6 ms·

I'm not sure what you mean because I didn't say anything about a "complex cover-up", and I'm certain that Russia (and most other states, including America) is c

I'm not sure what you mean because I didn't say anything about a "complex cover-up", and I'm certain that Russia (and most other states, including America) is continuously running operations to sway things in their favor all over the world -- that's what spies and intelligence agencies do. But I don't see how that's relevant here. Seth Rich provided the emails to Wikileaks and Assange is nobody's puppet, and Wikileaks definitely does not deserve to be called a "fake media cutout". Trump won the election because he appealed to a large number of Americans who voted for him because they thought he was the better candidate. Everything else is denial and excuse-making. Who said anything about a conspiracy requiring the coordination of "hundreds of career public servants"?

seppin 7y ago
> Seth Rich provided the emails to Wikileaks > You don't seem like a stupid person Don't give him that. He believes things with no evidence for personal reasons, that's what stupid people do.
- cookiecaper 7y ago
  I'd say the publisher explicitly naming the deceased in the context of a potential source counts as some evidence, at least. If you believe that Assange is a Russian agent, then sure, maybe it's not slam dunk, and it's just a very convenient situation for him that this unfortunate DNC staffer was gunned down under suspicious circumstances and now he can tell everyone that was the source and Rich isn't alive to deny it. But it's not "no evidence" nor is it "personal reasons". If anything, the instantaneous flip against Wikileaks and Assange after they published documents implicating the establishment's favored candidate has a much more arbitrary feel.
  - seppin 7y ago
    > If you believe that Assange is a Russian agent, then sure, maybe it's not slam dunk He had a TV show on the Russian state propaganda network where he tore into Hillary Clinton all day. How much more gift-wrapped would you like his intentions to be? > this unfortunate DNC staffer was gunned down under suspicious circumstances Not only bullshit, but harmful, debunked bullshit. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-pare... > I'd say the publisher explicitly naming the deceased in the context of a potential source counts as some evidence, at least. See, no it doesn't. It proves absolutely nothing. They can claim whatever they want as a way of distracting from their partnership with the GRU. And they know people like you will accept it as long as it fits their narrative. No evidence needed, hardly any effort either. Just mention his name on Fox News and run with it. I don't care if you can code, only people lacking in critical thought capacity (being diplomatic) believe conspiracy theories with no proof other than it fits their worldview.
    - cookiecaper 7y ago
      > Not only bullshit, but harmful, debunked bullshit. Debunked in the opinion section? He was gunned down under suspicious circumstances. It's not less suspicious if you believe a gangster did it rather than a hired assassin, and regardless, giving Assange documents doesn't cast a magical force field protecting one from street robberies. Did Russians hack the DNC? Probably -- Russian botnets attempt to brute-force basically every internet-exposed endpoint around the clock, just check your logs. It's neither here nor there. >He had a TV show on the Russian state propaganda network where he tore into Hillary Clinton all day. How much more gift-wrapped would you like his intentions to be? >I don't care if you can code, only people lacking in critical thought capacity (being diplomatic) believe conspiracy theories with no proof other than it fits their worldview. Right, because "Assange is a Russian operative" is apparently not a conspiracy theory, because allowing RT to broadcast your TV series is apparently all the proof we need. Larry King, Jesse Ventura, and the late Ed Schultz are therefore also Putin lackeys, because there's no other explanation for cooperating with a television network that claims penetration into 700M households worldwide, just like there's no reason to ever have any business dealings or attend any meetings in a country that hosts two of the world's largest cities (Moscow home to 12M and St. Petersburg home to 6M). True Americans work only with local network affiliates and never venture outside of their small towns.
      - seppin 7y ago
        If you actually read the link I gave you, it's the murder victims parents saying there was no suspicious circumstance in their son's murder, and bad actors are using it for their own destructive political narratives. Like you. This is why you don't engage conspiracy theorists even causally. If you don't insist that all opinions are evidence-based, literally anything can be true and anything can be false. The car that backfired outside my flat is a gunshot from a deep-state operative and here we go i'm blogging. > Did Russians hack the DNC? Probably Perfect example. "Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. We can never know." Yes we can. Unless we want to believe something else, then all it takes is a conspiracy theory about a murdered DNC staffer with no evidence and we have confirmation of what we believed all along. "Who is to say i'm wrong?" Right? This is a never-ending rabbit-hole of shit that you apparently love to be in, I don't. America is far from perfect, there is much to criticize of it, but they aren't waging an all-out war on objective reality to keep populations confused and infighting so a corrupt few and keep power. That's Russia. That's increasingly China. And you are gladly helping in their efforts, whether you realize it or not.

seppin 7y ago

> Seth Rich provided the emails to Wikileaks > You don't seem like a stupid person Don't give him that. He believes things with no evidence for personal reasons, that's what stupid people do.

cookiecaper 7y ago
I'd say the publisher explicitly naming the deceased in the context of a potential source counts as some evidence, at least. If you believe that Assange is a Russian agent, then sure, maybe it's not slam dunk, and it's just a very convenient situation for him that this unfortunate DNC staffer was gunned down under suspicious circumstances and now he can tell everyone that was the source and Rich isn't alive to deny it. But it's not "no evidence" nor is it "personal reasons". If anything, the instantaneous flip against Wikileaks and Assange after they published documents implicating the establishment's favored candidate has a much more arbitrary feel.
- seppin 7y ago
  > If you believe that Assange is a Russian agent, then sure, maybe it's not slam dunk He had a TV show on the Russian state propaganda network where he tore into Hillary Clinton all day. How much more gift-wrapped would you like his intentions to be? > this unfortunate DNC staffer was gunned down under suspicious circumstances Not only bullshit, but harmful, debunked bullshit. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-pare... > I'd say the publisher explicitly naming the deceased in the context of a potential source counts as some evidence, at least. See, no it doesn't. It proves absolutely nothing. They can claim whatever they want as a way of distracting from their partnership with the GRU. And they know people like you will accept it as long as it fits their narrative. No evidence needed, hardly any effort either. Just mention his name on Fox News and run with it. I don't care if you can code, only people lacking in critical thought capacity (being diplomatic) believe conspiracy theories with no proof other than it fits their worldview.
  - cookiecaper 7y ago
    > Not only bullshit, but harmful, debunked bullshit. Debunked in the opinion section? He was gunned down under suspicious circumstances. It's not less suspicious if you believe a gangster did it rather than a hired assassin, and regardless, giving Assange documents doesn't cast a magical force field protecting one from street robberies. Did Russians hack the DNC? Probably -- Russian botnets attempt to brute-force basically every internet-exposed endpoint around the clock, just check your logs. It's neither here nor there. >He had a TV show on the Russian state propaganda network where he tore into Hillary Clinton all day. How much more gift-wrapped would you like his intentions to be? >I don't care if you can code, only people lacking in critical thought capacity (being diplomatic) believe conspiracy theories with no proof other than it fits their worldview. Right, because "Assange is a Russian operative" is apparently not a conspiracy theory, because allowing RT to broadcast your TV series is apparently all the proof we need. Larry King, Jesse Ventura, and the late Ed Schultz are therefore also Putin lackeys, because there's no other explanation for cooperating with a television network that claims penetration into 700M households worldwide, just like there's no reason to ever have any business dealings or attend any meetings in a country that hosts two of the world's largest cities (Moscow home to 12M and St. Petersburg home to 6M). True Americans work only with local network affiliates and never venture outside of their small towns.
    - seppin 7y ago
      If you actually read the link I gave you, it's the murder victims parents saying there was no suspicious circumstance in their son's murder, and bad actors are using it for their own destructive political narratives. Like you. This is why you don't engage conspiracy theorists even causally. If you don't insist that all opinions are evidence-based, literally anything can be true and anything can be false. The car that backfired outside my flat is a gunshot from a deep-state operative and here we go i'm blogging. > Did Russians hack the DNC? Probably Perfect example. "Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. We can never know." Yes we can. Unless we want to believe something else, then all it takes is a conspiracy theory about a murdered DNC staffer with no evidence and we have confirmation of what we believed all along. "Who is to say i'm wrong?" Right? This is a never-ending rabbit-hole of shit that you apparently love to be in, I don't. America is far from perfect, there is much to criticize of it, but they aren't waging an all-out war on objective reality to keep populations confused and infighting so a corrupt few and keep power. That's Russia. That's increasingly China. And you are gladly helping in their efforts, whether you realize it or not.