Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

Honestly I don't see why the US can't just let the observers in and then make sure no funny business happens...

I don't see you don't seem to think of yourself as a troll when you've specifically stated that your only goal in this thread is to "Correct the Record", so to speak, and go against the thread direction purely because everyone else thinks that way. But most importantly you refused to answer my boob questions and that alone is enough to show that you are a rabble-rouser of the worst kind.
Watch smjjames come in here and go "but misko, boobs aren't relevant!" Jesus man take a sarcasm pill and reroll your spot check.

blah blah blah

I'm going to stop taking you seriously now. Trolling isn't ok.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Man, we haven't had that Reelya-maniac salt in some time now. The market's gonna go crazy tomorrow!

[Reelya]

Mainiac, that's what I mean when I say "fine knife" vs "broad brush"

It's "podestas brother" so it's clearly insane to conjecture that there's a link. merely the campaign managers brother. Get that fine knife out and demand strong evidence that there was an incontrovertible link before assuming a single thing.

Whereas manafort did an election campaign for Yakunovich, Yakunovich supports Putin, Putin is Russian, Russian have the KGB, therefore manafort was in the pocket of the KGB. Get that broad brush out, and assume that vague connections are incontrovertible evidence of a strong connection.

Can you see the discrepancy in the logic here?

But the point about Podesta is not that he's Clinton's campaign managers brother, but that even with both Podesta's brother and Manafort being under the same investigation, you're not willing to imply that Podesta's brother is suspect as well, yet you assume likely guilt for Manafort, merely as a result of being investigated.

[mainiac]

Can you see the discrepancy in the logic here?

No it's actually sound logic.  The thing about sound logic is that it's built upon a really broad foundation of assumptions.  So trolls like you take refuge in obscurity.  Always push it further and further away from the truth.  Go away from the clear ring of corruption until you are asking about broader questions.  Eventually someone needs to be omnipotent to answer all the questions you ask.

It's just so fundamentally dishonest.

[Rolepgeek]

I do find it amusing that mainiac complained about ad hominem attacks on his character and is now insulting just about anyone who says something different from him, while calling Reelya, a fairly active member of the forum as well as a liberal, of being a dishonest troll.

Real classy there, mainiac. Giving a great name to Clinton supporters everywhere, that is.

[Reelya]

i'm asking for evidence for your assertions, i'm not trolling. You keep failing to provide evidence

I did not say there was a connection between Podesta and Putin or any crap like that. My point was that the merest doubt of wrongdoing for the Democrat-leaning person, you take as proof that they're innocent, but the merest hint of wrongdoing for the Republican-leaning person, you take as proof that they're guilty.

There was a long chain of "guilt by association" when you claimed Manafort was on the KGB payroll, but you did the exact opposite when it was Yakunovich -> Podestas Brother -> Podesta -> Clinton. That's not being consistent in your logic.

[mainiac]

while calling Reelya, a fairly active member of the forum as well as a liberal, of being a dishonest troll.

He is intentionally stripping statements of context.  That is trolling behavior.  He is creating impossible burdens of proof.  That is trolling behavior.

[mainiac]

Reelya was offended that I cast aspersions on the character of a gentleman.

[Reelya]

but seriously, that logic is suspect when you jump from Manafort to the KGB, which is a chain of association with quite a few links, spanning two countries, and without any real evidence, yet on the other hand are very strict that Podesta and Podesta's brother are completely separate people with no plausible link between them.

for the record I don't think podesta's brother was up to anything, the reason I brought up the Podesta's brother case was to show that relying on "there's an investigation" isn't a good argument, unless you apply it equally to all people under investigation. but you blew it. You instantly rejected the investigation as being relevant when it was democrat-related, whereas you automatically assume it's evidence of Republican wrongdoing. I hate the Republicans as much as anyone, but that is just bullshit.

It's the completely opposite logic that was applied in these two cases that has me interested. It's like a case study in confirmation bias.

"fine knife" vs "broad brush" describes this well. When it's a democrat, you're looking for any possible reason you can say there is not a link (any possible doubt means they're innocent: cut the link), when it's a Republican you're looking for any possible reason you can say there is a link (any possible doubt means they're guilty: paint the link). That's pretty much the textbook definition of how confirmation bias works.

[UXLZ]

If the information being leaked is legit, does it really matter where it's coming from? Or does the source preclude acting on the information, or the information being considered, because evil Russians?

Modern governments are so damn Orwellian.

[Strife26]

Yes?

The source of the information has an agenda and that should be obvious for anyone who is thinking.

[UXLZ]

If a serial killer tells you the apple you're about to eat is poisoned, and is correct, do you still just eat the apple because the information came from a serial killer?

Obviously you should be a bit wary and stay vigilant, but you shouldn't just dismiss it or downplay it because of its source.

[mainiac]

whereas you automatically assume it's evidence of Republican wrongdoing. I hate the Republicans as much as anyone, but that is just bullshit.

Dude I didn't say a single fucking thing about Republicans.

A ring of corrupt politicians was running the Ukrainian government at the behest of Russia.  Manafort worked for that ring in a very senior capacity.  He received large amounts of cash off the books.  The off the books cash payment is evidence that 1) he knew that what was happening was shady as fuck and 2) he was getting paid in a way that covered his tracks.

That is what I argued.  It wasn't about republicans.  It was about you being a shill for authoritarians by repeating "and you are always lynching the negros" arguments.

If a serial killer tells you the apple you're about to eat is poisoned, and is correct, do you still just eat the apple because the information came from a serial killer?

Obviously you should be a bit wary and stay vigilant, but you shouldn't just dismiss it or downplay it because of its source.

Fuck man, what a metaphor.

If a paid advertisement cited a scientific study, you dont assume that the scientific study is rigged but you also dont treat the paid advertisement like a neutral viewpoint.  And you certainly dont treat it like a piece of fruit from a serial killer.

There is a difference between skepticism and second opinion bias.

[Strife26]

You figure out why the fuck the serial killer is telling you that, followed by the examining the situation such that you haven't responded to a serial killer by shooting him in the face.

[mainiac]

Because he is the only one who can save the governors daughter of course.