mdk

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by ErsatzEmperor>

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head.

@Dynamo Frokane

This is actually a reference to Marcus Aurelius.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Don't get my thread locked y'all. Look at the regulars here and their post history, they spend most of their time here.

@Dynamo Frokane

yup

"I do belong here. These bad people are what I'm good at. Outtalking them, outthinking them. It's what I am. And I like it."

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

No comment of a mass shooting going on at a Texas church here?

@The Harbinger of Ferocity

Was waiting for more information to come out.

there is this

YT title is a little misleading, this isn't the guy who shot back, but he played a pretty incredible role all the same.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

I might throw out that the "media fact checkers" of our day and age are now often spectacularly wrong. The most infamous being the "BleachBit" example when they had to specify that it was a program, not literal bleaching, and rated the claim as "false" subsequently; Snopes as a whole going under is just another aspect. Regardless, the Daily Caller is right leaning but is not a deep right source. You can tell from the spread of examples @mdk used it was intentional, something you yourself even commented on.

The link provided even calls their information accuracy "MIXED" and specifically names Politifact and Snopes in the process as the sources for this rating. This tells me, observing the voting roster too, although it makes no mention of that being an influence and says contrary to that, that they view it as "Extreme Right". Quite "reliable" to throw it in the same basket as say Stormfront and Breitbart despite them all being of tremendously varied quality.

As a bonus, they consider Fox News to be one step less extreme than all the other examples I listed.

@The Harbinger of Ferocity

And FWIW I'm not out here to vouch for the sanctity of whatever website. You can google each subject on your own, and select whatever biased source you prefer; alternatively, tell me the outlets you trust, and I'll use them for you.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

So, to begin, let me just put out a disclaimer: I've been a little out of the loop lately, so I might not be right in the end and I'm okay with that. I'm always ready to learn. That being said, some of the sources you have cited aren't credible. There might be inklings of truth in some of them, but if they aren't honest or objective from the get-go, I can't be certain what is true and what is not without in-depth research and that's not the kind of time I want to be spending for a political conversation with a stranger on a roleplaying forum.

• The Medium article you cited has been using coded or outright biased language in order to persuade the reader toward a certain conclusion (e.g. "...we have known about these facts since they emerged from Clapper’s racist face hole on May 8..."), so to save time, I'm gonna outright ignore it. Which might mean I'll miss out on some truth, but for all I know, it could also be all croc... and that's speaking as a liberal about a left-leaning website.
• The Daily Caller, has a history of right-heavy bias and sensationalist headlines, so nope. But hey, kudos to you for being diverse and nonpartisan in your source picking.

And a bunch of the other articles either don't relate to or support the theory of foreign involvement in her 2016 campaign (or her 2008 campaign, as far as I can tell). Like those donations to the Clinton Foundation which were outside of the nation's election periods can't possibly have any strong link to either campaign - and it doesn't matter in this case that she took and kept money by a sexual offender, and that's speaking as a survivor myself. By no means am I defending Clinton as an ethical person or her Foundation as an ethical organization, but those sources don't support your claim of foreign involvement in this last election season.

The best article you've given is the one by The Hill where the Clinton campaign apparently colluded with Ukraine officials. The Hill being a good, solid source. My only problem is that there are few other sources with the same credibility supporting the same story without bias, so I have to be open to the possibility that it may not be true or that I am not getting all of the information about Ukraine's involvement.

In the case where I'm wrong, I stand corrected and thank you for bringing that information to my attention. But otherwise, there is a lot of misleading information in your case which leads me to wonder if you have your own bias in simply wanting to see Clinton fail.

Like I said, I have no love for the former Secretary of State or the DNC. And yes, Clinton carries with her a metric SHIT-TON of baggage that looks very damning and can easily lead someone to some conclusions... but among it, there simply isn't enough hard proof of foreign involvement in her 2016 campaign for me to settle on a definitive conclusion.

@Spoopy Scary

Let's apply that same standard to the Trump campaign. What's your definitive conclusion there?

Remember, Manafort, the Trump guy they're needling for foreign involvement, is currently indicted for activities he undertook on behalf of the Ukraine, during his time with Podesta Group -- Podesta, as in Hillary's campaign manager.

EDIT: as an aside, everything I just linked is a matter of record. Some of it, like Uranium One, we're still waiting o more info, but the part of the story we've got on record so far is very damning. You should definitely look into these things on your own time. I haven't even touched the conspiracy theories, credible (Seth Rich) or otherwise (comet ping pong)

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Speaking of Russia....

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by mdk>

That's not gonna happen, because so far the only confirmed information is that the DNC handed its control to the Clinton campaign a year before the primary elections and anything more than that is conjecture or conspiracy theory.

@Spoopy Scary

Somebody is out-and-out lying to you. But before we get to that: what separates the "conjecture and conspiracy theory" surrounding Clinton, from that surrounding Trump? Why are uncomfirmed suspicions about the one bogus, but unconfirmed suspicions about the other are taken seriously? Think on that.

Anyway.

We know she colluded with Ukrain. We know (because after initially denying any knowledge, she later turned around and defended her role) that she paid foreign intel to produce the Trump dossier, and credited that info instead to a fictional number of intelligence agencies. We know she took cash while approving the Uranium One/Rosatom deal. We know she's got a long history of pay-for-play -- which, incidentally, means that most of the money in the DNC warchest since her newly-revealed 2015 takeover of their finances, came from foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, from Saudi, Qatar, UAE, Brunei, Kuwait, and heck even Russia.

Oh, and Harvey Weinstein.

So..... ya know. That's the kind of thing that the DNC was getting up to. I'm not saying you have to be happy with the GOP -- but whoever it is that's telling you the DNC was clean is a goddamn filthy liar, and you need to drop them like a bad habit.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

git em dynamo

<Snipped quote by mdk>
Clinton rigged the primaries, but Trump won the election and one of his officials recently confessed to Russian involvement (as heard on NPR). There was corruption on both sides. Both parties are disgusting. But at least the democrats didn't enlist the aid of a foreign power. The election should be solely domestic.

@Spoopy Scary

any so-called centrists wanna correct this while I'm at work? Spoopy, someone is not giving you the whole story. Stay tuned. You're gonna be disgusted.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

This time it's from Donna Brazille, and the (alleged, I think we still have to say) extent of it is a lot more in the criminal range, on account of the Clinton campaign's takeover of the money.

What I'm wondering is, why are they copping to it now? My thinking is Uranium 1 is about to get nasty.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

So the DNC has officially acknowledged Clinton rigged the election.