6 ms·

It was just one word, actually. And, as we are learning now, Hillary Clinton's team paid to infiltrate into whitehouse servers as part of efforts to delegitimiz

It was just one word, actually. And, as we are learning now, Hillary Clinton's team paid to infiltrate into whitehouse servers as part of efforts to delegitimize Trump's election: https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-clinton-campaign-paid-tech-company-to-infiltrate-trump-tower-white-house-servers-durham-says https://www.dailywire.com/news/bombshell-clinton-campaign-pa... We also know now that the russian collusion hoax was entirely fabricated by Hillary's team: https://nypost.com/2021/11/04/the-real-collusion-was-the-creation-of-russiagate-out-of-absolutely-nothing/ https://nypost.com/2021/11/04/the-real-collusion-was-the-cre... I don't agree with what Trump did, but what he did was rile up a crowd of people that had zero capability of actually usurping the government, and then waited too long to ask them to leave after they went too far. Politicians on both sides do worse things than that all the time, including our friend Hillary. What she did was worse and far more diabolical, and helped undermine our democracy for four years. What Trump did was to just provide fodder for the democrat party to milk for 2 years in hopes of it saving them from a coming midterm election sweep. Our government was under zero actual threat on that day. Even the left's own polling shows that moderates aren't buying their narrative: https://www.dailywire.com/news/cbs-buries-poll-results-showing-most-americans-of-both-parties-think-jan-6-was-a-protest-that-went-too-far https://www.dailywire.com/news/cbs-buries-poll-results-showi...

cgriswald 5y ago
Your argument is that Trump attempted a coup and failed to interrupt it, but that is okay because it wasn't a serious coup and other corruption exists.
- PathOfEclipse 5y ago
  I am legitimately not convinced he was attempting a coup. I am willing to admit I am wrong on this. I've read accounts from leftwing media sources and from their wording it sounds like what Trump did was really bad. I've read accounts from rightwing sources and from their wording it doesn't sound bad at all. I have not done a great deal to try to reconcile the two and decide where the truth lies. Right now, I believe Trump legitimately thought the election was stolen and he wanted Pence to de-certify the election to give time for his lawsuits to go through the courts and show the evidence of the fraud. I absolutely do not think Trump was in any way encouraging people to riot in the capitol, much less stage a coup. I also believe that no such fraud was ever found, putting Trump in the wrong, most likely. If I am wrong, let me see the evidence.
  - fortuna86 5y ago
    > I am legitimately not convinced he was attempting a coup I believe you. No one thinks their guy is the bad guy, it's human nature. > I believe Trump legitimately thought the election was stolen Again, this is your blind spot. You give a man who deserves no benefit of doubt infinite rope. But you are deluding yourself. You are to the right of your own party leadership on this matter: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/593339-mcconnell-breaks-with-rnc-jan-6-violent-insurrection https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/593339-mcconnell-breaks-... You don't refute any of the points, you merely state your opinion over and over "I don't think Trump meant to do anything wrong". Of course, intention cannot be known by anyone, so arguing in favor of what is unknowable brings this whole discussion to a standstill. Also, people still go to jail for crimes even if they aren't intended (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter). So I don't particularly care if Trump meant to organize a violent attack on the nation's capital at the exact time and place the certification was taking place, he still did it.
  - krapp 5y ago
    > I absolutely do not think Trump was in any way encouraging people to riot in the capitol, much less stage a coup. I also believe that no such fraud was ever found. I think that depends on how you interpret a lot of statements made by Trump and others[0], for instance: “We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal. … “You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can’t let that happen. These are the facts that you won’t hear from the fake news media. It’s all part of the suppression effort. They don’t want to talk about it. They don’t want to talk about it. … “We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” If you're a Trump supporter, A patriot who believes in the revolutionary thesis of the Second Amendment and who's certain enough the election has been stolen to march on Washington, do these words encourage you to wait patiently and work within the system until the system is resolved, or do they communicate an urgent need for desperate action in a desperate time? What's certain - and we know this from their own testimony and communications - is that many of the rioters believed they were acting under Trump's orders[1]. Where did this belief come from? Was there simply no relationship between the words coming from Trump and other Republicans, and what Trump supporters were hearing? After four years of paranoid rhetoric amongst the right about vast leftist conspiracies, violent Marxists in the streets, vaccines as fascism and now the election being stolen right before their eyes? Four years of the populist gospel of victimhood and the need to exact revenge upon the elites? When you, as a Trump supporter, see the courts throwing out lawsuit after lawsuit, and Republican Congressman Louis Gohmert suggests on TV that people should "go out and be violent like antifa[2]" how do you react? On the spectrum of culpability from "Trump had absolutely nothing to do with anything" to "Trump literally planned it himself", I fall somewhere on the latter side. Where seems to depend on just how much Trumpists piss me off that day, I'll admit. Unfortunately, there's no smoking gun here. But there's also no way Trump didn't at least understand the atmosphere he was creating, or really discourage it (until well after the damage was done, which isn't a good look.) I think at the very least he was hoping the chaos, whatever form it took, would benefit him. [0]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/07/trump-incitement-inflammatory-rhetoric-capitol-riot https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/07/trump-incite... [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/capitol-rioters.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/capitol-rioters.html?a... [2]https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/louie-gohmert-suggests-violent-response-after-judge-rejects-election-suit-1109175/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/louie-go...
fortuna86 5y ago
I started to respond to this, claiming a DNS request is "infiltrating into whitehouse servers". This is a technology forum, do I really need to explain to you why that is complete and utter rubbish? Linking to opinion pieces by right wing media isn't a way of making an argument btw, it's outsourcing your thinking to partisans that can tell you want you want to hear. I don't like a lot of things about politics these days, but excusing political violence because it's "your side", and you assume they would "never be actually violent" is a basic logical fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman). Please try and see the blinders you have on regarding nearly everything you've said.
- lp0_on_fire 5y ago
  > I started to respond to this, claiming a DNS request is "infiltrating into whitehouse servers". This is a technology forum, do I really need to explain to you why that is complete and utter rubbish? The assertion coming from the Clinton camp was that Donald Trump had a "server that was communicating with a Russian Bank". They were _very_ careful in their use of words talking about it on the campaign trail. It was never asserted the _content_ of those communications just that _communication occurred_. This being a technology forum, I think we can all agree that kind of jives with how DNS works - DNS logs can show can infer the "who" but not the "what". Knowing those things, I don't think it strains credulity to believe that a nefarious political actor could take advantage of people unfamiliar with DNS to suggest a connection that doesn't exist while still having plausible deniability.
  - fortuna86 5y ago
    > I think we can all agree that kind of jives with how DNS works I don't think anyone agrees with that, either in spirt or practice. > The assertion coming from the Clinton camp "Whatabout the Clintons" is not an actual response to my question, it's just deflection. > Knowing those things, I don't think it strains credulity to believe that a nefarious political actor could take advantage of people unfamiliar with DNS to suggest a connection that doesn't exist while still having plausible deniability. Yes Tucker Carlson and Co. ran with it under the headline "Bigger than Watergate" for days. There is no bottom in terms of what lies are told for partisan political purposes. None.
sjtindell 5y ago
You are literally pushing one side of a flame war topic using biased news articles on an article about misinformation. Unreal. Your lack of self awareness makes the quality of your opinions self-explanatory.
- native_samples 5y ago
  The irony here is the other way around, actually. The article is about how people have become better informed thanks to the internet, and how increasing political polarization is due to people making political choices based on more sophisticated ideological alliances and deeper held beliefs, rather than ways they might previously have done so. Part of why people are better informed is that the internet makes it easier to bypass 'elite consensus' in a handful of media outlets, and also, easier to link to sources to cite them in arguments. PathOfEclipse is demonstrating this in action: he is citing sources for his beliefs, including sources from different partisan factions like the CBS poll he quotes at the end. In response, you're taking a pre-internet approach. Dismissive and without intellectual merit, your post simply asserts that none of PathOfEclipse's sources should be considered legitimate, not even the (hopefully somewhat objective) opinion poll made by a left wing news outlet, that shows widespread bipartisan agreement by voters on the question of what happened on January 6th. PathOfEclipse clearly wins this round. He uses the internet in the ways people hoped in the 90s it would be used - to cite evidence for calm, level headed beliefs and arguments that boil down to "cool it folks". There's nothing wrong here.
  - cgriswald 5y ago
    There's plenty wrong. It's a common tactic of cranks to bring out lots of sources without worrying about the quality of those sources. It's literally impossible to argue with them because they can always trot out something that even an expert in the field under discussion has never heard about before or that ostensibly supports their claim, but doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Then, when this is dismissed out of hand (in the case of obvious pablum) or a source is found lacking, they either claim victory (as you have done on his behalf here), the entire conversation derails into arguments about the sources themselves, or they trot out additional sources, continually putting the burden on the other party to show why these sources either don't support the claims or are otherwise without merit. The kind of conversation you are suggesting is being offered here isn't. It requires a lot of good faith, and a relatively credible and overlapping set of facts.

cgriswald 5y ago

Your argument is that Trump attempted a coup and failed to interrupt it, but that is okay because it wasn't a serious coup and other corruption exists.

PathOfEclipse 5y ago
I am legitimately not convinced he was attempting a coup. I am willing to admit I am wrong on this. I've read accounts from leftwing media sources and from their wording it sounds like what Trump did was really bad. I've read accounts from rightwing sources and from their wording it doesn't sound bad at all. I have not done a great deal to try to reconcile the two and decide where the truth lies. Right now, I believe Trump legitimately thought the election was stolen and he wanted Pence to de-certify the election to give time for his lawsuits to go through the courts and show the evidence of the fraud. I absolutely do not think Trump was in any way encouraging people to riot in the capitol, much less stage a coup. I also believe that no such fraud was ever found, putting Trump in the wrong, most likely. If I am wrong, let me see the evidence.
- fortuna86 5y ago
  > I am legitimately not convinced he was attempting a coup I believe you. No one thinks their guy is the bad guy, it's human nature. > I believe Trump legitimately thought the election was stolen Again, this is your blind spot. You give a man who deserves no benefit of doubt infinite rope. But you are deluding yourself. You are to the right of your own party leadership on this matter: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/593339-mcconnell-breaks-with-rnc-jan-6-violent-insurrection https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/593339-mcconnell-breaks-... You don't refute any of the points, you merely state your opinion over and over "I don't think Trump meant to do anything wrong". Of course, intention cannot be known by anyone, so arguing in favor of what is unknowable brings this whole discussion to a standstill. Also, people still go to jail for crimes even if they aren't intended (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter). So I don't particularly care if Trump meant to organize a violent attack on the nation's capital at the exact time and place the certification was taking place, he still did it.
- krapp 5y ago
  > I absolutely do not think Trump was in any way encouraging people to riot in the capitol, much less stage a coup. I also believe that no such fraud was ever found. I think that depends on how you interpret a lot of statements made by Trump and others[0], for instance: “We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal. … “You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can’t let that happen. These are the facts that you won’t hear from the fake news media. It’s all part of the suppression effort. They don’t want to talk about it. They don’t want to talk about it. … “We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” If you're a Trump supporter, A patriot who believes in the revolutionary thesis of the Second Amendment and who's certain enough the election has been stolen to march on Washington, do these words encourage you to wait patiently and work within the system until the system is resolved, or do they communicate an urgent need for desperate action in a desperate time? What's certain - and we know this from their own testimony and communications - is that many of the rioters believed they were acting under Trump's orders[1]. Where did this belief come from? Was there simply no relationship between the words coming from Trump and other Republicans, and what Trump supporters were hearing? After four years of paranoid rhetoric amongst the right about vast leftist conspiracies, violent Marxists in the streets, vaccines as fascism and now the election being stolen right before their eyes? Four years of the populist gospel of victimhood and the need to exact revenge upon the elites? When you, as a Trump supporter, see the courts throwing out lawsuit after lawsuit, and Republican Congressman Louis Gohmert suggests on TV that people should "go out and be violent like antifa[2]" how do you react? On the spectrum of culpability from "Trump had absolutely nothing to do with anything" to "Trump literally planned it himself", I fall somewhere on the latter side. Where seems to depend on just how much Trumpists piss me off that day, I'll admit. Unfortunately, there's no smoking gun here. But there's also no way Trump didn't at least understand the atmosphere he was creating, or really discourage it (until well after the damage was done, which isn't a good look.) I think at the very least he was hoping the chaos, whatever form it took, would benefit him. [0]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/07/trump-incitement-inflammatory-rhetoric-capitol-riot https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/07/trump-incite... [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/capitol-rioters.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/capitol-rioters.html?a... [2]https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/louie-gohmert-suggests-violent-response-after-judge-rejects-election-suit-1109175/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/louie-go...

fortuna86 5y ago

I started to respond to this, claiming a DNS request is "infiltrating into whitehouse servers". This is a technology forum, do I really need to explain to you why that is complete and utter rubbish? Linking to opinion pieces by right wing media isn't a way of making an argument btw, it's outsourcing your thinking to partisans that can tell you want you want to hear. I don't like a lot of things about politics these days, but excusing political violence because it's "your side", and you assume they would "never be actually violent" is a basic logical fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman). Please try and see the blinders you have on regarding nearly everything you've said.

lp0_on_fire 5y ago
> I started to respond to this, claiming a DNS request is "infiltrating into whitehouse servers". This is a technology forum, do I really need to explain to you why that is complete and utter rubbish? The assertion coming from the Clinton camp was that Donald Trump had a "server that was communicating with a Russian Bank". They were _very_ careful in their use of words talking about it on the campaign trail. It was never asserted the _content_ of those communications just that _communication occurred_. This being a technology forum, I think we can all agree that kind of jives with how DNS works - DNS logs can show can infer the "who" but not the "what". Knowing those things, I don't think it strains credulity to believe that a nefarious political actor could take advantage of people unfamiliar with DNS to suggest a connection that doesn't exist while still having plausible deniability.
- fortuna86 5y ago
  > I think we can all agree that kind of jives with how DNS works I don't think anyone agrees with that, either in spirt or practice. > The assertion coming from the Clinton camp "Whatabout the Clintons" is not an actual response to my question, it's just deflection. > Knowing those things, I don't think it strains credulity to believe that a nefarious political actor could take advantage of people unfamiliar with DNS to suggest a connection that doesn't exist while still having plausible deniability. Yes Tucker Carlson and Co. ran with it under the headline "Bigger than Watergate" for days. There is no bottom in terms of what lies are told for partisan political purposes. None.

sjtindell 5y ago

You are literally pushing one side of a flame war topic using biased news articles on an article about misinformation. Unreal. Your lack of self awareness makes the quality of your opinions self-explanatory.

native_samples 5y ago
The irony here is the other way around, actually. The article is about how people have become better informed thanks to the internet, and how increasing political polarization is due to people making political choices based on more sophisticated ideological alliances and deeper held beliefs, rather than ways they might previously have done so. Part of why people are better informed is that the internet makes it easier to bypass 'elite consensus' in a handful of media outlets, and also, easier to link to sources to cite them in arguments. PathOfEclipse is demonstrating this in action: he is citing sources for his beliefs, including sources from different partisan factions like the CBS poll he quotes at the end. In response, you're taking a pre-internet approach. Dismissive and without intellectual merit, your post simply asserts that none of PathOfEclipse's sources should be considered legitimate, not even the (hopefully somewhat objective) opinion poll made by a left wing news outlet, that shows widespread bipartisan agreement by voters on the question of what happened on January 6th. PathOfEclipse clearly wins this round. He uses the internet in the ways people hoped in the 90s it would be used - to cite evidence for calm, level headed beliefs and arguments that boil down to "cool it folks". There's nothing wrong here.
- cgriswald 5y ago
  There's plenty wrong. It's a common tactic of cranks to bring out lots of sources without worrying about the quality of those sources. It's literally impossible to argue with them because they can always trot out something that even an expert in the field under discussion has never heard about before or that ostensibly supports their claim, but doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Then, when this is dismissed out of hand (in the case of obvious pablum) or a source is found lacking, they either claim victory (as you have done on his behalf here), the entire conversation derails into arguments about the sources themselves, or they trot out additional sources, continually putting the burden on the other party to show why these sources either don't support the claims or are otherwise without merit. The kind of conversation you are suggesting is being offered here isn't. It requires a lot of good faith, and a relatively credible and overlapping set of facts.