World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Ack]

Currently, congressional Republicans are expressing no interest in further investigation of Trump's administration. For partisan reasons this is understandable. But by going full-bore on calling for an investigation of the leaker and then completely dismissing the implications of the leaked information, they make themselves look even more partisan and petty. It's not about rooting out corruption or security issues, it's just about sweeping embarrassing information under the rug of secrecy. If we're going to pursue one in the name of national security we need to pursue the other as well. If it's important to identify and prosecute the leaker, then it's also important to explore how much the administration knew about Flynn's communication and why they sat on it, and what that may mean about the administration's relationship with Russia.

This is not entirely true. While some Republicans are critical of the intelligence community for the leak(some of whom surprise me, such as Rand Paul's recent statements), there are still Republicans expressing concern, such as John McCain:

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/ind ... 8C52D31734

“General Flynn’s resignation also raises further questions about the Trump administration’s intentions toward Vladimir Putin’s Russia, including statements by the President suggesting moral equivalence between the United States and Russia despite its invasion of Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, threats to our NATO allies, and attempted interference in American elections.

Republicans in the Senate Intelligence Committee and in leadership roles are also proposing further investigation into ties between Russia and the Trump administration, including Senators Roy Blunt, Marco Rubio, Richard Burr, John Cornyn, and Mitch McConnell.

That said, Republican members of the House have generally not made statements regarding further investigation, including Paul Ryan.

[marurun]

Republicans in the Senate Intelligence Committee and in leadership roles are also proposing further investigation into ties between Russia and the Trump administration, including Senators Roy Blunt, Marco Rubio, Richard Burr, John Cornyn, and Mitch McConnell.

That said, Republican members of the House have generally not made statements regarding further investigation, including Paul Ryan.

Thank you for correcting me. I spoke overly broadly. NPR had an interview with a Republican House member this morning (I do not remember who) and this guy was just repeating Paul Ryan's comments, essentially. It sounded very partisan to me. I just assumed that Paul Ryan was speaking for the party (he often presumes to) I guess I shouldn't be surprised McCain is standing up. I'm not keen on many of his views, but I'm proud of how hard he fights to keep us on the straight and narrow in the areas of the military and intelligence. Do you know if Lindsay Graham has had anything to say about this? He's usually with McCain on such issues.

[CRTGAMER]

Ah, the normal left judgmental responses with no meat of rebuttal. Where is that Jack Nichoson "Handle Truth" picture again?

Ever heard of policy debate? It's one of the two key kinds of debate high school debate teams engage in. It's considered highly relevant to politics. Basically, you take a topic and debate it. But the way you get points is less about throwing out relevant information and more about flooding your opponent. Sure, you have to know the topic, but the people who do best are the ones who can talk the fastest. You throw out as many topics and points as you can in the hopes that your opponent cannot address them all. There's no substance to the debate almost, it's just a numbers game.

Sometimes that's what it feels like you're doing, except that you're also spewing nonsense instead of relevant information. There isn't enough time in the day for me to enumerate how you are wrong on all your assertions, and quite frankly, it's not my job to do that. Sometimes we must pass judgment in order to move on. You've given me more than enough information upon which to base my judgment. You constantly repeat the same misinformation and make the same unfounded claims. I can only rebut the same issue so many times. When I do counter your misinformation, I do it for others who might stumble into this thread and mistake your voice for the voice of reason. You're not interested in truth. You're interested in "Truth." You want what feels right, not what is right. You can keep your truthiness, because I don't want any of that Kool-Aid. My preference would be to do more sparring with Sarge, because even if we don't agree he's at least consistent and I can make sense of most of his views. As far as I can tell, you're just nutters. Sorry. I'm not saying it to call you names or make fun of you. I just legitimately think you're disconnected from objective reality. And given that you've denied objective reality and substituted your own, there isn't really a common ground to have discussion from.

You certainly took the time to judge me in your elongated response and once again not confront an issue. Even our educator took time for yet another derogatory picture with no meat of rebuttal. Come on ElkinFencer10, put your artwork skills away and join the fray with your words of experience as a teacher!

I responded to your previous judgmental of my earlier post as in your very last line below with a level retort. Note the difference in my response? No attack to you as a person, but my rebuttal. My banter to spool discussion and not cause this nonsense judgement of character. It is why i earlier stated I normally ignore judgement posts such as yours to drivel the Thread down to back and forth attacks. If you do not have to time to debate then maybe do not bother?

CRT, none of our reputable major media outlets claim, or have claimed, that Russia "hacked" our election. They all state correctly that Russia tried to influence our election. I have heard NPR on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS go out of their way to deliberately point out that there is NO EVIDENCE that Russia hacked into voting systems. I don't know why you keep hoisting that red herring as proof that the media is corrupt. Then again, I've never known you to let facts get in the way of a good partisan bender.

Reality Check
I never said the vote machines were compromised, you just did by the simple term of "Russia Hacking" in my previous post. The news media created that "Russia Hack" term, not me. It was used for months to sway public opinion towards possible vote count fraud (proven false) and not the (no proof who did it) Wikileaks exposure of their very own collusion to the DNC. This is as bad as Russian TV news; the U.S. government run news agencies including the newspaper posting the Flynn leak should be investigated and prosecuted. Journalists use to be held as high caliber, now most are pawns of the information control system.

DNC Collusion
Concerning the DNC collusion of mainstream news media how could they have been so wrong on the presidential campaign polls? Hillary Clinton was polled to win by mainstream news media, but was this a known insider lie to spur votes towards the designated winner? Natural that everyone connects to a winner and will lean that way when checking the ballot box. The polls back fired with concerns now that many who would have voted Clinton stayed home thinking of the easy win and republican voters came out in renewed vigor. Now THAT is a bit of irony when the government (thru the DNC collusion) controls the news.

[Ack]

Lindsey Graham is in agreement with McCain and also wants to know if Flynn was directed to talk to the Russian ambassador about sanctions.

[Sarge]

CRT isn't wrong that the term "Russia Hack", or "Russia hacked the election" was used quite a bit. Of course, this was used in reference to the hacked emails, but since it was often used without any sort of context, many thought it meant that Russia had hacked voting machines. A majority of Democrats believed that Russia had tempered with vote tallies in the poll below.

Of course, we've got our own conspiracy theories, so... yup.

https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/12/2 ... ical-iden/

The Flynn stuff is interesting. There's clearly something going on that we don't know about. I don't think it's going away any time soon.

[marurun]

Without common ground there isn't anything to discuss. I have no common ground with you, CRT. You can throw out "discussion topics" all you want, but there's no point in me responding to them. I often post rational rebuttals backed by factual data, and you just counter with more truthiness. I can't counter truthiness, and I'd be a fool to try.

CRT isn't wrong that the term "Russia Hack", or "Russia hacked the election" was used quite a bit. Of course, this was used in reference to the hacked emails, but since it was often used without any sort of context, many thought it meant that Russia had hacked voting machines. A majority of Democrats believed that Russia had tempered with vote tallies in the poll below.

Actually, that article you linked showed that Clinton voters (not necessarily Democrats at large) were split 50/50 on believing Russia tampered with vote tallies, which is not a majority. It is still problematic, though. I know some of the alt-left stuff on Facebook was pushing that as a possible theory, but that stuff isn't news. I can't speak to TV news, but NPR was very explicit that the Russian-orchestrated hacking was of the Clinton email server and that it wasn't of our actual voting apparatus. WaPo and NY Times articles were also pretty reliable at providing context as well. But there is also a burden on the reader/listener as well. None of the actual news outlets I read ever tried to connect the Russian hacking to voting hacks, so even if context was sometimes missing, that misunderstanding is not necessarily on the news outlets.

[alienjesus]

CRT, no one wants to 'banter' with you because you're a fucking loony.

You put out endless new topics and try to push people to engage with them, but rarely do you engage back.

Do you know what banter is? 'The playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks'. If anyone makes 'teasing remarks' against your completely baseless 'facts' and beliefs, you get super defensive. If anyone makes 'teasing remarks' against you, you accuse them of being the 'typical left' attacking you instead of addressing the crap you're posting.

No-one wants to address the shite you're copy pasting into the thread because there is no meat to it. It's baseless, pointless fluff. The reason so, so many of the people on this thread have outright stated they will not engage with you on this thread is because you are closed minded, delusional, unable to engage in a meaningful manner, and ridiculously defensive. It's also worth noting that many of the people in this thread who HAVEN'T made it clear they will not engage with you are still either critical of the stuff you're posting, or just ignore you outright.

It's no wonder you like Trump so much. You're like his fucking double.

[Sarge]

That number is actually further in the polling data:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/c ... Report.pdf

17% of Democrats said definitely true, and 35% said probably true.

Like I said, though, not like Republicans are immune, either. If there's anything that the last election cycle has taught me, it's to question everything. Even sources that I used to consider pretty solid had a feel of manipulation about them.

(Seriously, the Pizzagate thing? What the actual heck?)

In regards to Tanooki's question, I do think it's incredibly problematic when officials in the intelligence community start leaking things like this, regardless of who is in power. There's something of an insurgency in the ranks right now, and I suspect there will be some extreme measures taken if it continues.

[marurun]

That number is actually further in the polling data:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/c ... Report.pdf

17% of Democrats said definitely true, and 35% said probably true.

So, given their sample size (~1350) against an eligible voter population of approximately 232 million, their polling margin of error is approximately 2.5 points, so 50/50 or 52/48, that's still within the margin or error. Doesn't mean this isn't a problem. I never once bought into this, and I'm not aware of knowing anyone who does (though it is likely I do know someone who believed or believes this, if that polling data is at all representative). This troubles me a great deal. This is something people believe without evidence. This is truthiness. It's one thing to duel over the value of evidence. It's another to imagine it from whole cloth. This is exactly why Trump drives me nuts, and CRT, too. That millions of illegally cast votes thing apparently originated on a blog or twitter post somewhere and has never had any real evidence behind it, but apparently 52% of Republicans believe it. Between that and the belief that Russians hacked our voting infrastructure, it means that approximately 50%+ of non-independent voters have little to no faith in our ability to collect, count, and report votes reliably or accurately (I avoided addressing the voting system as a whole because gerrymandering and voter discrimination are very real, extant problems). That's very troubling to me.

[marurun]

Jennifer Rubin, a conservative political journalist currently with the Washington Post and author of their Right Turn blog, has quite a bit to say about this latest Russia problem plaguing the administration.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... ite-house/

"In less than a month, Trump has managed to paralyze the entire White House, shake GOP confidence in him, lose a national security adviser, re-raise questions about his uninterrupted praise for Putin and reinvigorate calls for an outside investigation into his and his advisers’ contacts with Russia. Trump has accomplished virtually nothing — other than nominating a strong candidate for the Supreme Court and raising questions about his own mental stability and the potential for his removal from office (by impeachment, resignation or the 25th Amendment). He has proved his fiercest critics right about his unfitness to govern. And given how weird this presidency has become and how fast it has left the parameters of normal political behavior, it is hardly nutty to think there is a chance he won’t complete his term."