Quote:
Originally Posted by diggydow
There it is, this little bitch / cowardly behavior you exhibit when asked to present any evidence to back up your claims. You crumble immediately and lob an insult to deflect from the fact that you have no evidence for the smears/innuendos you parrot.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Either back up your claims or don't make them at all. This is very basic.
ok ben shapirdow.
i don't understand what you are saying tulsi is doing wrong with respect to russia. she should be saying she's putin's favored candidate? what is tulsi ignoring?Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by blake
why would you say im surprised? ive been pointing this out for months. whats shocking is tulsi's response. this is a woman with clearance from a military background followed by a highly successful run in government. so when she ignores all of this, allowing the narrative to essentially overwhelm her actual message, its eyebrow raising. the 'shocking' part i suppose is when she responds by exploding like some wine drunk soccer mom, crying about how people are accusing her of treason, instead of calmly pointing out the obvious;
yes, a lot of energy is being spent manipulating her message to damage our democracy, and a lot of it is coming from russia.
but hey, who can blame her for playing the victim card when its working so well? she has a 'bipartisan' cult and a financially promising future on fox news, where she will continue to marginalize moderate left voices while remaining mysteriously silent about the people doing the other 98% of the damage.
do you think the average american will understand that an anti-warmongering candidate will always be preferable to other countries than a war-mongering one?
It's your choice to conduct yourself with no honor. That I cannot control.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by diggydow
ok ben shapirdow.
At least there are witnesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakei don't understand what you are saying tulsi is doing wrong with respect to russia. she should be saying she's putin's favored candidate? what is tulsi ignoring?Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
do you think the average american will understand that an anti-warmongering candidate will always be preferable to other countries than a war-mongering one?
how can i possibly explain it more clearly; if a foreign power is using social media campaigns populated by fake accounts to amplify and manipulate her message/brand to the detriment of our democracy, she should be willing to point that out.
that shes refusing to and that she attacks people who do put a spotlight on it says a lot about her, and its all negative.
diggydow is literally trotting out boomer memes to defend her and 2 posts later hes quoting fox news to discredit bellingcat.
if youre not drawing lines between those two artifacts, you should give it a try. its pretty wild honestly.
and to be absolutely clear, ill be the first to apologize and admit i was wrong about her if at any point she makes a meaningful endorsement of the DNC nominee and urges her followers to vote for him/her.
nothing would eviscerate my talking points faster than that.
Can you provide any evidence for a foreign power using social media campaigns/fake accounts to support Tulsi?
as of this morning, if you clicked on the hashtag, people were doing live analytics on the accounts behind it and a lot of seasoned, reputable OSINT specialists were having no difficulty agreeing on attribution. there were plenty of screen caps.
i love how blake is arguing that there is clearly a russian bot campaign promoting her, diggy is arguing that there is no such thing, but somehow they are in weird agreement that my surprise/disgust with her failure to condemn the behavior is the problem in this narrative.
Oh, sounds totally legit. This reads like some bullshit Trump rambling. "Everyone was saying it, everyone agreed, we all knew..."Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Thanks for providing so much evidence. We're all convinced.
ben shapirdow destroys the liberal forensic analysis community with FACTS and LOGIC.
Maybe they don't want to see someone elected in the US who might escalate towards war with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Watch this at 5:42:
https://youtu.be/d_B3f9w8F5c
"One fact blows up this entire, nonsense propaganda, as well: you know who Russia favored in 2008 and 2012?
Barack Obama.
And it wasn't close. They much, much more preferred Obama."
I wonder if MSNBC will bring that up as well? LOL
Embarrassing. Now you're denigrating facts/logic. What would you prefer?Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
diggy honestly youre sweet and you mean well but youre trying too hard.
i legit lol'd at this. i guess i agree that if russia's cybernerds are trying to promote tulsi, that should be called out. but on the other hand, assuming she did so, how can she win this narrative? the headline would be "tulsi admits russians are helping her campaign."Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
there wouldn't be any nuanced discussion of it, or why the russians would quite naturally and reasonably be for an anti-war candidate. i just don't see how she can win here either way. if you can come up with some way she could spin this as a positive politically, you're smarter than me.
What's wrong with trying hard for what you believe in?Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
So far all I've seen is bad-faith debate tactics / childish insults from you and - I know you don't care since we're all essentially anonymous - it's really disappointing to see.
ok im sorry youre disappointed.
Still the draft version. The person whose email was hacked isn't saying it's a cover-up and Syria is hella innocent. What he's saying is just pedantic bs because nerds. There's not a single nation on earth that did fuck all because of that draft report. No one did fuck all after the final report. Probably because that's not why OPCW exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by diggydowIt was not corrected. The report that was released was heavily redacted and distorted to fit the narrative of a gas attack, and the OPCW workers were pressured by anonymous US government workers to release the falsified report. Here is an interview with the reporter covering the recent Wikileaks revelations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMSy...ature=youtu.beQuote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
The "gas attacks" have been used as reason for the US to continue its presence in Syria + its heisting of the Syrian gov't's oil. They've also been used to justify the US's continue regime-change effort/war that's been in effect since 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore. This is where the US gov't armed terrorists to get rid of Assad, and the terrorists ended up forming ISIS - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/w...ain-trump.html
Syria was bombed before the fact finding mission took place.
US has their own intelligence agencies. They don't need OPCW to tell them anything. They already know.
Oh and distorting the narrative to fit a gas attack is what happens after a gas attack by just finding out what happened. There's no evidence of anything else. Only thing that nerds are arguing about is what gas was used.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...i-gabbard.html
What is she going to do when she loses the election?
Her opponents have way more money than her and after the first few Democratic primaries and caucuses her campaign will be over.
It will be difficult for her to just win Hawaii.
https://altleftmag.files.wordpress.c...bard.jpg?w=664
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a4/38...e5e8bb6efd.jpg
She probably just really wants to be president.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Also just that we're clear on the "anti-war" side we have Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Assad when talking about Syria. Russia, religious fanatics, a terrorist organization and dictator that has gassed and tortured his own people. I didn't bother underlining why Russia isn't down with peace and love cause most non-retards should know that by now. Like for real, Ukraine, casual assassinations and generally stirring shit up for funsies come to mind in the last 5 years. I'm sure you can change my mind with an appropriate youtube clip from RT.
While you guys are debating a candidate who has no chance, Mayor Pete has moved to become the frontrunner in Iowa.
Not that it matters all that much, but I think he will win Iowa. Possibly New Hampshire, too, but I think that's going to Bernie.
Biden has South Carolina on MS Word Lockdown, and Nevada is very likely his, as well.
It is likely that Warren will lose all 4 of those states, which won't be a good look, even though it's not devastating from a practical standpoint, since it's not winner-take-all.
why do i suspect that if biden or pete take it down in 2020, its a wrap for legal marijuana...
Legalize marijuana and give everyone 1000 a month and I'm quitting my job and playing League of Legends professionally
the polls are saying what you're saying, but I think the day of reckoning is Super Tuesday (March 3). March 4 will be the day we know anything for real.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Sit on my face?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheXFactor
I'm on board with Tulsi as well (at least in the primaries)... one of the few candidates that seems able to reach across party linesQuote:
Originally Posted by tony bagadonutsSit on my face?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheXFactor
No. They were saying that the published version was completely distorted and redacted to fit a narrative that would be in line w/ the US counter-attacking and furthering their regime-change efforts.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickStill the draft version. The person whose email was hacked isn't saying it's a cover-up and Syria is hella innocent. What he's saying is just pedantic bs because nerds. There's not a single nation on earth that did fuck all because of that draft report. No one did fuck all after the final report. Probably because that's not why OPCW exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by diggydow
Syria was bombed before the fact finding mission took place.
US has their own intelligence agencies. They don't need OPCW to tell them anything. They already know.
Oh and distorting the narrative to fit a gas attack is what happens after a gas attack by just finding out what happened. There's no evidence of anything else. Only thing that nerds are arguing about is what gas was used.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...l_attacks.html - this is a new revelation that further points to the US gov't's efforts to distort the truth.
The US was NOT in the ground where the supposed chemical attack was, and did attack after being shown footage of people choking, etc. That does not strenghten your case that the attack was a good idea, nor does it disprove the fact that the OPCW report that came after was fudged.
They are not only arguing about what chemicals were used. The new revelations point to the "gas" canisters being MANUALLY PLACED, NOT dropped by planes, which points 100% to a faked attack, to justify regime-change by western gov't's.
The US is as complicit and guilty as Russia, and the CIA / US military is NOT a force for good in the world. The CIA / US military serve a small group of wealthy people's interests, and actively harm other countries and their people.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
When you start equating acknowledging the above truth with somehow loving/absolving Russia, it only shows the flimsiness and insecurity of your argument.
Both are "bad," both act sociopathically / in pure realpolitik.
Cool so we can drop the whole anti-war bs then. The last anti-war move US did by withdrawing troops from Syria led to a massacre that's still going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by diggydowThe US is as complicit and guilty as Russia, and the CIA / US military is NOT a force for good in the world. The CIA / US military serve a small group of wealthy people's interests, and actively harm other countries and their people.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
When you start equating acknowledging the above truth with somehow loving/absolving Russia, it only shows the flimsiness and insecurity of your argument.
Both are "bad," both act sociopathically / in pure realpolitik.
question; since we are all on the same page that the US and Russia are very much still in an ongoing struggle for global dominance, what do we think happens if we fold our hand and walk away?
im not being cute, mind you, im asking for the advocates of this in this thread to game theory for me and describe how a marketplace where the price of everything from rare earth minerals to oil is dictated by hostile foreign powers.
same general note; does this new foreign policy shift signal a withdrawal from NATO? are we no longer honoring our defense treaties with NATO partners? what happens to them if we dont?
points will be awarded for solution oriented responses, points will be subtracted for shitlord caliber memespeak about 'conglomerates' and 'military industry complex' and so on.
because im hearing a lot from team tulsi about how great it would be to dump our current foreign policy obligations but nothing about how to mitigate the fallout (literally and figuratively) of What Happens Next. which is weird because the same people generally love to point out how irresponsible it is for bernie to suggest people be able to get health care and college educations as a human right, which is like a dew drop in the ocean compared to the cost of ceding control of the global theatre in one fell policy swoop.
to be clear i love the idea of everyone burying hatchets and moving forward with a clean slate but the far more likely scenario would be mossad limpet-bombing cadillac one about 10 minutes after the first iranian scud slipped through the iron dome.
So literally no proof of any kind. And please link me a story tying the email to the final report. You know that email that started this whole exchange.Quote:
Originally Posted by diggydowNo. They were saying that the published version was completely distorted and redacted to fit a narrative that would be in line w/ the US counter-attacking and furthering their regime-change efforts.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...l_attacks.html - this is a new revelation that further points to the US gov't's efforts to distort the truth.
The US was NOT in the ground where the supposed chemical attack was, and did attack after being shown footage of people choking, etc. That does not strenghten your case that the attack was a good idea, nor does it disprove the fact that the OPCW report that came after was fudged.
They are not only arguing about what chemicals were used. The new revelations point to the "gas" canisters being MANUALLY PLACED, NOT dropped by planes, which points 100% to a faked attack, to justify regime-change by western gov't's.
The new whistleblower hasn't provided any proof. Nothing.
The "new" revelation about tankers being placed is the Russian narrative from the beginning right after the attacks. It was thoroughly checked at the time and there was nothing to indicate it was remotely likely.
Also once again no one listens to OPCW and they can't enforce anything. US doesn't rely on Youtube videos for intelligence. And yup this got stupid a long time ago. US tracks the airspace, they have satellites, informants, wiretaps and quite a few other ways for gathering information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickSo literally no proof of any kind. And please link me a story tying the email to the final report. You know that email that started this whole exchange.Quote:
Originally Posted by diggydow
The new whistleblower hasn't provided any proof. Nothing.
The "new" revelation about tankers being placed is the Russian narrative from the beginning right after the attacks. It was thoroughly checked at the time and there was nothing to indicate it was remotely likely.
Also once again no one listens to OPCW and they can't enforce anything. US doesn't rely on Youtube videos for intelligence. And yup this got stupid a long time ago. US tracks the airspace, they have satellites, informants, wiretaps and quite a few other ways for gathering information.
im sure its all a big misunderstanding and we can get this all cleared up with an epoch times article.
Nobody in the thread posted this? You people are a disgrace.
Lot of mongs in this thread, and allowed to vote in america.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakei don't understand what you are saying tulsi is doing wrong with respect to russia. she should be saying she's putin's favored candidate? what is tulsi ignoring?Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
do you think the average american will understand that an anti-warmongering candidate will always be preferable to other countries than a war-mongering one?
WE'VE REACHED THE EATING HUMAN FLESH STAGE OF THE PRIMARY.
64 Days until Iowa
DNC will rig it for Biden no doubt about it.
For Todd's sake and mine, I sure hope soQuote:
Originally Posted by Texter
lets just elect biden and instantly impeach him and let whoever he ran with clean up the mess for the next 8 years.