Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

09-07-2018 , 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klingbard
Don't worry Donny, wikileaks is on the case.

seems counterproductive for wikileaks to get into the business of outing leakers I would think
09-07-2018 , 12:08 AM
Ex-Facebook CSO: Pretty clear GRU's goal was to weaken a future Clinton presidency

Quote:
"Putin has a [you know, it's been well-documented] like a personal antipathy towards her and believes that she was behind the protests against him in the 2012 Russian election, and so, the GRU activity was specifically focused on weakening her."

"I think it was less about actually electing Trump," Stamos added. "I find it unlikely that the Russians are better than Nate Silver at predicting elections."
Quote:
Stamos says his team was able to separate political influence campaigns, such as the ones carried out by GRU (one of Russia's intelligence agencies) and the Internet Research Agency, from classic run-of-the-mill fake news because they weren't focused on monetization, but on sowing chaos in the American public life.

"What the Internet Research Agency and the other government trolls want to do is they want to get you to reshare the content on social media and so they what they especially like to do is image memes," Stamos said.

"That makes them no money. There's no way they can make money of you resharing this meme over and over again, and that's a good indication that somebody's paying them other than advertisers."
Quote:
"There's the GRU-led work, which is about a bunch of [hacked] data from the DNC, from John Podesta, from Colin Powell, from other folks, and they used that hacked information to create the news stories they wanted to see in the media.

They amplified it using their trolls, but in that case, it was the legitimate newspapers and cable news networks and legitimate journalists who were carrying the message of the GRU and kind of washing it through the respectability of their outlets that then changed the entire conversation."
GJGE MSM
09-07-2018 , 12:09 AM


I think he had a stroke
09-07-2018 , 12:16 AM
I get confused about the whole "the failing New York Times should really investigate the anonymous source" thing. I mean, they are literally the only ones that know and wouldn't need to investigate, right? *sigh*
09-07-2018 , 01:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3fiveofdiamonds
seems counterproductive for wikileaks to get into the business of outing leakers I would think
https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/852607558225362944

09-07-2018 , 01:09 AM
Good scoop, tho.
09-07-2018 , 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amead
I get confused about the whole "the failing New York Times should really investigate the anonymous source" thing. I mean, they are literally the only ones that know and wouldn't need to investigate, right? *sigh*
No reporting vs editorial silos of the NY Times. Only a few people on the editorial side know who the author is. The Times also hasn't indicated if the anonymity agreement applies to the reporting side of the paper.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...es-oped-809111
09-07-2018 , 01:37 AM
Bill Kristol knows who the author is apparently.
09-07-2018 , 01:41 AM
i saw that tweet and i'm 96% sure he's having a laugh
09-07-2018 , 01:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/10...818988034?s=19
It'll be fantastic once he starts dropping some sort of "we'll keep government out of your medicare" line.
09-07-2018 , 01:53 AM
any chance at all its kellyanne considering her husband hates trump?

tho the text itself doesnt seem to implicate her at all
09-07-2018 , 01:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirbynator
any chance at all its kellyanne considering her husband hates trump?

tho the text itself doesnt seem to implicate her at all
i mean yeah maybe. i can see how she totally made up that last part about like, bringing the country together and john mccain and that. because this way no one would ever expect the most soulless human being in the white house, kellyanne conway, of writing it.

because that bringing the country together part does seem tacked on
09-07-2018 , 02:03 AM
can you imagine being george conway, and every night i guess you're like, pleading with your wife to warn the nation by resigning and writing that op-ed. and this is the compromise, and everyone is ****ting all over the idea lol
09-07-2018 , 02:16 AM
Can you imagine getting into bed every night with Kellyanne?
09-07-2018 , 02:17 AM
Kristols tweet was a joke. He said so in a follow-up tweet.
09-07-2018 , 02:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Can you imagine getting into bed every night with Kellyanne?
I suspect her feet are ice cold year round.
09-07-2018 , 02:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Can you imagine getting into bed every night with Kellyanne?
i can but i don't. i do however occasionally find myself fantasizing about sarah huckabee sanders. if you ever search trailer park gangbangs on pornhub you'll know why
09-07-2018 , 02:43 AM
lol
09-07-2018 , 03:09 AM
Google crackwhore confessions if you every fantasize about Kellyanne.
09-07-2018 , 03:29 AM
09-07-2018 , 03:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirbynator
any chance at all its kellyanne considering her husband hates trump?

tho the text itself doesnt seem to implicate her at all
That could be the biggest clue that it IS her.

I also don't think it's at all implausible that she hates Trump, too, and is playing a role to cash in on the power/money available from her position. The Conways are doing quite well for themselves in terms of both having access/influence to different wings of the GOP elites.
09-07-2018 , 04:00 AM
prob not her tho because you’d imagine any competent editor reads this op-ed from kellyanne conway and says, “you have so little credibility we wouldn’t print this even if you put your name on it. resign and kill yourself as soon as possible.”
09-07-2018 , 04:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian
prob not her tho because you’d imagine any competent editor reads this op-ed from kellyanne conway and says, “you have so little credibility we wouldn’t print this even if you put your name on it. resign and kill yourself as soon as possible.”
That's a good point, but I actually suspect that whoever wrote the op-ed showed the NYT some evidence to back up their claims - so I don't think we can rule her out on those grounds. If she showed up with receipts, they'd let her do it.
09-07-2018 , 06:02 AM
Child rulers are historically significant. In the absence of the ruler’s ability to exercise actual rule due to their minority, rivalries between competing interests become more heated and exposed. Sometimes the minority of a ruler can lead to consitutional change or clarification. Other regencies can lead to national weakness (eg. Honorius or Valentinian III).


09-07-2018 , 06:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Google crackwhore confessions if you every fantasize about Kellyanne.
so shaming fat people = bad, as bad as racism in fact, but shaming crack smokers and whores = good

i guess like half the thread is going to spend the rest of the day melting down over this now

      
m