• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Donald Campaign Contacted Russians Leading Up To Election

Deacfreak07 said:
I like how the phrase "fake news" has been repurposed. It's really impressive. There were legitimately fake news services HQed in like Tunisia or somewhere just churning out click bait throughout 2016. Now Donald got people using that phrase for the Grey Lady. The man is one hell of a promoter.
Click to expand...

Seriously. It's quite amazing.

Also really embarrassing considering it's the modern day equivalent of a 12 year old saying "I know you are but what am I?"
 
DistrictDeacon said:
Huh? Manafort confirmed he got the same texts on his phone from the same person his daughter did.
Click to expand...

Ok, and so everyone agrees that his daughter was hacked, because there are some screenshots, and Manafort confirms the authenticity.

So lets walk down the logic train:

A) We know his daughter was hacked because a screenshot of her texting was anonymously posted

B) Presumably the person hacking his daughter wasn't doing it because he was a supporter. Also supported by the texts posted made her dad/Republicans look bad

C) Presumably the hacker could get her dad's phone # once he hacked her phone.


So we are left with two possibilities:

1) There was a hacker who was liberal or just random and went through the effort to hack paul manafort's daughters phone and luckily discovered someone trying to extort her dad that for some reason texted her instead of her dad.

2) Someone who didn't like her dad or her dad's political party hacked her phone, found her dad's phone #, sent a few text messages, then copied them on the internet anonymously.

Scenario #1 seems like a 1000:1 shot to me, but maybe I'm being biased. We know its 1 of the 2 above things given that we know she was hacked. So which is it that you think it was? Or what's the probability that you'd assign to each scenario?
 
Last edited:
Deacfreak07 said:
I like how the phrase "fake news" has been repurposed. It's really impressive. There were legitimately fake news services HQed in like Tunisia or somewhere just churning out click bait throughout 2016. Now Donald got people using that phrase for the Grey Lady. The man is one hell of a promoter.
Click to expand...

TBH, the news sites that clearly hate him, gotta start being more subtle if they want credibility.

Their own actions are opening them up to the whole fake news thing. They aren't trying to be impartial anymore, that's why they're getting booted from the briefings.
 
palmab03 said:
TBH, the news sites that clearly hate him, gotta start being more subtle if they want credibility.

Their own actions are opening them up to the whole fake news thing. They aren't trying to be impartial anymore, that's why they're getting booted from the briefings.
Click to expand...

Probably the least American post I've ever read on these boards.
 
palmab03 said:
Ok, and so everyone agrees that his daughter was hacked, because there are some screenshots, and Manafort confirms the authenticity.

So lets walk down the logic train:

A) We know his daughter was hacked because a screenshot of her texting was anonymously posted

B) Presumably the person hacking his daughter wasn't doing it because he was a supporter. Also supported by the texts posted made her dad/Republicans look bad

C) Presumably the hacker could get her dad's phone # once he hacked her phone.


So we are left with two possibilities:

1) There was a hacker who was liberal or just random and went through the effort to hack paul manafort's daughters phone and luckily discovered someone trying to extort her dad that for some reason texted her instead of her dad.

2) Someone who didn't like her dad or her dad's political party hacked her phone, found her dad's phone #, sent a few text messages, then copied them on the internet anonymously.

Scenario #1 seems like a 1000:1 shot to me, but maybe I'm being biased. We know its 1 of the 2 above things given that we know she was hacked. So which is it that you think it was? Or what's the probability that you'd assign to each scenario?
Click to expand...

WFU degree value plummets. Didn't they make you take at least one class that required reading comprehension or logical thinking?

For #2 to be true, the hacker would have had to do the hacking and texting in August, and then wait 7 months to release the screenshots. What exactly would be the point of waiting so long?

He would also have to be lucky enough to end up referencing specific documents that would later be passed on to the Ukrainian corruption investigation. That would be one hell of a guess for someone who didn't actually have those documents.
 
Newenglanddeac said:
Yep.

5 ESSENTIAL TWITTER FEEDS FOR KEEPING UP WITH TRUMP AND RUSSIA

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/twitter-feeds-for-keeping-up-with-trump-and-russia
Click to expand...


Well this just confirmed these guys are legit.

From RT:

Anti-Russian MSM commentators formerly embroiled in sex scandals & drug addiction

John Schindler and Louise Mensch, Robby Mook and Jennifer Palmieri: these names may sound familiar to morning viewers of mainstream media. They are consistently invited to speak on Russia, sometimes calling for the US to bomb the county, despite previous falls from grace. RT America’s Alexey Yaroshevsky breaks down the scandals and failures the mainstream media seems so happy to ignore.
 
There is less chance of Trump campaign direct ties (and Trump family ties) to Putin not existing than of Usain Bolt beating me in a 100M dash.
 
Newenglanddeac said:
Well this just confirmed these guys are legit.

From RT:

Anti-Russian MSM commentators formerly embroiled in sex scandals & drug addiction

John Schindler and Louise Mensch, Robby Mook and Jennifer Palmieri: these names may sound familiar to morning viewers of mainstream media. They are consistently invited to speak on Russia, sometimes calling for the US to bomb the county, despite previous falls from grace. RT America’s Alexey Yaroshevsky breaks down the scandals and failures the mainstream media seems so happy to ignore.
Click to expand...

Link? I'm curious. Louise Mensch looks like a middle class man's Emma Watson.
 
off topic but do you all find the english version of RT credible? serious question, as i've seen some very interesting things on that channel but have never really watched RT, having assumed it wasn't credible.
 
dmcheatw said:
off topic but do you all find the english version of RT credible? serious question, as i've seen some very interesting things on that channel but have never really watched RT, having assumed it wasn't credible.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. It's Russian state propaganda, so it has no credibility.

"Russia Today was conceived as a soft-power tool to improve Russia’s image abroad, to counter the anti-Russian bias the Kremlin saw in the Western media. Since its founding in 2005, however, the broadcast outlet has become better known as an extension of former President Vladimir Putin’s confrontational foreign policy. Too often the channel was provocative just for the sake of being provocative. It featured fringe-dwelling “experts,” like the Russian historian who predicted the imminent dissolution of the United States; broadcast bombastic speeches by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez; aired ads conflating Barack Obama with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; and ran out-of-nowhere reports on the homeless in America. Often, it seemed that Russia Today was just a way to stick it to the U.S. from behind the façade of legitimate news gathering."

http://archives.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php
 
Last edited:
that was my guess also. somehow they've managed to get richard wolff and Michio Kaku on but i suppose they had their reasons and RT wanted them just to look more legit, so i mean RT does have some good info from guests on occasion, and much good european/global reporting goes unaired in the U.S., but yeah point taken.
 
dmcheatw said:
that was my guess also. somehow they've managed to get richard wolff and Michio Kaku on but i suppose they had their reasons and RT wanted them just to look more legit, so i mean RT does have some good info from guests on occasion, and much good european/global reporting goes unaired in the U.S., but yeah point taken.
Click to expand...

To make propoganda effective, you have to mix in some truth or people reject it outright.
 
palmab03 said:
TBH, the news sites that clearly hate him, gotta start being more subtle if they want credibility.

Their own actions are opening them up to the whole fake news thing. They aren't trying to be impartial anymore, that's why they're getting booted from the briefings.
Click to expand...

Either you are trolling, knowing you are holding 2/3 off-with quads on the board and trying to bluff, or you don't understand how a free press works. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
To make propoganda effective, you have to mix in some truth or people reject it outright.
Click to expand...

Not Trumps people. They believe Obama wasn't born in HI. They believe there were thousands cheering on 9/11. They believe Trump won the popular vote. They believe there are no ties between Trump/his team and Russia. They believe anything he tells them.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
To make propoganda effective, you have to mix in some truth or people reject it outright.
Click to expand...

most assuredly agreed. the most insidious lies are nearly completely true, i just wonder aloud why kaku would go on the programme knowing this?
 
Deacfreak07 said:
It really is, but god dammit it's effective.
Click to expand...
Yep. Its one think to criticize the MSM, but what Trump is doing is turning the act of fact checking into a punchline. And his supporters hate facts, so they eat it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top