*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Mr.Banana]

Ok - I need a mod here. Bill's post is the epitome of bad faith....I'm being serious here. Tell me if I'm seeing things but it sure looks like Bill is just trying to start shit.

I mean, let's start with this....

There's information that there were Russian operatives

have a higher standard of evidence before you claim that the US Capitol was infiltrated by Russian spies.

You're right. Can you point out where I made such a claim.

Is it me? Or is this clown world stuff? Are we taking issue with the word "infiltrated"? or maybe "spies"? Are those really hairs we need to split? You say there were "Russian Operatives" there. Everyone knows what is implied by that statement. You mean spies (which means something less dramatic than what you see in movies). You mean russian government agents. You mean people loyal to the russian governement conducting an "operation" at its behest. Or what else could you have meant by "Russian operatives"?

Your question is asked in the worst of bad faith. You said "operatives were there". There's an implication there that is ostensibly the same as "spies infiltrated". And even if we agree that poetic license was used for a slight exaggeration...who cares! You made this claim about Russian operatives without ANY evidence, detail, or context. That's the problem. That was the POINT of what I said. You're dodging that by poking me with this bad faith charade.

"Section 1.1. Classification Standards.

What are you trying to prove here?

If you see classified data that does not fill that criteria, it shouldn't be classified.

Yet it happens all the time! Showing me the rules doesn't change that. The government does lots of shit it shouldn't do. Sheesh.

How were they flexible?

It's KNOWN that Hillary mishandled classified information. That's not in dispute. She was never charged with it though. That's also a fact not in dispute. How can those two facts be true without flexibility somewhere in the system. Clearly it's not a black & white issue because it was a major political scandal for years! It's also been over for years. Are you really asking to relive it now?

I don't want unnecessary conflict here but I'm not gonna let people poke me like this without speaking up. Bill's questions can't be real. It's bad faith trolling if I've ever seen it.

[CoccoBill]

Ok - I need a mod here. Bill's post is the epitome of bad faith....I'm being serious here. Tell me if I'm seeing things but it sure looks like Bill is just trying to start shit.

I mean, let's start with this....

Is it me? Or is this clown world stuff? Are we taking issue with the word "infiltrated"? or maybe "spies"? Are those really hairs we need to split? You say there were "Russian Operatives" there. Everyone knows what is implied by that statement. You mean spies (which means something less dramatic than what you see in movies). You mean russian government agents. You mean people loyal to the russian governement conducting an "operation" at its behest. Or what else could you have meant by "Russian operatives"?

Your question is asked in the worst of bad faith. You said "operatives were there". There's an implication there that is ostensibly the same as "spies infiltrated". And even if we agree that poetic license was used for a slight exaggeration...who cares! You made this claim about Russian operatives without ANY evidence, detail, or context. That's the problem. That was the POINT of what I said. You're dodging that by poking me with this bad faith charade.

I'm assuming these are serious questions, so here goes.

- I said there's information, aka I've read about it, which I later elaborated on
- You said that I claim there were

I made no claim, I said what I had read. Do you see the difference? Like what exactly are you accusing me of, what do you think I'm doing?

I don't know if there were Russians involved, and if there were I don't know who they were or what they were doing. All of that's irrelevant, when the point was just to demonstrate there were all kinds of people. They weren't all insurrectionists, but they weren't all just protesters either. What are you trying to achieve by getting hung up on this detail? Was this the only weak point you could find and try to attack?

What are you trying to prove here?

Nothing, why do you assume I'm trying to prove something? You seemed to have no idea how data gets classified, so I provided you with the information.

Yet it happens all the time! Showing me the rules doesn't change that. The government does lots of shit it shouldn't do. Sheesh.

Since you seem to be under the impression that people classify stuff on a whim, it seemed appropriate to explain why that's not the case. Does some data sometimes get "overclassified" just in case? Absolutely. Does data sometimes get erroneously classified without proper legal or regulatory cause? I'm sure it does. Is all classified data just bs that's classified for shits and giggles? I'm sure you know the answer, so why even try to make that inane argument?

It's KNOWN that Hillary mishandled classified information. That's not in dispute. She was never charged with it though. That's also a fact not in dispute. How can those two facts be true without flexibility somewhere in the system.

How do you know that what she did warranted a charge? Why wasn't Ivanka charged for essentially the exact same thing?

Clearly it's not a black & white issue because it was a major political scandal for years! It's also been over for years. Are you really asking to relive it now?

Yes, I found it quite amusing how the right made it a headline issue for years. I'm sure it was all out of pure patriotic concern, nothing political about it.

I don't want unnecessary conflict here but I'm not gonna let people poke me like this without speaking up. Bill's questions can't be real. It's bad faith trolling if I've ever seen it.

If your new tactic is to just endlessly try to find some blame on others, with may I say pretty flimsy arguments, maybe we should just end it right here.

[Mr.Banana]

I made no claim, I said what I had read. Do you see the difference?

No actually. What you said was abundantly clear. The only reason you brought up what you read was to suggest that Russian government agents were present at the Capitol demonstrations and the implication is that their purposes were not beneficial to the united states. You weren't suggesting that the Russian secretary of cheese just happened to be strolling by, were you?

Whether you made a claim or just implied one is really not a meaningful distinction in the context of this conversation.

Like what exactly are you accusing me of, what do you think I'm doing?

I think you know exactly what you implied/suggested/claimed/said when you brought up "russian operatives". And I think you're purposefully trying to nitpick any response for the slightest incongruent syllable so you can fuel a ridiculous argument about nothing. I just don't understand 'why' you're doing it.

I don't know if there were Russians involved, and if there were I don't know who they were or what they were doing. All of that's irrelevant,

HUH???

when the point was just to demonstrate there were all kinds of people.

Ooooh, you just brought up Russians to illustrate ethnic diversity? I get it now.

You seemed to have no idea how data gets classified

Except I worked for three years at a job where I handled classified data every single day. I know what kind of shit gets classified. I know how it gets classified. I already told you this. But you thought your five second google search result would change my mind huh?

Since you seem to be under the impression that people classify stuff on a whim,

They do

How do you know that what she did warranted a charge?

This has to be a troll!

Why wasn't Ivanka charged for essentially the exact same thing?

Cuz flexibility!!!

[MadMojoMonkey]

No actually. What you said was abundantly clear. The only reason you brought up what you read was to suggest that Russian government agents were present at the Capitol demonstrations and the implication is that their purposes were not beneficial to the united states. You weren't suggesting that the Russian secretary of cheese just happened to be strolling by, were you?

Whether you made a claim or just implied one is really not a meaningful distinction in the context of this conversation.


I think you know exactly what you implied/suggested/claimed/said when you brought up "russian operatives". And I think you're purposefully trying to nitpick any response for the slightest incongruent syllable so you can fuel a ridiculous argument about nothing. I just don't understand 'why' you're doing it.

More of the same.

Stop telling people what they mean. This is disrespectful.

You're free to be confused by other people's motives. You're free to speculate what their motives may be. You're free to ask them their motives. You're free to question whether those people are being genuine with you. You are not free to tell them their motives.

[Mr.Banana]

Wut? i get called out for bad faith, and manipulation, and "ad arjkeafji banaadasja" al the time.

You are not free to tell them their motives.

if that's a forum rule, fine. I'll abide.

But if it's a special rule for me, just ban me.