Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > What's w all the conspiracy theories this election season? SHHH, THEY CAN HEAR US

What's w all the conspiracy theories this election season? SHHH, THEY CAN HEAR US
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2016, 09:25 PM
 
Just looking at the Democratic opposition, during Obama's terms the opposition's strategies seemed to mostly revolve around trying to throw the kitchen sink at him. A lot of this was really fluffy and dumb stuff.

This time around the strategy against Clinton has included a lot of really bizarre conspiracy theories.

I think a lot of this might have to do with the notion that Trump supporters don't trust any major established source of information, but I don't know if this explains this entirely. After all, there are decades of actual Clinton policies and ideology to dig into, and a lot of these conspiracy theory tactics seemed to form during Bill Clinton's time in office too.

Am I off base here? Have any of you guys been surprised in the extent to which the rhetoric has focused around conspiracy-theoryish stuff?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2016, 09:54 PM
 
We won't have to discuss it if you'll just confess and come clean. I've had my suspicions for some time.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2016, 10:57 PM
 
Fine, I am Tom Hanks.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2016, 05:16 AM
 
They are definitely worse than ever.
But don't forget we are talking about a group who "needs" to stay armed to the teeth and is fine with sacrificing numerous innocent American lives for the right to do so, just in case the government gets "tyrannical".
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2016, 07:05 AM
 
Perhaps its that Clinton and company are 150 thousand times more horrid, corrupt, and sleazy than anybody ever?
They are LYING about her health, what she knows, what kind of person she is, how many laws she broke while not caring, and what was going on with her concussion, and what was going on during Benghazi. Lots more too.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2016, 08:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Perhaps its that Clinton and company are 150 thousand times more horrid, corrupt, and sleazy than anybody ever?
They are LYING about her health, what she knows, what kind of person she is, how many laws she broke while not caring, and what was going on with her concussion, and what was going on during Benghazi. Lots more too.

I don't think so. I don't think Clinton's gray area is beyond the pale for any politician that has been around for that long.

I think you guys are just lazy and have found more traction stimulating crazy conspiracy theories than digging into actual policy flaws. I don't know why John Kerry's opposition wasn't rife with conspiracy theories either, this fascination seems to be a new tactic.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2016, 08:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
They are definitely worse than ever.
But don't forget we are talking about a group who "needs" to stay armed to the teeth and is fine with sacrificing numerous innocent American lives for the right to do so, just in case the government gets "tyrannical".

Yeah, there is a certain desperation this time around that wasn't present before. Maybe the conspiracy theories are a way to stimulate that perception of desperation.

If I'm a Republican there is a desperation to not have 12 or 16 years of a Democratic presidency, so I get the desperation. I've just been amazed with how much traction the conspiracy theories have gotten compared to coherent ideological political arguments.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2016, 08:42 AM
 
I mean, I have a hard time naming one specific ideological argument that the right has come up with against Clinton. Look at BadKosh's list - not one thing in there relates to a specific policy.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2016, 02:21 PM
 
All they have is rhetoric. In many cases its to hide sexism more than likely. Just like with Obama (and Brexit) it was rhetoric to hide racism.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2016, 03:45 PM
 
I'll give y'all a conspiracy theory of my own.

The State Department made a clear, unequivocal statement Clinton's emails had classified information in them, and that the information was classified at the time.

They did this back in June... of 2015.


How long did it take for this to filter down to you? Were there discussions in the interim about, say, retroactive classification which might lead reasonable people to conclude this was in dispute? Discussions arising because every main stream media source mysteriously starts talking about retroactive classification at the same time?

Could there in fact have been a great number of people who thought the matter was up for dispute all the way up until Comey confirmed it?

Hmm...
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2016, 02:46 AM
 
Whoops! Wrong thread!

lilac 42 noon
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2016, 10:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'll give y'all a conspiracy theory of my own.

The State Department made a clear, unequivocal statement Clinton's emails had classified information in them, and that the information was classified at the time.

They did this back in June... of 2015.


How long did it take for this to filter down to you? Were there discussions in the interim about, say, retroactive classification which might lead reasonable people to conclude this was in dispute? Discussions arising because every main stream media source mysteriously starts talking about retroactive classification at the same time?

Could there in fact have been a great number of people who thought the matter was up for dispute all the way up until Comey confirmed it?

Hmm...

For this keeping score on the accuracy of this claim, according to Politifact, you're right, she did send classified emails:

FBI findings tear holes in Hillary Clinton's email defense | PolitiFact

However, they weren't marked as being classified. I'm not saying that it lets her off the hook necessarily, but it is at least gray area.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2016, 11:10 AM
 
Here's a quote from the original Politifact article a few days before the FBI revealed their findings.

"But we do not yet know if any of those emails contained classified information when they first landed in Clinton’s server"

This is dated July 3rd, 2016.

On July 24th, 2015 a public statement was made by the frigging Department of State which unequivocally declared there were emails containing classified information when they first landed in Clinton's server.

See the problem?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2016, 12:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
For this keeping score on the accuracy of this claim, according to Politifact, you're right, she did send classified emails:

FBI findings tear holes in Hillary Clinton's email defense | PolitiFact

However, they weren't marked as being classified. I'm not saying that it lets her off the hook necessarily, but it is at least gray area.
Sorry, "They weren't marked classified" is not an excuse.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2016, 03:52 PM
 
How is someone supposed to know if something not marked classified is classified or not? Let alone be responsible for it being sent to them.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2016, 04:01 PM
 
When you are the SOS, you treat EVERYTHING as classified.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2016, 06:11 PM
 
The Emails SHOULD have been encrypted and such JUST TO BE SENT!!!. Info above certain levels MUST be hand carried. Hillary and associates are super done. Seems they found ONE laptop they forgot to 'cleanse'. Around DC the scuttlebutt is she's super done.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2016, 10:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
How is someone supposed to know if something not marked classified is classified or not? Let alone be responsible for it being sent to them.
The FBI found email chains containing information classified Top Secret/Special Access Program, as in not only is Top Secret clearance required, it is also strictly "need to know".

If this happened seven separate times because some rando was flinging state secrets at her in the open, she's free to burn that mother****er with extreme prejudice.

Maybe no one else got burnt because Hillary doesn't want someone else to get in trouble. She's nice like that.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2016, 11:48 AM
 
Well the last report I read did imply that someone else sent the data to her. Unless they have emails or other proof saying "I order you to send me this info which I know to be Top Secret to this insecure email address" I don't see how she can be blamed for that. If it wasn't marked top secret, then even forwarding it on shouldn't be on her. And its not like they won't have the sender address so she can't be protecting anyone.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2016, 12:27 PM
 
That's the point. My last sentence was facetious.

If the problem was some rando dumping classified information on an open channel, then burn the ****er.

Hillary will curbstomp you just for eying her wrong. She can't do it to someone who's actually guilty of a holy ****balls-tier federal crime?

Why does an article need to imply something she's perfectly capable of saying herself? She lied for a year straight about this, yet when the truth can set her free she's mysteriously silent.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2016, 02:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That's the point. My last sentence was facetious.

If the problem was some rando dumping classified information on an open channel, then burn the ****er.

Hillary will curbstomp you just for eying her wrong. She can't do it to someone who's actually guilty of a holy ****balls-tier federal crime?

Why does an article need to imply something she's perfectly capable of saying herself? She lied for a year straight about this, yet when the truth can set her free she's mysteriously silent.
Why would she need to name them when the cops have the senders email address and no doubt IP etc, etc.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2016, 09:46 PM
 
She doesn't need to name anyone.

"I was sent highly classified information which was unmarked. The person responsible for this is the sender, not the recipient."

What I'm arguing is in the scenario described Hillary takes a swing. She didn't.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2016, 10:17 PM
 
Surely she shouldn't even need to?

So your opinion is that this is just a campaign tactic then? And Comey is complicit?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2016, 12:26 AM
 
I'm starting to get lost. It's probably my fault.

IIUC, the following is being argued (presented here in analogy form).

Let's say I have an email account, and it auto-forwards everything to a different account.

Someone sends me child porn.

Now I have CP on my computer, and because of the auto-forward I've just distributed CP, too.

No rational person is going to put the blame for this on me.

This is what is being argued for Hillary. She gets sent unmarked, hyper-classified information, she's not to blame. If she replies to that email, the hyper-classified gets quoted. She's now distributed the hyper-classified information. She's not to blame for that either.

That's not a rhetorical argument or something. If that's what happened, she shouldn't be to blame. If I don't feel that way, I no longer get to defend myself from some rando sending me CP.

Speaking of defending myself, if the FBI comes out and says "subego both received and distributed child porn", my response is to go "whoa, whoa, whoa... wait just a goddamn minute".

The FBI came out and said "Hillary both received and distributed hyper-classified information".

I'm tempted to characterize her response, but I'd probably do it unfairly. Suffice it to say it didn't resemble the protestations of an innocent woman. My argument is if she was innocent to the extent proposed in the above scenario, her response would bear more similarities to mine with the child porn.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2016, 07:08 AM
 
Assuming that is indeed what happened then the FBI knows full well that the sender is to blame because they aren't morons and working out exactly what laws were broken and by whom is a huge part of their job, but has released a deliberately inflammatory and partisan statement about a presidential candidate.

If you're saying Hillary should point out why this is garbage in the media for voters to hear then I see what you mean. There is a certain wisdom to not refuting an accusation until its been fully made, but I see no benefit to that for her campaign. Maybe she just doesn't want to burn Comey, which she'd have to.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2016, 10:27 AM
 
Thinking that just stripping off the clearance levels would make it alright is SHITTY JUDGEMENT!

Some of the extremely classified documents came from systems not connected to the outside world, but it would have needed to be copied to a thumb drive and then pasted into emails. That is ALSO SHITTY JUDGEMENT. But you'd still vote for her, huh?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2016, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm starting to get lost. It's probably my fault.

IIUC, the following is being argued (presented here in analogy form).

Let's say I have an email account, and it auto-forwards everything to a different account.

Someone sends me child porn.

Now I have CP on my computer, and because of the auto-forward I've just distributed CP, too.

No rational person is going to put the blame for this on me.

This is what is being argued for Hillary. She gets sent unmarked, hyper-classified information, she's not to blame. If she replies to that email, the hyper-classified gets quoted. She's now distributed the hyper-classified information. She's not to blame for that either.

That's not a rhetorical argument or something. If that's what happened, she shouldn't be to blame. If I don't feel that way, I no longer get to defend myself from some rando sending me CP.

Speaking of defending myself, if the FBI comes out and says "subego both received and distributed child porn", my response is to go "whoa, whoa, whoa... wait just a goddamn minute".

The FBI came out and said "Hillary both received and distributed hyper-classified information".

I'm tempted to characterize her response, but I'd probably do it unfairly. Suffice it to say it didn't resemble the protestations of an innocent woman. My argument is if she was innocent to the extent proposed in the above scenario, her response would bear more similarities to mine with the child porn.
Sorry, no soup for you!

HRC was the Secretary of State. The very nature of the job means you will receive classified information on a daily basis, written or electronically transmitted. Hillary knew from the get go she would be receiving emails that contained classified material, yet still chose to go with the private, unsecure email system.

It does not speak well of someone who is supposed to be the smartest person on the planet (and wants to be POTUS) if they can't tell if an email contained classified information. Where's the memo/email telling her staff to not send her classified emails? There are no emails Hillary initiated?

Auto-forward? Why would the SOS have her account set on auto-forward?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2016, 12:00 PM
 
For sending and receiving classified info Hillary did what Condi did. They both relied on someone with a secure account.

The FBI found about 100 classified emails. How could so few emails constitute the sum of all her confidential electronic communications from four years as Secretary of State?

It's not Hillary's fault if someone else didn't follow the protocol of sending classified material to her designated lackey. What would be her fault is not following her own protocol. Judging by the way she defended herself, that's what I'd say happened. The protocol she designed was a pain in the ass, so there were times she decided to be reckless with it.


Hillary didn't have an auto-forward. That was part of my analogy.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2016, 12:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
For sending and receiving classified info Hillary did what Condi did. They both relied on someone with a secure account.

The FBI found about 100 classified emails. How could so few emails constitute the sum of all her confidential electronic communications from four years as Secretary of State?

It's not Hillary's fault if someone else didn't follow the protocol of sending classified material to her designated lackey. What would be her fault is not following her own protocol. Judging by the way she defended herself, that's what I'd say happened. The protocol she designed was a pain in the ass, so there were times she decided to be reckless with it.


Hillary didn't have an auto-forward. That was part of my analogy.
Then there's today's Podesta BM
In today's, 25th, Wikileaks release of hacked Podesta emails, one of the notable highlights is a March 2, 2015 exchange between John Podesta and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills in which the Clinton Campaign Chair says "On another matter....and not to sound like Lanny, but we are going to have to dump all those emails."

The email, which may indicate intent, was sent at the same time as the NYT story "Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules" - which for the first time revealed the existence of Hillary's email server - hit, and just days before Hillary's press conference addressing what was at the time, the stunning revelation that she had a personal email account, and server, in her home.
Podesta To Mills: "We Are Going To Have To Dump All Those Emails" | Zero Hedge
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2016, 07:24 AM
 
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2016, 10:25 AM
 
"An archived thread on 4chan in which an FBI insider originally hinted..."

Kek
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2016, 11:13 AM
 
This election season has been harder to predict than the last 8 episodes of Breaking Bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34eQbufnvAk
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2016, 12:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
"An archived thread on 4chan in which an FBI insider originally hinted..."

Kek
Not archived pure tinfoil hat videos.
#1 10/31/16

#2 11/01/16

#3 11/02/16


I'm pretty sure there will one tomorrow.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2016, 12:41 PM
 
Is there a reason these are videos and not something readable?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2016, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is there a reason these are videos and not something readable?
Try here.
STEVE PIECZENIK TALKS – Get the truth.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2016, 06:15 PM
 
This thread was kind of not an open invitation to link dump more conspiracy theories.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2016, 10:13 PM
 
Can you call some a pedophile in a Youtube video and win if you're sued for defamation in the US? I'm guessing this barely literate hack has precisely no evidence whatsoever to back his claims or he wouldn't be resorting to Youtube videos.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2016, 10:51 PM
 
IIUC, if it's a celebrity, you have to prove malice.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2016, 11:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Can you call some a pedophile in a Youtube video and win if you're sued for defamation in the US? I'm guessing this barely literate hack has precisely no evidence whatsoever to back his claims or he wouldn't be resorting to Youtube videos.
Barely literate?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Pieczenik

Pieczenik was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance and James Baker.[3] His expertise includes foreign policy, international crisis management and psychological warfare.[7] He served the presidential administrations of Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in the capacity of deputy assistant secretary.[8]

In 1974, Pieczenik joined the US State Department as a consultant to help in the restructuring of its Office for the Prevention of Terrorism.[2]

In 1976, Pieczenik was made Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for management.[2][5][9][10]

At the US State Department, he served as a "specialist on hostage taking".[11] He has been credited with devising successful negotiating strategies and tactics used in several high-profile hostage situations, including the 1976 TWA Flight 355 hostage situation and the 1977 kidnapping of the son of Cyprus' president.[2] He was involved in negotiations for the release of Aldo Moro after Moro was kidnapped.[12] As a renowned psychiatrist, he was utilized as a press source for early information on the mental state of the hostages involved in the Iranian hostage crisis after they were freed.[13] In 1977, Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Mary McGrory described Stephen Pieczenik as "one of the most 'brilliantly competent' men in the field of terrorism".[14] He worked "side by side" with Police Chief Maurice J. Cullinane in the Washington, D.C. command center of Mayor Walter Washington during the 1977 Hanafi Siege.[15] In 1978, Pieczenik was known as "a psychiatrist and political scientist in the U.S. State Department whose credentials and experiences are probably unique among officials handling terrorist situations".[2]

On September 17, 1978 the Camp David Accords were signed. Pieczenik was at the secret Camp David negotiations leading up to the signing of the Accords. He worked out strategy and tactics based on psychopolitical dynamics. He correctly predicted that given their common backgrounds, Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin would get along.[3]

In 1979, he resigned as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State over the handling of the Iranian hostage crisis.[4]

In the early 1980s, Pieczenik wrote an article for The Washington Post in which he claimed to have heard a senior US official in the State Department Operations Center give permission for the attack that led to the death of US Ambassador Adolph Dubs in Kabul, Afghanistan in 1979.[16]

Pieczenik got to know Syrian President Hafez Assad well during his 20 years in the US State Department.[3]

In 1982, Pieczenik was mentioned in an article in The New York Times as "a psychiatrist who has treated C.I.A. employees".[17]

In 2001, Pieczenik operated as chief executive officer of Strategic Intelligence Associates, a consulting firm.[18]

Pieczenik has been affiliated in a professional capacity as a psychiatrist with the National Institute of Mental Health.[19]

Pieczenik has consulted with the United States Institute of Peace and the RAND Corporation.[20]

As recently as October 6, 2012, Pieczenik was listed as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).[21] According to Internet Archive, his name was removed from the CFR roster sometime between October 6 and November 18, 2012.[22] Publicly, Pieczenik no longer appears as a member of the CFR.[23]

Pieczenik is fluent in five languages, including Russian, Spanish and French.[2][3][4]

Pieczenik has lectured at the National Defense University.[7]
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2016, 05:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Barely literate?
He is deliberately adding redundant words to his sentences to make them sound more official or intelligent, but he's repeating words, struggling to find words and it doesn't make him sound smart at all.

Maybe he's got some (age-related?) cognitive impairment or something. Might also explain why he is making wild accusations on Youtube videos.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2016, 09:40 AM
 
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2016, 09:55 AM
 
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2016, 10:07 AM
 
I guess there were conspiracy theories with Obama too (e.g. the madrassa, smoking/drugs, obviously the birther issue, etc.)

It just seems like there are two categories of political discourse. One is one that often resembles National Enquirer covers, and the other is policy wonk and ideological debate. It is clear that for this election the former has been far more vocal and present.

I have to be blunt though for the sake of trying to pinpoint something accurate, although I know this will sound partisan and snobby. I don't think this is just a matter of longevity in politics that brings out the conspiracy theories, because I don't remember there being much against McCain, and I don't really remember any against Mitt Romney. I really think that this far more a Republican thing, and a lot of this is a symptom of anti-intellectualism (or whatever you want to call this).

Really, is there any other explanation?

Yes, we can argue that some of the conspiracy theories aren't dumb, where there is smoke there is fire, etc. I'm not trying to lump everybody and every single theory into a single category, but clearly if you were to look for general patterns it seems clear that there is just a lot of dumb stuff coming from the right these days, and there has been for quite some time.

Is this a new norm? Will the 2020 candidate be a "park your brain at the door" sort of candidate?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2016, 09:30 PM
 
The only surprising aspect of this whole mess is the level/depth of lunacy achieved. Its absolutely a Republican thing for the most part. Not that there aren't plenty of liberal conspiracy theorists, if anything it was the hippies that started it, but conservatives and libertarians are coming from a base of deep, deep paranoia towards government and authority.

Should it come to pass that this ends up an embarrassing defeat for Trump with Hillary and the Dems winning the whole shebang, the great hope is that the GOP has to undergo major, major reform. Shedding the religious fundamentalism, at least trying to look like they are racist and misogynist, generally focussing on what really should be their core goals of fiscal conservatism and limiting the size of government. They will have to make one or two concessions there to cover the things people want like healthcare and a fair rehabilitative welfare system and if they do all this they could very quickly and easily become a party worthy of consideration and even respect. As it is they have been a laughing stock among the sane and intelligent for many years now as they spiralled ever downwards getting worse and worse from GWB via Palin, Bachman, Santorum, and any number of other pretty ridiculous people who are either stupid or despicable or mad or all three.

That said, we must have learned by now that just because we think they can't lower the bar any further (John Oliver's recent bits about rock bottom being way up in the distance beyond the clouds ring so true), doesn't mean thats a challenge they can't beat.

Alex Jones 2020?
Baio 2020?
President Kid Rock has a ring to it.
I'm sure there is even worse I'm not thinking of. Luckily Milo is ineligible.

What about Shkreli 2020?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2016, 01:02 AM
 
The mainstream media is far more biased against Republicans than it realizes, and that lack of awareness is misinterpreted as ill intent.

When ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, NYT, and WaPo all appear to be behaving in concert with ill intent, conspiracy theories begin to look less outrageous.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2016, 06:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The mainstream media is far more biased against Republicans than it realizes, and that lack of awareness is misinterpreted as ill intent.

When ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, NYT, and WaPo all appear to be behaving in concert with ill intent, conspiracy theories begin to look less outrageous.
It's not a "theory" anymore. There are emails showing active interaction between media outlets and the Clinton campaign and the DNC
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2016, 10:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
It's not a "theory" anymore. There are emails showing active interaction between media outlets and the Clinton campaign and the DNC
That's not what I'm talking about.

All journalists attempt to curry favor with sources, and all sources show preferential treatment to journalists who do them a solid.

This wasn't a theory before the emails. Ask any journalist or source about how that works.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2016, 04:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The mainstream media is far more biased against Republicans than it realizes, and that lack of awareness is misinterpreted as ill intent.

When ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, NYT, and WaPo all appear to be behaving in concert with ill intent, conspiracy theories begin to look less outrageous.
Is this an issue of "bias AGAINST Republicans" or "bias FOR facts"? I contend that when you have a political party that is hell-bent on promoting an ideology that is all too often in direct contravention to evidence ... to the point where one of its own sitting governors said they "must stop being the 'stupid party'" .... well then that sort of speaks volumes about this so-called "media bias".

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2016, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Is this an issue of "bias AGAINST Republicans" or "bias FOR facts"? I contend that when you have a political party that is hell-bent on promoting an ideology that is all too often in direct contravention to evidence ... to the point where one of its own sitting governors said they "must stop being the 'stupid party'" .... well then that sort of speaks volumes about this so-called "media bias".

OAW
Reporting lies isn't bias.

Bias is the amount of time spent on Bush's warrantless wiretaping versus Obama's NSA programs.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2016, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Reporting lies isn't bias.

Bias is the amount of time spent on Bush's warrantless wiretaping versus Obama's NSA programs.
Now this is a fair point. Obama made some tweaks to Bush's wiretapping programs but largely left the substance of them intact ...

The key development on President Barack Obama's promise was the passage of the USA Freedom Act on June 2, 2015. After signing two reauthorizations of the Patriot Act that left most its central features intact, Obama signed major revisions into law that affected the bulk collection of telephone metadata and the operations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

One of the most telling revelations by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden was that the government had been stockpiling raw data on the timing, location and numbers of ordinary phone calls. By the government's reading, this was allowed under section 215 of the Patriot Act.

The USA Freedom Act ended that practice as of Nov. 29, 2015. If the National Security Agency wants that kind of information, it would make its case before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, listing the specific numbers it wanted to include in its search and why. With that approval, the NSA would submit its query to the private telecommunications companies who would sift through their data. In an emergency, the NSA can seek approval from three top-ranking officials at the Justice Department -- the attorney general, the deputy attorney general or the assistant attorney general for national security.

So, before the change, the NSA simply collected all the metadata it could handle. After the change, only the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or, in an emergency, three top Justice Department officials can authorize the collection of targeted metadata.
Nonetheless, Obama promised to change the Patriot Act to increase oversight of government surveillance. He didn't say how robust that oversight would be, and even the critics agree that the country has more today than before. We rate this Promise Kept.
The Obameter: Revise the Patriot Act to increase oversight on government surveillance | PolitiFact

But as for media coverage, one could argue that after the furor over the Snowden leaks had subsided and the reforms were enacted the story was simply "old news".

OAW
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:57 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,