And then one day...

[_Res Ipsa]

Exiled,

Of course he knows it, and he celebrates it. There are various images on 4chan that show the historical dates Jews were expelled from the host country.

- Doc

I guess it's hard for me to understand how someone could still be so dense. So, I have to question whether this person is purposefully posting this nonsense to get a rise out of people here.

Exiled, when you repeatedly deny that Russians interfered with the 2016 election, including stealing documents from the DNC and Podesta, do you do it to get a rise out of people here? Or do you really believe that you have the truth and the rest of us are duped sheeple? Cuz I’m sure I’m not the only person here who wonders about how you could be so dense on that topic.

All of us are prey to the cognitive biases that lead people to latch onto conspiracy theories. And that’s what Smokey is: an extreme flavor of conspiracy theorist.

[_Dr Exiled]

The Honorable Res Ipsa said:

Exiled, when you repeatedly deny that Russians interfered with the 2016 election, including stealing documents from the DNC and Podesta, do you do it to get a rise out of people here? Or do you really believe that you have the truth and the rest of us are duped sheeple? Cuz I’m sure I’m not the only person here who wonders about how you could be so dense on that topic.

All of us are prey to the cognitive biases that lead people to latch onto conspiracy theories. And that’s what Smokey is: an extreme flavor of conspiracy theorist.

I noticed smokey really got to you with his holocaust nonsense. Thanks for giving us some obvious tools to deal with the idiot on your thread. I can now sleep in peace armed with logic and reason.

As for Russiagate, maybe you can explain why Clinton blurted out recently the nonsense about Tulsey Gabbard and Jill Stein? She has absolutely no evidence yet puts the russia label on these two. Looks like propaganda conspiracy theory to me or perhaps jumping the russian shark. Is it that anyone who doesn't support Hillary or disagrees with her must be a Russian puppet? Is this what it has devolved to?

I watched the 2016 election returns in a local casino suite on the Las Vegas strip with some high ups in the clinton campaign. One was an assistant to the regional director for the west and dealt with social media. Anyway, they were up in arms about Comey's about face, right before the election. It played right into the hands of the lock her up crowd. They blamed him for the loss. It seems logical. There wasn't any talk about russian bots or memes or the influence they supposedly had on mindless wrong thinking americans. It was about something tangible like the FBI director giving credence to the email scandal they thought was behind them. My guess is that and low turnout had more to do with the loss than russian companies that spent little on their efforts. The russians influencing the outcome just doesn't make any sense, like Clinton's recent wild and baseless accusations. I think people are smarter than that and chose a clown instead of Clinton or stayed away from the polls because Clinton didn't excite enough to bring them out to vote.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Imma just leave this here...



https://www.geni.com/projects/Jews-in-t ... tion/41458

Needless to say groypers are conflicted.

- Doc

[_Some Schmo]

As for Russiagate, maybe you can explain why Clinton blurted out recently the nonsense about Tulsey Gabbard and Jill Stein? She has absolutely no evidence yet puts the russia label on these two. Looks like propaganda conspiracy theory to me or perhaps jumping the russian shark. Is it that anyone who doesn't support Hillary or disagrees with her must be a Russian puppet? Is this what it has devolved to?

Exiled, I'll just tell you that this latest thing from Clinton is an example of the kind of thing from Hillary that turns me off. I'm not a fan of the Clintons either (although obviously, your hate of the Clintons eclipses mine by a mile).

I guess the real difference between us is a sense of proportion. The Clintons have their issues. That's my point of view. You, on the other hand, think they're flat out criminals. I think my position is more appropriate, given the available evidence.

I just think you are a priori prejudiced against them which prevents you from seeing them realistically.

[_Dr Exiled]

As for Russiagate, maybe you can explain why Clinton blurted out recently the nonsense about Tulsey Gabbard and Jill Stein? She has absolutely no evidence yet puts the russia label on these two. Looks like propaganda conspiracy theory to me or perhaps jumping the russian shark. Is it that anyone who doesn't support Hillary or disagrees with her must be a Russian puppet? Is this what it has devolved to?

Exiled, I'll just tell you that this latest thing from Clinton is an example of the kind of thing from Hillary that turns me off. I'm not a fan of the Clintons either (although obviously, your hate of the Clintons eclipses mine by a mile).

I guess the real difference between us is a sense of proportion. The Clintons have their issues. That's my point of view. You, on the other hand, think they're flat out criminals. I think my position is more appropriate, given the available evidence.

I just think you are a priori prejudiced against them which prevents you from seeing them realistically.

I have a friend that was in the Rose Law Firm with Hillary back in the day. This person has given me an earful about Hillary. I also represented one of Bill's arrangers here in Las Vegas during his presidency years ago. I don't like them. I don't like their third way and how they sold out to wallstreet. It ruined the left.

[_Some Schmo]

I don't like them. I don't like their third way and how they sold out to wallstreet. It ruined the left.

I completely understand this point of view, and am sympathetic to it.

But I refuse to let it make me see criminality where it doesn't exist.

[_Res Ipsa]

The Honorable Res Ipsa said:

Exiled, when you repeatedly deny that Russians interfered with the 2016 election, including stealing documents from the DNC and Podesta, do you do it to get a rise out of people here? Or do you really believe that you have the truth and the rest of us are duped sheeple? Cuz I’m sure I’m not the only person here who wonders about how you could be so dense on that topic.

All of us are prey to the cognitive biases that lead people to latch onto conspiracy theories. And that’s what Smokey is: an extreme flavor of conspiracy theorist.

I noticed smokey really got to you with his holocaust nonsense. Thanks for giving us some obvious tools to deal with the idiot on your thread. I can now sleep in peace armed with logic and reason.

As for Russiagate, maybe you can explain why Clinton blurted out recently the nonsense about Tulsey Gabbard and Jill Stein? She has absolutely no evidence yet puts the russia label on these two. Looks like propaganda conspiracy theory to me or perhaps jumping the russian shark. Is it that anyone who doesn't support Hillary or disagrees with her must be a Russian puppet? Is this what it has devolved to?

I watched the 2016 election returns in a local casino suite on the Las Vegas strip with some high ups in the clinton campaign. One was an assistant to the regional director for the west and dealt with social media. Anyway, they were up in arms about Comey's about face, right before the election. It played right into the hands of the lock her up crowd. They blamed him for the loss. It seems logical. There wasn't any talk about russian bots or memes or the influence they supposedly had on mindless wrong thinking americans. It was about something tangible like the FBI director giving credence to the email scandal they thought was behind them. My guess is that and low turnout had more to do with the loss than russian companies that spent little on their efforts. The russians influencing the outcome just doesn't make any sense, like Clinton's recent wild and baseless accusations. I think people are smarter than that and chose a clown instead of Clinton or stayed away from the polls because Clinton didn't excite enough to bring them out to vote.

Smokey didn't "get to me," Exiled. This isn't my first rodeo with a holocaust denier. I've watched folks go off half cocked and uninformed against holocaust deniers and come away looking like idiots. Just like unprepared people who debate creationists. People here were engaging, so I thought I'd share what I've learned from my own experience. If it was kindergarten level stuff for you, then good on you for being such a savvy guy.

You want me to explain Hillary Clinton? No clue. To be honest, I don't even remember reading her latest statement on Gabbard and Stein. I just kind of rolled my eyes at the headline. I would classify any claim that Stein was and Gabbard is collaborating with the Russians to bring about Trump wins as a conspiracy theory. I've seen no evidence of an an agreement by either to conspire with Russia. There are perfectly understandable reasons for Stein to have stayed in the 2016 race that don't require making up a conspiracy. I tuned out Gabbard early on because I'd heard enough to convince me that I wouldn't vote for her in the primary. If there's actual evidence that she's working with the Russians to get Trump re-elected that I've missed, maybe a helpful person here could point me toward it. So, yeah, given what I know, I'd call them conspiracy theories (as opposed to actual conspiracies).

But I disagree with you on your approach to causation and the 2016 election. Any even can have dozens of "but for" causes. They can be connected or completely independent. And its fair to say of any of them that they "caused" the event in normal conversation.

The 2016 election was close when measured in the number of votes that would have changed the result if they had been for Clinton instead of Trump. The closer the election, the more "but-for" causes one is likely to find. If I recall correctly, if Stein voters had voted for Clinton, she would have won. Assuming that the Stein voters were on the left (which I think is reasonable), it's fair to say that Stein staying in "caused" Clinton to lose. Likewise, Comey's actions can fairly be described as causing her to lose. Likewise, the historical distrust of Clinton can fairly be said to have caused her to lose. Likewise, her failure to campaign in the key states she lost can be fairly said to have "caused" her to lose. Likewise the leaking of the DNC e-mails. Hell, the election was close enough that it could be fairly said that her "basket of deplorables" comment caused her to lose.

My primary beef with you on the Russia issue is that you consistently misrepresent the nature and magnitude of what Russia did. I don't think you're a dishonest guy, so it leads me to believe you haven't really sat down and read the Mueller report or the Bi-Partisan Senate Intelligence Committee report on the extent of Russia's actions. It wasn't just, as you have repeatedly claimed, just a few Facebook ads. It was a massive, sophisticated, expensive operation by two different intelligence groups.

I don't actually know your political leanings, but I'm pretty left. And I had dozens of friends and acquaintances who absolutely were affected by the Russian propaganda. They cited me dozens and dozens of times to dodgy looking websites that purported to prove that the DNC was stealing the election from Sanders (like literally changing votes in the primaries). I remember trying to figure out at the time who was actually publishing those pages. When I later saw a published list of Russian "fake news" sites, I recognized several of them as sites I had been repeatedly referred to. Many of the people I know that believed the Russian propaganda decided to vote for Stein based on claims made in those articles. That's just people I had contact with. In my opinion, that's where the Russia propaganda operation had the most effect -- on the left. It took friction between the Sanders and Clinton camps and turned it into a raging inferno. Lots of pissed off Sanders backers didn't vote or stayed home.

Nobody was talking about it at the time of the election, because only the intelligence agencies knew about the effort. It wasn't until Mueller's indictments that the extent of the Russian operation was known. And the Senate Intelligence Committee report (bipartisan) contains even more detail. The effect of those efforts on the left are completely consistent with your attribution of low turnout as a cause. In fact, they help explain it.

I'm not claiming that Americans are morons. I'm claiming that well-designed propaganda works, even on smart people. Being smart does not confer immunity against propaganda. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are excellent examples. So why does it make sense to you that Americans would be immune to a massive, sophisticated propaganda campaign that came from Russia?

[_Dr Exiled]

What really made me disillusioned was Obama. I voted for him and was hopeful he would go after Cheney or at least disavow the Cheney policies and shut down guantanamo. However, he bailed out wall street at our expense and doubled down on the security state. He increased the number of wars.

I agree with Jimmy Dore that Obama's failure to pursue "yes we can" actually gave us Trump the clown. I fear impeachment will fail as it is just based on hearsay right now and Trump will be acquitted in the senate. That will strengthen him as it did Clinton and could lead to his reelection. The Democrats are too preoccupied with this and don't stand for anything that excites the people and I think that is because they take corporate money. Warren could excite the base but she isn't trustworthy as she says she will take corporate money in the general. Tulsey is too young and Sanders is too old. Now Clinton is thinking about running again. WTF? That will lead to another low voter turnout that will benefit Trump and his maga crowd. We need a candidate that gives the people what they want. Warren or Sanders I guess.

[_Res Ipsa]

I have a friend that was in the Rose Law Firm with Hillary back in the day. This person has given me an earful about Hillary. I also represented one of Bill's arrangers here in Las Vegas during his presidency years ago. I don't like them. I don't like their third way and how they sold out to wallstreet. It ruined the left.

I understand that position completely, and I think your reasons for disliking the Clintons are perfectly reasonable. But here's the thing. It can both be true that Clinton is a horrible person who screwed over the left and that Russian propaganda efforts were a but-for cause of her election loss. Acknowledging the latter doesn't mean admitting that Clinton is a nice person or has desirable politics.

[_Res Ipsa]

What really made me disillusioned was Obama. I voted for him and was hopeful he would go after Cheney or at least disavow the Cheney policies and shut down guantanamo. However, he bailed out wall street at our expense and doubled down on the security state. He increased the number of wars.

I agree with Jimmy Dore that Obama's failure to pursue "yes we can" actually gave us Trump the clown. I fear impeachment will fail as it is just based on hearsay right now and Trump will be acquitted in the senate. That will strengthen him as it did Clinton and could lead to his reelection. The Democrats are too preoccupied with this and don't stand for anything that excites the people and I think that is because they take corporate money. Warren could excite the base but she isn't trustworthy as she says she will take corporate money in the general. Tulsey is too young and Sanders is too old. Now Clinton is thinking about running again. WTF? That will lead to another low voter turnout that will benefit Trump and his maga crowd. We need a candidate that gives the people what they want. Warren or Sanders I guess.

I understand your disillusionment with Obama. I thought from the beginning that the left was expecting way to much from him because he was substantively a centrist who could inspire hope. The problem with "Yes we can" was that it was really "Yes we can, if the Republicans will be reasonable." Remember, Democrats held a filibuster proof Senate majority for a short period of time, which Obama used to push through the ACA (with the Senate having to use reconciliation procedures to get the final bill through.) After that, McConnell said "No you can't," and used the filibuster to stop everything. Even Supreme Court appointments.

I'm afraid you've bought into some Republican sleight of hand on hearsay. We can discuss that if you like. And I'm not as fearful as you on the effect of impeachment on the election. Democrats haven't forgotten how they retook the house in 2018 -- by campaigning on issues like health care instead of just going negative about Trump. The campaign is barely started, but I'm optimistic that the Democrats can walk and chew gum. They've passed a raft of legislation on topics the public cares about, but which McConnell refused to even consider. What's the sense in doing that over and over? It's a stack of ready-made campaign commercials to show who is trying to address the issues that matter to Americans.

Prediction: Clinton, the two-time loser, will not be the nominee this time around. Literally no one is clamoring for her to jump in the race. I'd be shocked if she did.