I'm not on the Right. I'm a democratic socialist. You are on what was the Right was a few years ago. The Democrat party has shifted to the Right under corporate influence, shifting the major policy positions towards those favorable for corporate dominance while making you feel like a progressive by letting you be all woke all the time.

The Republicans, say what you want about them, is a party where the rank and file members have some influence over the party, which is why Trump can't be universally condemned by the party elite. Trumpers run the party.

The Democratic party, on the other hand, couldn't care less about your preferences. You are supposed to vote for them without any expectations besides not being subjected to the will of the deplorables on the other side. That's the way you are disciplined and you like it. Makes me shudder with disgust.

I should have looked at wikipedia first to find out where you were getting all this. You are latching on to Binney to divert from the quotes from Crowdstrike. The only recant I could find was Binney saying "“no evidence to prove where the download/copy was done”, which was previously said to have happened in the Eastern U.S.

That's the only quote I am seeing. "“no evidence to prove where the download/copy was done”. That's hardly Galileo at the Roman Inquisition. You must feel really unsatisfied reading only that.

So in this whole Russiagate thing I finally got one of you to attempt to prove one little thing, that Russia stole the emails which eventually were published through wikileaks. You clearly didn't know that Crowdstrike, the org hired by the DNC to make tha determination, said they couldn't make that determination.

You go on to try to interchange the idea of taking data with the idea of breaching systems in order to muddy the waters and make affirmative sounding claims.

And at the end of the day, if you make all the leaps over evidence gaps and could charge Russia (you can't but let's pretend evidence isn't necessary which I guess isn't too far from the world we are in) in this narrow aspect, their crime would be getting us truthful information about the relevant activities and opinions of those who would rule us.

Also Wikileaks says it wasn't Russia. That doesn't mean anything to you because you believe you are told to believe by those who have long range authority and power over you. But if you were the sort person to whom reputation mattered it would mean something.

lol...those that are not agreeing with trump get death threats like liz cheney that got ejected, same for ex vice president pence.

no one as influence anymore in that party unless you support trump.
dont talk to me about democracy please...
your mess up about everything...

you know whats great about the democrats ?
you can disagree in it, think about that....

me being woke or the right, lol....

That's my point. Their party is responsible to their base, which is Trump voters. In the Democratic party we have a situation where the country supports M4A, Democratic voters more heavily support M4A, and the party leadership is telling people to pound sand when M4A is demanded. Do you somehow think that is more Democratic? Just telling people that the usually increasing inequality that they don't want is the agenda, and all you get is to make the other side pissed because some portion of our corporate shills are minorities?

Let's get the thread back on track for discussion claims of a rigged US election, the tangential discussion has now split into its own tangents.

This is a containment thread, so as a rule of thumb past posts won't be moved out of this thread. I suggest starting a new thread if people wish to discuss the tangents further.

They never get close to saying the above, the above is total utter falsehood.

You seem to be suffering from some kind of cognitive dissonance that prevents you from parsing English properly.

Let me paraphrase what Crowd strike actually said so maybe the penny drops. Whilst it is a paraphrase, the meaning is 100% accurate reflection of what CS actually said.

"What evidence we have seen though not concrete but circumstantial is enough for us to determine 100% with total and utter confidence, with no room for doubt or ambiguity, that Russian agents hacked the DNC."

They make the above claim repeatedly.

What ever evidence they found, they never express ambiguity about the hack, when asked they reply "Yes Russia hacked the DNC 100%"

Another thing you seem to suffer from is not being able to parse cite quality.

1:CS had access to DNC Binney did not.

2:CS is a non partisan third party organisation. Binney is a self confessed partisan Trump voter.

3:CS based their conclusion (100% confidence of Russian hack off DNC) on access to the DNC. Binney based all his work on claims made buy Guccifer 2.0. These claims turned out to be fake.

You are wrong and it could not be being made more clear to you how absolutely clearly and obviously wrong you are. You have been led to the water but delusion wont let you drink.

Further discussion on the DNC-hack can be done here:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...cised-1795826/

There are two claims of recently rigged elections. The reigning narrative among like half the country is that Russia was responsible for the election of Trump through various criminal interference with the elections. So on a basic level, at the level of the title of the thread, any discussion of Russiagate is within bounds.

My thesis is that the claims are related to each through a disinformation war carried out by the two main political factions in this country. One side attempted a palace coup over these claims, and the other has responded with equally bold moves towards thwarting the apparent election results. I am putting the "riggie" claims into the context of that disinformation war, and so any discussion of the facts of either claim definitely belong ITT.

Can you please, with that in mind, undo whatever changes you have done and let the discussion resume?

Deuces,

Is this another instance in which you thought other posters (in this case, the moderators) reached conclusions or made decisions because they were too dense to comprehend your point of view?

td (and everyone else) obviously understands the equivalence that you have been trying to draw for the better part of three weeks now. Your "thesis" isn't terribly complicated. His decision to move the discussion wasn't due to a failure of comprehension.

Do you just assume it's not possible that he wasn't following along that closely? Or are you too dense to consider multiple likely explanations?

If this thread is abut rigged elections currently discussed in the broader discourse then anything Russiagate definitely belongs in here. There is an alleged conspiracy charging people far away, the government of our nuclear rival, with all sorts of things which have been proven to have been false or reaching beyond all reason. That's a conspiracy theory.

It's not that people are too dense to see that Russiagate is a conspiracy theory in the classical, laughable sense of the word. It's more akin to fish not realizing that they are wet because the condition is too integrated into their day-to-day mode of life to see any contrast in it. Like you, for example, are just so plugged into the propaganda stream it's like part of you, like an umbilical cord but spliced straight into your brain stem.

This is pretty much a perfect metaphor for how you see yourself. We are all just fish who are too dumb or too enveloped in our environments to understand that we are wet. And you are the one smart fish who understands what is really going on.

Your Brobdingnagian ego never ceases to astonish.

Ok, then what is your number? I'm sure you've done your own research. How much did Trump win the election by?

Congratulations on coming to this conclusion in September of 2021. Better late then never I suppose.

Well I'm also astonished, ceaselessly, and how your ilk are repeatedly lied to through intelligence agency "leaks", shown that they are lies, but then always believe the next lie, every single time.

I mean, maybe you have limits? I can't get any of you to even comment on the claim made by Harris that the Russians are behind the Colin Kaepernick episode. It's probably just that not a critical mass of authority has told you what to think on that yet. Apparently you won't come out and say it's BS even though you all have enough common sense to understand it is. So that alone condemns you- there is definitely some form of social control that you are apparently unaware influences you away from truth in determining matters of fact.

There is the counter hypothesis that you know Russiagate is all bull and you pretend to believe it because that's the warfare you are led to believe is doing something for your economic class. It's not though.

I'm humble. I can learn from people and admit I'm wrong. I learned or relearned the word Brobdingnagian from you. Under normal conditions I don't think you could bring yourself to make a parallel statement. And right now I bet you want to call me a rube for not knowing that word because everything is a sides thing, my side or your side, thing with your ilk and the truth is subverted.

What is there to say? I can't know for sure whether Russian bots ever tweeted anything about Kaepernick, but even if they did, it seems ridiculous to blame the backlash on Russia. The Kaepernick saga was just about the most American thing I've ever seen.

Again, no one in this thread has made any such claims.

Predictably, your soul read of me is way off. I'm wrong as often as the next person who is paying attention. I've admitted mistakes countless times in this forum.

I don't object to the idea that left v. right is an outdated lens through which to analyze politics. I don't think you are stupid. I don't think you are a rube. I do think that you have an vastly inflated sense of your own intelligence and perceptiveness. I do find your your on-line personality to be highly irritating.

That said, this back-and-forth isn't advancing the actual discussion, so I'll stop with the personal stuff for now.

Why would you put that in quotes when it's just something you made up? Why be so repeatedly disingenuous if the truth is on your side?

Maybe we need some context. The issue is whether or not Russia took the emails from the DNC and gave them to Wikileaks. Do we agree that that is what we are contending about, or are you fixated on some less inclusive action on the part of Russia which you are referring to as a "hack" or "hacking"?

If Russia gave us truthful and relevant information about people who are foisted on us to choose from via some secret process, then by definition they are not engaging in a disinformation campaign on that front. They are actually helping us make better decisions. They are increasing democracy by giving us more information with which to make a decision and that's made even more critical by the fact that we don't really decide who is running in the first place.

Does Russia have a right to weigh in on who the president of the U.S. is given that our actions affect them so profoundly? If America is the world police, if we get to decide whether or not Syria can rebuild it's homes, or whether Syrian and Venezuelan children can have medicine or die by our sanctions, why can't foreigners have some say in who is elected? We dictate policy by dominating international organizations and by the threat of our military and financial prowess. We enforce the petro dollar system.

We invade countries because some guy said "he tried to kill ma dad".

Our environmental policies are startnig to wreak havoc all over the Globe. Russia definitely did not steal the DNC emails, which were leaked. But even if they did, they are merely sprinkling some true information on a process which very much affects them. Having a say about what happens to you is what democracy is supposed to be about.

I put it in quotes to be honest, it was simple courtesy.

Anyone who was not being dense on purpose would understand this.

I had to paraphrase CS because you were totally failing to understand their testimony, so to make it super simple dimple for you, I made a completely honest and 100% accurate summary of what they said, but in a compact super simple format that I hoped even you could understand.

I was wrong, you still dont understand.

JFC.

Nice try to shift the goal posts specifically onto the emails, that is in no way the subject of discussion between us, of course you are a total vacuum of intellectual honesty.

Lets us be clear about the subject of discussion as relates to false claims you have made that I am arguing against.

1. Russia had no preference for Trump.

2. Crowd strike said their was no hack of the DNC.

Both patently false claims as I have demonstrated beyond doubt.

I mean, let's face it, people with a highly inflated sense of their own intelligence are not usually the sharpest tools in the shed.

Feels like a bit of a self-own.

Good news, you are both a little correct.

Did actually feel a bit that way as I was writing it too.

I think it could be a self own for many of us here Lucky.

I hope you have the humility to see that may apply to you chief amongst us with your belief that you have a clarity on issues (CT's) that others here just are not able to grasp.

That type of belief is foundational to those who embrace CT's. Would you contest that statement?