta wasn't hacked and the hackers were the ones sending the emails.
  70. #3670
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You missed my argument entirely then. They're just saying the emails weren't doctored. They're not saying they can verify that Podesta wasn't hacked and the hackers were the ones sending the emails.
    That element is discussed.
  71. #3671
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    That element is discussed.
    Not in that article. Where?
  72. #3672
    Oh, that. Yeah, I'm not interested in that. It's real small beans and doens't help explain much with regards to the leaks. Whole loads of different people would have to be hacked and sending fakes to and from each other. And if this happened, responses by the accused would very likely be different than they are now.

    Technically, we can't know. But we can get a sensible idea.
  73. #3673
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Oh, that. Yeah, I'm not interested in that. It's real small beans and doens't help explain much with regards to the leaks. Whole loads of different people would have to be hacked and sending fakes to and from each other. And if this happened, responses by the accused would very likely be different than they are now.

    Technically, we can't know. But we can get a sensible idea.

    Ya, dunno. If I see I 'sent' an email about being a Satanist, my first reaction isn't to go public.

    Obviously, hacking is not that hard to do. The fact they have the emails is proof of that.
  74. #3674
    Of course if I didn't send any such email, and that was just how some hysterical elements of the media recorded it, I wouldn't bother trying to come up with any 'fake' explanation.

    https://www.theguardian.com/artandde...sm-accusations

    Is that really the basis of the case for Podesta being a Satanist? One forwarded email from his brother about 'spirit cooking' (whatever that's supposed to be)? Gtfo.
  75. #3675
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Of course if I didn't send any such email, and that was just how some hysterical elements of the media recorded it, I wouldn't bother trying to come up with any 'fake' explanation.

    https://www.theguardian.com/artandde...sm-accusations

    Is that really the basis of the case for Podesta being a Satanist? One forwarded email from his brother about 'spirit cooking' (whatever that's supposed to be)? Gtfo.
    Sometimes that's all it takes to show you're looking in the right direction, but to be clear, I'm not saying he is a Satanist because of this. I made the partially comical observation that Alex Jones may have been right all along. This email does make one wonder, but no, you cannot convict him on it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •