Vote for President

[deleted171991]

Get crushed? Grow up. You use bad logic and it does make it difficult. You have taken on the characteristics of a typical internet troll.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DrCommonSense]

Get crushed? Grow up. You use bad logic and it does make it difficult. You have taken on the characteristics of a typical internet troll.

That clown devolved into ad hom attacks, so I will respond in kind. He got utterly destroyed due to his inability to reason whereby he had to resort to "education" or "wealth" ad hom attacks and then "ignoring me". I have no issue if he "ignores me" since he adds no value or factual basis in his arguments.

If we want to debate like adults, we can debate like adults. I haven't insulted you or stated anything personal since you haven't included that in your discussions, however, when someone wants to take it into "trolling" territory, I will respond in kind.

 

[DrCommonSense]

Circular logic

So I am not able to question the word of someone appointed by Obama as the head of the NSA who offered no factual basis for proving Russia is behind Wikileaks?

Think about the logic of that statement.

 

[PainDrain]

DrCommonsense = mercaptovizadeh

 

[DrCommonSense]

So Soros, as an investor, saw a chance to make strategic investments in order to make money. If he was conservative you would be holding him up as a god. Remember Romney was a true vulture capitalist who swooped in, took over companies, leveraged them and then either sold or moved them to make profit. In capitalism there is no true morality, no matter how it goes down, it is exploitation for a profit. Look at what any hedge fund does, they exploit market forces and sometimes that has devastating consequences for the average person.

Actually, I agree with Robert Reich on the Romney issue actually



However, Soros makes Romney look like a SAINT too.

 

[DrCommonSense]

DrCommonsense = mercaptovizadeh

Who?

 

[GravelRider]

So I am not able to question the word of someone appointed by Obama as the head of the NSA who offered no factual basis for proving Russia is behind Wikileaks?

Think about the logic of that statement.

I don't know what the head of the NSA knows and I am going to assume he is privy to a lot more information that even your beloved RT is privy to. It's the same questioning of the motive of a "news" source like the RT, which many people believe to be a propaganda outlet for the Russian government.

 

[DrCommonSense]

I don't know what the head of the NSA knows and I am going to assume he is privy to a lot more information that even your beloved RT is privy to. It's the same questioning of the motive of a "news" source like the RT, which many people believe to be a propaganda outlet for the Russian government.

Yup I guess so except we know Wikileak's content hasn't been disputed, so thats factual. Can we agree on that?

The only thing in dispute was who released it.

 

[Ignatius J]

No evidence except for the head of the NSA saying otherwise. Oh yeah, I forgot, they were all in collusion together to get Clinton elected. That's the problem with conspiracy theories...they create circular logic.

I find it ironic that you are discussing a conspiracy theory while simultaneously looking down your nose at conspiracy theories.

 

[Ignatius J]

Yup I guess so except we know Wikileak's content hasn't been disputed, so thats factual. Can we agree on that?

The only thing in dispute was who released it.

And that Podesta's password apparent was p@ssw0rd. Good job, Podesta.

 

[DrCommonSense]

And that Podesta's password apparent was p@ssw0rd. Good job, Podesta.

I think they beat Podesta and the jokers that work for Hillary through simple phishing attempts. Don't think it took big time Russia hackers or geniuses to pull it off.

I suspect they are embarrassed about how it really went down and make conspiracy theories against Russia with zero evidence.

I don't take govt appointees that were assigned by Obama as some kind of honest brokers either, so unless they can released evidence that Russia did it, I won't believe it.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

The Trump administration is considering a Muslim registry.

We have to shame these people from the start and keep the new "normal" from drifting further Trumpian.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...m-registry-says-adviser#.WCzTzB2zf7o.facebook

 

[Pooh & Annie]

I don't know what the head of the NSA knows and I am going to assume he is privy to a lot more information that even your beloved RT is privy to. It's the same questioning of the motive of a "news" source like the RT, which many people believe to be a propaganda outlet for the Russian government.

It's like arguing with a wind sock dude. You're just gonna lose sleep wondering how absolutely ignorant people who know how to read can be in the "Information Age".
It is absolutely embarrassing.
Use 'hide'

 

[GravelRider]

Yup I guess so except we know Wikileak's content hasn't been disputed, so thats factual. Can we agree on that?

The only thing in dispute was who released it.

Wikileaks is an example of what great marketing can do. I mean it's very name is genius. By using the word "leak" in it's name, it gives people the feeling that they are now accessing some privileged information. All you have to do is read wikileaks and you now know the real story.

Julian Assange has been very public about his goal to derail the Clinton candidacy for president. I don't know if Russia is behind Wikileaks in particular, but Julian Assange certainly curated what was "released." There was never anything really groundbreaking in the Wikileaks releases, it was just how they were framed. The democrats wanted to nominate a perceived centrist who was a known political entity over a populist. The party ganged up on the populist to nominate someone they thought was more "electable." There was no conspiracy to keep Bernie Sanders out, it is just what political parties do. The Republicans tried to do it with Trump, but the populist movement on the right was just more vocal. The democrats underestimated the populist movements and chose a bad candidate.

 

[GravelRider]

I find it ironic that you are discussing a conspiracy theory while simultaneously looking down your nose at conspiracy theories.

It's conspiracy theory to say that the NSA chief put out a statement this week saying that a nation-state intervened in our presidential election to achieve a very specific effect? Many major news outlets have reported that statement. I don't claim to know anything beyond what the NSA chief has said...nor should I. That doesn't really qualify as conspiracy theory, sorry.

 

[DrCommonSense]

Wikileaks is an example of what great marketing can do. I mean it's very name is genius. By using the word "leak" in it's name, it gives people the feeling that they are now accessing some privileged information. All you have to do is read wikileaks and you now know the real story.

Julian Assange has been very public about his goal to derail the Clinton candidacy for president. I don't know if Russia is behind Wikileaks in particular, but Julian Assange certainly curated what was "released." There was never anything really groundbreaking in the Wikileaks releases, it was just how they were framed. The democrats wanted to nominate a perceived centrist who was a known political entity over a populist. The party ganged up on the populist to nominate someone they thought was more "electable." There was no conspiracy to keep Bernie Sanders out, it is just what political parties do. The Republicans tried to do it with Trump, but the populist movement on the right was just more vocal. The democrats underestimated the populist movements and chose a bad candidate.

I notice that you are circling around the issue but haven't denied anything in the emails.

The emails have very devastating things noted like I have stated in other comments which have not been disputed by Hillary's team.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

Oh I should have completely stayed out of this but thread is like a bad tv show I can't stop watching.

I don't give a damn if you think im an attending or not either or my net worth but I promise it lies within the top 1% in terms of assets (due to inheritance before even starting med school in trust) yet I still "believe these conspiracies"

He's worth 20 billion dollars now right? What products/innovation did he bring to market again?

So your net worth is in the top 1% because of your brain (your profile says an attending) and your Mommy's/Daddy's money? You didn't have any products or innovation that came to market? Sorry, time to quit medicine and guess you need to go take a manufacturing job. If it's bad for Soros to make money without a product to his name, then shame on you too.

Yup I guess so except we know Wikileak's content hasn't been disputed, so thats factual. Can we agree on that?

The only thing in dispute was who released it.

Anyone targeted WikiLeaks has tried to ignore it. What good would come from disputing it, given the vast quantities of information that was released? If they disputed X, then someone asked why not dispute Y so the assumption is Y must be true. Just because you do or don't dispute something from a hack (also known as theft of personal emails and documents), that doesn't automatically mean it's true or a lie. But the people who hack others accounts are unscrupulous, so, given their stated purpose against Clinton, it's not out of realm of possibilities that the released documents are partially altered.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Wikileaks is an example of what great marketing can do. I mean it's very name is genius. By using the word "leak" in it's name, it gives people the feeling that they are now accessing some privileged information. All you have to do is read wikileaks and you now know the real story.

Julian Assange has been very public about his goal to derail the Clinton candidacy for president. I don't know if Russia is behind Wikileaks in particular, but Julian Assange certainly curated what was "released." There was never anything really groundbreaking in the Wikileaks releases, it was just how they were framed. The democrats wanted to nominate a perceived centrist who was a known political entity over a populist. The party ganged up on the populist to nominate someone they thought was more "electable." There was no conspiracy to keep Bernie Sanders out, it is just what political parties do. The Republicans tried to do it with Trump, but the populist movement on the right was just more vocal. The democrats underestimated the populist movements and chose a bad candidate.

There is no question. With HRC winning the popular vote by over 1mil votes and counting, and the close results in various states, foreign interests and the effect of their favor for Trump turned the election.

That's not to take away from the fact that HRC was a bad candidate to start and shouldn't have run. But without the one-sided spread of insider info, the results would have been different.

We've seen what kind of crazy sh1t Trump and his buffoons say in public. Imagine what kind of idiocy and hateful stuff goes on in PRIVATE communications!

 

[GravelRider]

I notice that you are circling around the issue but haven't denied anything in the emails.

The emails have very devastating things noted like I have stated in other comments which have not been disputed by Hillary's team.

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

So I am not able to question the word of someone appointed by Obama as the head of the NSA who offered no factual basis for proving Russia is behind Wikileaks?

Think about the logic of that statement.

Assuming you are an anesthetist, do you explain to everyone on a biochemical level how every part of your anesthetic plan works in order to get them to trust you? Or do you expect them to trust that you know what you're doing since you are the expert and know a lot more about it than they do?

The fact that you seem to think you know more about what is "really going on" in world politics and finance than people who have devoted their whole lives to it, is what makes you look like a crazy person. What makes you more knowledgeable than all these other people? Access to Russian news networks? The fact that you're swimming against the current?

And if you actually majored in political science and then went to law school and have spent the last 20 years working for various government and intelligence organizations specializing in Eastern European geopolitics, then that is even more troubling, because WHY THE **** ARE YOU SPENDING ALL YOUR TIME ON AN ANESTHESIA FORUM?

I'll tell you now how this is all going to play out, because as some sci-fi show once said, this has all happened before, and it will all happen again. New user shows up, starts spouting some inflammatory rhetoric. Doesn't get banned immediately, because they're intelligent and well-spoken (in their own way), and only like 90-95% of what they're saying is crazy, leaving a solid 5-10% that actually starts some debate, and the moderators here do a pretty good job of letting things run their own course.

Over time (occasionally days, usually weeks or months, every once in a while a few years), the poster gradually becomes unhinged for whatever reason. Whether it's the accumulated weight of the counter-arguments, the lack of sympathy to their cause, or just a general decline in their mental health, who knows. Sometimes they get an account hold and return, but it usually doesn't last long and eventually they get banned, and then they fade from memory, only to be referenced when the cycle repeats itself.

Don't let this stop you, though. Keep going. By my guess you've got a few more solid weeks in you. But hey, I've been wrong before.

 

[DrCommonSense]

Oh I should have completely stayed out of this but thread is like a bad tv show I can't stop watching.






So your net worth is in the top 1% because of your brain (your profile says an attending) and your Mommy's/Daddy's money? You didn't have any products or innovation that came to market? Sorry, time to quit medicine and guess you need to go take a manufacturing job. If it's bad for Soros to make money without a product to his name, then shame on you too.



Anyone targeted WikiLeaks has tried to ignore it. What good would come from disputing it, given the vast quantities of information that was released? If they disputed X, then someone asked why not dispute Y so the assumption is Y must be true. Just because you do or don't dispute something from a hack (also known as theft of personal emails and documents), that doesn't automatically mean it's true or a lie. But the people who hack others accounts are unscrupulous, so, given their stated purpose against Clinton, it's not out of realm of possibilities that the released documents are partially altered.

So you consider a physician to be equal to a currency manipulator in terms of morality? Interesting perspective.

How come DNC canned Debbie Wasserman then if they didn't believe the leaks?

 

[DrCommonSense]

Assuming you are an anesthetist, do you explain to everyone on a biochemical level how every part of your anesthetic plan works in order to get them to trust you? Or do you expect them to trust that you know what you're doing since you are the expert and know a lot more about it than they do?

The fact that you seem to think you know more about what is "really going on" in world politics and finance than people who have devoted their whole lives to it, is what makes you look like a crazy person. What makes you more knowledgeable than all these other people? Access to Russian news networks? The fact that you're swimming against the current?

And if you actually majored in political science and then went to law school and have spent the last 20 years working for various government and intelligence organizations specializing in Eastern European geopolitics, then that is even more troubling, because WHY THE **** ARE YOU SPENDING ALL YOUR TIME ON AN ANESTHESIA FORUM?

I'll tell you now how this is all going to play out, because as some sci-fi show once said, this has all happened before, and it will all happen again. New user shows up, starts spouting some inflammatory rhetoric. Doesn't get banned immediately, because they're intelligent and well-spoken (in their own way), and only like 90-95% of what they're saying is crazy, leaving a solid 5-10% that actually starts some debate, and the moderators here do a pretty good job of letting things run their own course.

Over time (occasionally days, usually weeks or months, every once in a while a few years), the poster gradually becomes unhinged for whatever reason. Whether it's the accumulated weight of the counter-arguments, the lack of sympathy to their cause, or just a general decline in their mental health, who knows. Sometimes they get an account hold and return, but it usually doesn't last long and eventually they get banned, and then they fade from memory, only to be referenced when the cycle repeats itself.

Don't let this stop you, though. Keep going. By my guess you've got a few more solid weeks in you. But hey, I've been wrong before.

Yes I don't trust govt officials that are appointed by Obama to determine the validity of Russian hacks just from his "word" without public evidence.

Sorry if that strikes you as a conspiracy but I have seen too much corruption in the govt to be that gullible.

 

[Ignatius J]

It's conspiracy theory to say that the NSA chief put out a statement this week saying that a nation-state intervened in our presidential election to achieve a very specific effect? Many major news outlets have reported that statement. I don't claim to know anything beyond what the NSA chief has said...nor should I. That doesn't really qualify as conspiracy theory, sorry.

You need to look up what "conspire" means. It is pretty much what the NSA is accusing Russia of.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

So you consider a physician to be equal to a currency manipulator in terms of morality? Interesting perspective.

How come DNC canned Debbie Wasserman then if they didn't believe the leaks?

Pretty sure that not at all what I said. I said nothing about morality. Let's try reading fully. I'll break it down for you. You made a comment with negative connotations regarding his lack of production or innovations. I made an assumption based on your comment of your trust fund and your profile that you do not have productions or innovations to your name and used your same negative connotations referenced above. So given that, have you quit medicine and applied for manufacturing jobs?

I was never in the DNC board meetings , so complete speculation here: Sometimes perception is reality, so with all the bad press at the moment before the convention, whether the leaks were true or not, she was negative weight for the DNC. That has very little to do with truth of WikiLeaks but mostly to do with their effect on public perception. It could have been 100% true or partially or even fully fabricated, but sometimes it's all about perception.

 

[deleted171991]

That clown devolved into ad hom attacks, so I will respond in kind. He got utterly destroyed due to his inability to reason whereby he had to resort to "education" or "wealth" ad hom attacks and then "ignoring me". I have no issue if he "ignores me" since he adds no value or factual basis in his arguments.

If we want to debate like adults, we can debate like adults. I haven't insulted you or stated anything personal since you haven't included that in your discussions, however, when someone wants to take it into "trolling" territory, I will respond in kind.

Yes, I feel "utterly destroyed" for not arguing longer with idiots.

The only thing that makes me feel truly dumb is that I gave you another chance. Because pragmatic mature intelligent "adults" don't even waste a breath with the likes of you. They know better.

Don't let me interrupt your reality show. I think the mods are just letting you accumulate enough posts and time on the forum so it will actually hurt when they ban you.

 

[DrCommonSense]

Pretty sure that not at all what I said. I said nothing about morality. Let's try reading fully. I'll break it down for you. You made a comment with negative connotations regarding his lack of production or innovations. I made an assumption based on your comment of your trust fund and your profile that you do not have productions or innovations to your name and used your same negative connotations referenced above. So given that, have you quit medicine and applied for manufacturing jobs?

I was never in the DNC board meetings , so complete speculation here: Sometimes perception is reality, so with all the bad press at the moment before the convention, whether the leaks were true or not, she was negative weight for the DNC. That has very little to do with truth of WikiLeaks but mostly to do with their effect on public perception. It could have been 100% true or partially or even fully fabricated, but sometimes it's all about perception.

I have no problem with people who inherit money from legitimate sources.

I don't consider Soro's currency manipulation and parasitic thievery to be legit as does most of the world. The guy is the face of corruption and everything people hate about "dark money" people. He is the type that leads to "conspiracy" theories due to his corruption.

Kind've feel bad for Debbie though since they threw her under the bus based upon fake emails? Kind've messed up right?

 

[Onefellswoop87]

You need to look up what "conspire" means. It is pretty much what the NSA is accusing Russia of.

The conspiracy theory, which I believe @GravelRider is referring to, is that, as implied by @DrCommonSense , the NSA is conspiring and colluding with Obama and the rest of his administration to falsely blame Russia and trick the American people.

And the circuitous argument is the NSA head can't be trusted cause he was appointed by Obama and he was appointed by Obama so he's untrustworthy and he can't be trusted cause he was appointed by Obama . . .

I think he's definitions are just fine. But I welcome his corrections if I misinterpreted.

 

[DrCommonSense]

The conspiracy theory, which I believe @GravelRider is referring to, is that, as implied by @DrCommonSense , the NSA is conspiring and colluding with Obama and the rest of his administration to falsely blame Russia and trick the American people.

And the circuitous argument is the NSA head can't be trusted cause he was appointed by Obama and he was appointed by Obama so he's untrustworthy and he can't be trusted cause he was appointed by Obama . . .

I think he's definitions are just fine. But I welcome his corrections if I misinterpreted.

Never said the whole NSA, I said the head of the NSA who was appointed by Obama can't serve as an impartial arbiter of Hillary's email hacks.

Don't see why thats difficult to understand.

 

[Onefellswoop87]

I have no problem with people who inherit money from legitimate sources.

I don't consider Soro's currency manipulation and parasitic thievery to be legit as does most of the world. The guy is the face of corruption and everything people hate about "dark money" people. He is the type that leads to "conspiracy" theories due to his corruption.

Kind've feel bad for Debbie though since they threw her under the bus based upon fake emails? Kind've messed up right?

Shame on me. Should have stayed out.

You have this uncanny ability to sidestep most questions and answer your own. And I stand by my previous assessment about your vague wording until it's magically clear to work for your argument.

First the problem was they Soros didn't produce or have innovations. Then when allegations hit too close to home the problem was that his money wasn't "legitimate."

Yeah, if it was all fabricated then it does suck for her. And it sucks for the democratic process if they are true. But to believe it's true cause you read it on the internet and not have any skepticism for its validity sucks for you.

And I'm out for now.

 

[DrCommonSense]

The conspiracy theory, which I believe @GravelRider is referring to, is that, as implied by @DrCommonSense , the NSA is conspiring and colluding with Obama and the rest of his administration to falsely blame Russia and trick the American people.

And the circuitous argument is the NSA head can't be trusted cause he was appointed by Obama and he was appointed by Obama so he's untrustworthy and he can't be trusted cause he was appointed by Obama . . .

I think he's definitions are just fine. But I welcome his corrections if I misinterpreted.

Also, plenty of NSA "whistleblowers" have already come out and said Russia wasn't involved plus no agency actually said they are 100% sure Russia did it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...nce-worker-likely-behind-dnc-leaks-not-russia

 

[DrCommonSense]

Shame on me. Should have stayed out.

You have this uncanny ability to sidestep most questions and answer your own. And I stand by my previous assessment about your vague wording until it's magically clear to work for your argument.

First the problem was they Soros didn't produce or have innovations. Then when allegations hit too close to home the problem was that his money wasn't "legitimate."

Yeah, if it was all fabricated then it does suck for her. And it sucks for the democratic process if they are true. But to believe it's true cause you read it on the internet and not have any skepticism for its validity sucks for you.

And I'm out for now.

Just linked an article from zerohedge that goes through the actual public statements and whistleblower comments with LINKS to the actual sources involved.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...nce-worker-likely-behind-dnc-leaks-not-russia

Hmm wonder whose telling the truth.

Also, I was clear about why Soros is a parasite and should not have been given residency in the USA (like Russia and others booted him out)

 

[BLADEMDA]

The next President of the United States. This reprieve from the "left" won't last and in 2020 the electorate will return the "Blue Wall."

 

[DrCommonSense]

Shame on me. Should have stayed out.

You have this uncanny ability to sidestep most questions and answer your own. And I stand by my previous assessment about your vague wording until it's magically clear to work for your argument.

First the problem was they Soros didn't produce or have innovations. Then when allegations hit too close to home the problem was that his money wasn't "legitimate."

Yeah, if it was all fabricated then it does suck for her. And it sucks for the democratic process if they are true. But to believe it's true cause you read it on the internet and not have any skepticism for its validity sucks for you.

And I'm out for now.

Here's more then if you don't believe zerohedge:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441266/hillary-clinton-democratic-emails-hacked-russia

Notice the statement doesn't NOT conclusively state Russia did it and uses kind've weasel level language whereby they said basically its possible Russia did it without saying they had evidence.

Read it.

 

[GravelRider]

The next President of the United States. This reprieve from the "left" won't last and in 2020 the electorate will return the "Blue Wall."

I do think 2020 will be an interesting election, since I don't think Trump will be able to truly solve the issues of the people who voted him into office. In the end, it was economic disparity that put Trump into office. I don't see him solving that problem. Elizabeth Warren is certainly popular with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, but I just don't see her being successful in a run for President. Actually, I would be very surprised if the Democrats nominate a woman at all.

I think the Republicans can also learn something from this election. If they push too hard in tearing down entitlements and cutting taxes on the rich, they could face a backlash again in 2020. Running on the platform of guns and anti-abortion will not be enough.

 

[pgg]

There is no question. With HRC winning the popular vote by over 1mil votes and counting,

Not to pick on you , but we shouldn't be distracted by the "popular vote" thing.

If the election was decided by popular vote, both candidates would've campaigned very differently ... maybe Clinton would've won, maybe not.

Bringing up the popular vote at all implies that it's a useful or relevant fact; it implies she would have won if only the archaic silly electoral college hadn't gotten in the way.

Pretending the popular vote matters lets the Democrat party pretend that she lost for a reason that wasn't their fault. She didn't lose because the electoral college is unfair.

 

[pgg]

The Trump administration is considering a Muslim registry.

President-elect Donald Trump’s immigration advisers could recommend a registry for immigrants from Muslim countries and countries with significant problems with terrorism, according to a top ally.

Isn't that what a Visa is?

 

[deleted162650]

.

 

[gotname]

Isn't that what a Visa is?

Missed that memo...and others.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Not to pick on you , but we shouldn't be distracted by the "popular vote" thing.

If the election was decided by popular vote, both candidates would've campaigned very differently ... maybe Clinton would've won, maybe not.

Bringing up the popular vote at all implies that it's a useful or relevant fact; it implies she would have won if only the archaic silly electoral college hadn't gotten in the way.

Pretending the popular vote matters lets the Democrat party pretend that she lost for a reason that wasn't their fault. She didn't lose because the electoral college is unfair.

Fair point.

Forget that part. I'm arguing that the Wikileaks n Russian hacks were almost completely one-sided, and DID figure into a lot of votes that might have turned the election.

But just like I don't blame refs when my team loses on a bad call, I don't necessarily "blame" others for her loss. I think the HRC campaign and nomination wasn't great from the start. If is were, they would have made it an easy choice.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Isn't that what a Visa is?

I'm ok with visas for foreigners.

This is about AMERICANS. Immigrant or not, why should they need visas?

 

[GravelRider]

Isn't that what a Visa is?

A visa is for a non-citizen. I think the concern is that the registry being proposed would be for immigrant Muslim citizens. That is a big difference. I haven't read too much about the plan, though, so I could be wrong.

 

[pgg]

A visa is for a non-citizen. I think the concern is that the registry being proposed would be for immigrant Muslim citizens. That is a big difference. I haven't read too much about the plan, though, so I could be wrong.

Yeah, that would be not OK.

Can't imagine it surviving a court challenge for even a day though. That's one step away from making them wear a crescent patch on their clothing, Nazi Germany style.

 

[deleted682700]

The top, TPTB own everything. All the folks here are renting from them. They have to create an illusion that you can get ahead and win. That they have very successfully created in America. What does the TPTB get out of creating that illusion? The sheeople get to work voluntarily and as hard as they can without the TPTB using the whip.

Who are the TPTB? Well its not possible to know them. Their puppets are the rich ones that you hear about. How are they consistently successful. They get insider information and are always found on the winning side. Does it mean they fund both the sides.

They create the side. That means if they want the dow to be 100,000 or 1,000 thats possible by TPTB. If they want the dow to be 1000, how do TPTB win? By naked shorting.

Some of us are passionately deluded.

 

[Ignatius J]

The conspiracy theory, which I believe @GravelRider is referring to, is that, as implied by @DrCommonSense , the NSA is conspiring and colluding with Obama and the rest of his administration to falsely blame Russia and trick the American people.

And the circuitous argument is the NSA head can't be trusted cause he was appointed by Obama and he was appointed by Obama so he's untrustworthy and he can't be trusted cause he was appointed by Obama . . .

I think he's definitions are just fine. But I welcome his corrections if I misinterpreted.

Quite a spin. The conspiracy theory that is being talked about is Russia conspiring to mettle in the US Presidential election. I'm not here to say what is and isn't true. It just seems ironic to scoff at one conspiracy theory while advocating for another.

Remember when Obama told Romney that the 1980s called and wanted their foreign policy back after Romney labeled Russia an existential threat? Oh, the irony yet again.

 

[Ignatius J]

The next President of the United States. This reprieve from the "left" won't last and in 2020 the electorate will return the "Blue Wall."

The left has some ground to make up. The Republicans haven't been this strong at all levels of government in 80+ years.

 

[DrCommonSense]

The left has some ground to make up. The Republicans haven't been this strong at all levels of government in 80+ years.

 

[deleted126335]

The top, TPTB own everything. All the folks here are renting from them. They have to create an illusion that you can get ahead and win. That they have very successfully created in America. What does the TPTB get out of creating that illusion? The sheeople get to work voluntarily and as hard as they can without the TPTB using the whip.

Who are the TPTB? Well its not possible to know them. Their puppets are the rich ones that you hear about. How are they consistently successful. They get insider information and are always found on the winning side. Does it mean they fund both the sides.

They create the side. That means if they want the dow to be 100,000 or 1,000 thats possible by TPTB. If they want the dow to be 1000, how do TPTB win? By naked shorting.

Some of us are passionately deluded.

Being one of the minions of TPTB I have inquired of my contacts in the Mossad cyber investigative division. They have identified you and your location. The local chapter of TPTB has been informed of your seeing through our deception.

 

[GravelRider]

The top, TPTB own everything. All the folks here are renting from them. They have to create an illusion that you can get ahead and win. That they have very successfully created in America. What does the TPTB get out of creating that illusion? The sheeople get to work voluntarily and as hard as they can without the TPTB using the whip.

Who are the TPTB? Well its not possible to know them. Their puppets are the rich ones that you hear about. How are they consistently successful. They get insider information and are always found on the winning side. Does it mean they fund both the sides.

They create the side. That means if they want the dow to be 100,000 or 1,000 thats possible by TPTB. If they want the dow to be 1000, how do TPTB win? By naked shorting.

Some of us are passionately deluded.

Maybe you just need to get laid.

 

[DrCommonSense]

Quite a spin. The conspiracy theory that is being talked about is Russia conspiring to mettle in the US Presidential election. I'm not here to say what is and isn't true. It just seems ironic to scoff at one conspiracy theory while advocating for another.

Remember when Obama told Romney that the 1980s called and wanted their foreign policy back after Romney labeled Russia an existential threat? Oh, the irony yet again.

When you actually read the comments from the major intelligence organizations, they never actually said they have definitive proof of Russian involvement. They just wrote it is possible basically.

I have linked the article above.

 

[GravelRider]

.

Sweet meme, bro! You get that off the twitterverse?