5 ms·

That's way overstating it -- people may jump to conclusions that don't match objective reality, but the string of suspicious meetings, consistent omissions from

That's way overstating it -- people may jump to conclusions that don't match objective reality, but the string of suspicious meetings, consistent omissions from security clearance forms and testomonies, peculiar behaviors by advisors and campaign managers, are all things that did happen in reality. Things like 3 million illegal aliens voted in California, or Barack Obama was born in Kenya, or John Podesta running a sex ring in the basement of a pizza parlor, are better examples of ideas fully divorced from objective reality.

juliangoldsmith 9y ago
If something being suspicious is cause to believe it, then we can believe that the Clintons had something to do with the large number of politically convenient accidents and suicides surrounding them. Objective reality doesn't seem to be enough to cast a shadow on the Clintons. How many people on the left know much about the scandal surrounding the Uranium One deal that Hillary Clinton approved, after taking large amounts of Russian money [0]? [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton...
- chowchowchow 9y ago
  > If something being suspicious is cause to believe it, That's not what I said at all, I was talking about the reality of the suspicious acts, not the reality of their implications. But the immediate refocus to the Clintons, when nobody was talking about them, is plenty illuminating about where this will go if we keep discussing.
  - juliangoldsmith 9y ago
    I don't think discussing President Trump's main political opponent during the election is too large of a jump. Are the Clintons off-limits, or do you just not want to consider the possibility that they might be up to no good?
    - chowchowchow 9y ago
      > Are the Clintons off-limits Umm, no. Not off limits. But also not relevant, for the same reason I didn't bring up George W. Bush and his administration. Your pivoting of this discussion into one of my personal opinions about the Clintons is super revealing. I truly don't know what it has to do with anything, but it appears you're trying to catch me personally in some kind of contradiction? Even if I were holding contradictory views about these matters (I don't think I am), what relevance does that have to the factuality of there being enough suspicion around the 2016 election and actors within Trump's campagin to warrant an investigation?
      - juliangoldsmith 9y ago
        An impartial investigation isn't unreasonable. Having an investigation conducted by someone (Robert Mueller) with ties to the Clintons (via James Comey) is. Keep in mind that almost the entirety of the media and the political establishment in the United States opposes President Trump. If they had anything substantive on him, don't you think it would have come out after an investigation that's been going on for a year?
        chowchowchow 9y ago
        > don't you think it would have come out after an investigation that's been going on for a year I don't know. I'm not a federal investigator, I don't really know how long these things take or what "should" have leaked by now if there was something serious enough afoot for you to consider it substantive. It took like 2 years or something for impeachment to begin after the watergate break in was first reported as a spying effort and Nixon was still fully denying it a year later.
        juliangoldsmith 9y ago
        That's how long it took for impeachment to begin. The actual break-in was reported on NBC by Robert Endicott on June 19th, 1972, two days after the crime was committed. Up to this point, the news media hasn't seen any actual evidence of a collusion. To quote Adam Entous, who writes on national security for the Washington Post, "Our reporting has not taken us to a place where I would be able to say with any confidence that the result of it is going to be the president being guilty of being in cahoots with the Russians. There's no evidence of that that I've seen so far." [0] [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIm9zNItYq8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIm9zNItYq8
- tensor 9y ago
  It's suspicious enough for a formal investigation. Hopefully the investigation is allowed to run it's course so that we can learn what happened. At this point you can neither say there is no connection nor that there is one. That there are a very large number of very suspicious circumstances is fact. It also appears to be fact that Russia did try to meddle in the election. I don't see any problems with these claims.
  - juliangoldsmith 9y ago
    A formal investigation isn't unreasonable. The issue is that the investigator (Robert Mueller) has ties to President Trump's political opponents (the Clintons, through James Comey). As far as Russia meddling in the election, I don't doubt that. What I would dispute is the usual media narrative, that Russia was responsible for releasing the emails from the DNC.
m00g00 9y ago
On the other hand, the consensus reality that Russia hacked/stole the US election, and indeed the state of social division in the US itself, by purchasing a monetarily insignificant amount of low quality ads on Facebook, and unleashing a few thousand "trolls" on the internet, is quite strong among the left, mainstream media, democratic party, and liberal universities. This in the face of multiple billions in ads and propaganda spent by left leaning organizations, and millions of citizens on both sides doing the work of "trolls" for free just by being themselves on the internet, often egged on by an inflammatory click-baity domestic media machine. But no it was all Russia and Putin. The absurdity of this "consensus-reality" is quite astonishing really.

juliangoldsmith 9y ago

If something being suspicious is cause to believe it, then we can believe that the Clintons had something to do with the large number of politically convenient accidents and suicides surrounding them. Objective reality doesn't seem to be enough to cast a shadow on the Clintons. How many people on the left know much about the scandal surrounding the Uranium One deal that Hillary Clinton approved, after taking large amounts of Russian money [0]? [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton...

chowchowchow 9y ago
> If something being suspicious is cause to believe it, That's not what I said at all, I was talking about the reality of the suspicious acts, not the reality of their implications. But the immediate refocus to the Clintons, when nobody was talking about them, is plenty illuminating about where this will go if we keep discussing.
- juliangoldsmith 9y ago
  I don't think discussing President Trump's main political opponent during the election is too large of a jump. Are the Clintons off-limits, or do you just not want to consider the possibility that they might be up to no good?
  - chowchowchow 9y ago
    > Are the Clintons off-limits Umm, no. Not off limits. But also not relevant, for the same reason I didn't bring up George W. Bush and his administration. Your pivoting of this discussion into one of my personal opinions about the Clintons is super revealing. I truly don't know what it has to do with anything, but it appears you're trying to catch me personally in some kind of contradiction? Even if I were holding contradictory views about these matters (I don't think I am), what relevance does that have to the factuality of there being enough suspicion around the 2016 election and actors within Trump's campagin to warrant an investigation?
    - juliangoldsmith 9y ago
      An impartial investigation isn't unreasonable. Having an investigation conducted by someone (Robert Mueller) with ties to the Clintons (via James Comey) is. Keep in mind that almost the entirety of the media and the political establishment in the United States opposes President Trump. If they had anything substantive on him, don't you think it would have come out after an investigation that's been going on for a year?
      - chowchowchow 9y ago
        > don't you think it would have come out after an investigation that's been going on for a year I don't know. I'm not a federal investigator, I don't really know how long these things take or what "should" have leaked by now if there was something serious enough afoot for you to consider it substantive. It took like 2 years or something for impeachment to begin after the watergate break in was first reported as a spying effort and Nixon was still fully denying it a year later.
        juliangoldsmith 9y ago
        That's how long it took for impeachment to begin. The actual break-in was reported on NBC by Robert Endicott on June 19th, 1972, two days after the crime was committed. Up to this point, the news media hasn't seen any actual evidence of a collusion. To quote Adam Entous, who writes on national security for the Washington Post, "Our reporting has not taken us to a place where I would be able to say with any confidence that the result of it is going to be the president being guilty of being in cahoots with the Russians. There's no evidence of that that I've seen so far." [0] [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIm9zNItYq8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIm9zNItYq8
tensor 9y ago
It's suspicious enough for a formal investigation. Hopefully the investigation is allowed to run it's course so that we can learn what happened. At this point you can neither say there is no connection nor that there is one. That there are a very large number of very suspicious circumstances is fact. It also appears to be fact that Russia did try to meddle in the election. I don't see any problems with these claims.
- juliangoldsmith 9y ago
  A formal investigation isn't unreasonable. The issue is that the investigator (Robert Mueller) has ties to President Trump's political opponents (the Clintons, through James Comey). As far as Russia meddling in the election, I don't doubt that. What I would dispute is the usual media narrative, that Russia was responsible for releasing the emails from the DNC.

m00g00 9y ago

On the other hand, the consensus reality that Russia hacked/stole the US election, and indeed the state of social division in the US itself, by purchasing a monetarily insignificant amount of low quality ads on Facebook, and unleashing a few thousand "trolls" on the internet, is quite strong among the left, mainstream media, democratic party, and liberal universities. This in the face of multiple billions in ads and propaganda spent by left leaning organizations, and millions of citizens on both sides doing the work of "trolls" for free just by being themselves on the internet, often egged on by an inflammatory click-baity domestic media machine. But no it was all Russia and Putin. The absurdity of this "consensus-reality" is quite astonishing really.