The US Election 2016, Part IX

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 

Thanks again to my subjective interpretation of purported leaks (he was mentioned at least 7 times in a test string I merrily rip out of context as an affiliate for "Global Intelligence Files"), I want to paint that the guy who was thrown out of the Trump-rally as an agent provocateur to do some birddogging.

 

Sorry for using your post as an example, but see what happens when you shroud a few excerpts taken out of context in social reality? Pretty nasty, huh?

 

 

Not at all. You are perfectly welcome to shield yourself and dismiss others as you wish.

 

The truth is that the guy has suspicious contacts, mentioned by personal name in the Podesta-leaks (Austyn Crites), and it is already been established that the DNC hire professional agent provocateurs thanks to the Project Veritas investigations, where they admitted to the Chicago and Arizona riots. 

 

No need for shielding (from what?), as I'm obviously just as subjective as you are, and I'm certainly not dismissing you, but rather what you delineate with such absolute certainty, when it's just a matter of leaning on a termite-infested pole. Transforming a textual game of Chinese whispers into "the truth", the "established", and other claims without any other scientifically stringent or reliable sources than bits of text strings garnered over the internet grapevine is quite a feat, but it has nothing to do with reality. It's just as real as those talking heads you see in documentaries, it's just blah, blah, blah. It seems barbaric in nature, the post-Nietzschean 21st century kind. Oh, by the way, did you know that the etymology of that word "barbaric" is blah, blah, or "bar bar", in ancient Greek?

My point is a serious one, though. We should all be much more careful in our usage of internet sources, and that goes for all the wikis out there. And, please, keep on rallying for your sociopolitical views, but why mask them and present them as established truths, when they're just opinions and wishes? Stand up for your beliefs, no need for filters or smoke screens. Just go get 'em, champ!   

Edited November 6, 2016 by IndiraLightfoot

[Malcador]

Thanks again to Wikileaks (he was mentioned at least 7 times in the Podesta-leak as an affiliate for "Global Intelligence Files"), it is shown that the guy who was thrown out of the Trump-rally was an agent provocateur to do some birddogging.

You have a link for that? Doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that if true. Certainly isn't like cops pretending to be rioters.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

Thanks again to my subjective interpretation of purported leaks (he was mentioned at least 7 times in a test string I merrily rip out of context as an affiliate for "Global Intelligence Files"), I want to paint that the guy who was thrown out of the Trump-rally as an agent provocateur to do some birddogging.

 

Sorry for using your post as an example, but see what happens when you shroud a few excerpts taken out of context in social reality? Pretty nasty, huh?

 

 

Not at all. You are perfectly welcome to shield yourself and dismiss others as you wish.

 

The truth is that the guy has suspicious contacts, mentioned by personal name in the Podesta-leaks (Austyn Crites), and it is already been established that the DNC hire professional agent provocateurs thanks to the Project Veritas investigations, where they admitted to the Chicago and Arizona riots. 

 

Meshugger please stop arguing for the sake of arguing, you know Indira is right 

 

 

Whoa, settle down there. You're out-nazing the Nazis with all your telling what people should say or not.

 

 

 

 

Thanks again to my subjective interpretation of purported leaks (he was mentioned at least 7 times in a test string I merrily rip out of context as an affiliate for "Global Intelligence Files"), I want to paint that the guy who was thrown out of the Trump-rally as an agent provocateur to do some birddogging.

 

Sorry for using your post as an example, but see what happens when you shroud a few excerpts taken out of context in social reality? Pretty nasty, huh?

 

 

Not at all. You are perfectly welcome to shield yourself and dismiss others as you wish.

 

The truth is that the guy has suspicious contacts, mentioned by personal name in the Podesta-leaks (Austyn Crites), and it is already been established that the DNC hire professional agent provocateurs thanks to the Project Veritas investigations, where they admitted to the Chicago and Arizona riots. 

 

No need for shielding (from what?), as I'm obviously just as subjective as you are, and I'm certainly not dismissing you, but rather what you delineate with such absolute certainty, when it's just a matter of leaning on a termite-infested pole. Transforming a textual game of Chinese whispers into "the truth", the "established", and other claims without any other scientifically stringent or reliable sources than bits of text strings garnered over the internet grapevine is quite a feat, but it has nothing to do with reality. It's just as real as those talking heads you see in documentaries, it's just blah, blah, blah. It seems barbaric in nature, the post-Nietzschean 21st century kind. Oh, by the way, did you know that the etymology of that word "barbaric" is blah, blah, or "bar bar", in ancient Greek?

My point is a serious one, though. We should all be much more careful in our usage of internet sources, and that goes for all the wikis out there. And, please, keep on rallying for your sociopolitical views, but why mask them and present them as established truths, when they're just opinions and wishes? Stand up for your beliefs, no need for filters or smoke screens. Just go get 'em, champ!   

 

 

You're losing me because it almost reads like a stream-of-consciousness-line from Ulysses. I thank you for caring about my internet investigate rigor though.

 

 

Thanks again to Wikileaks (he was mentioned at least 7 times in the Podesta-leak as an affiliate for "Global Intelligence Files"), it is shown that the guy who was thrown out of the Trump-rally was an agent provocateur to do some birddogging.

You have a link for that? Doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that if true. Certainly isn't like cops pretending to be rioters.

 

 

List of mentions:

 

https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=austyn+crites&exact_phrase=&any_of=&exclude_words=&document_date_start=&document_date_end=&released_date_start=&released_date_end=&new_search=True&order_by=most_relevant#results

 

Click on the result called "RE: Additional Order" for the excel-file.

 

Link to video about sabotage, bird-dogging and arranging the riots at Trump-rallies:

 

https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=austyn+crites&exact_phrase=&any_of=&exclude_words=&document_date_start=&document_date_end=&released_date_start=&released_date_end=&new_search=True&order_by=most_relevant#results

 

Click on the result called "RE: Additional Order" for the excel-file.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Sources, and no bombastic claims of veritas (in vino?) - I prefer this Meshugger any day! Great!

 

And I love you for mentioning Ulysses. I read it when I was eighteen, and what an utterly confusing eyeopener it was. I had no idea literature could be like that.

[Malcador]

Well, if you act badly when provoked to that small a degree (latest case), have to say the problem's with you, heh.

[ktchong]

Fareed Zakaria: Your Views of Clinton Are ‘Irrelevant,’ Trump Is ‘Cancer on American Democracy’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCJcbobMy-g

Edited November 6, 2016 by ktchong

[BruceVC]

Fareed Zakaria: Your Views of Clinton Are ‘Irrelevant,’ Trump Is ‘Cancer on American Democracy’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCJcbobMy-g

 

I posted this article earlier, I watched this video today. Its very accurate and telling 

[Volourn]

 

"Immediately rejected, its Wikileaks 

 

Again I will repeat this point because some of you guys keep using Wikileaks as a credible and or authoritative source of information

 

Wikileaks is like a group of people gossiping, similar to  Reddit..its hearsay. It should not  be used a foundation of valid information. If there is no way to verify or proof check something from Wikileaks why would you concern yourself ?

 

Anything released from Wikileaks that cant  be corroborated from another source I cannot in good conscience read and or consider  :geek:"

 

Immediately rejected, its BruceVC.

[Volourn]

"what are you going to do about this ?"

 

I'll do what I always do - spam the internet. L0L

 

Also, I noticed as per usual, you ignored the link that shows  how the Clinton side works. Also, you don't have to prove m to me that the Trump side are scum. I already think that. Youa r ejust mad that I think the same of the Clinton side.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Volourn

[HoonDing]

can't wait for Zuckerberg vs Shkreli in 2024.

[Malcador]

Elon Musk as well.

[Meshugger]

Sources, and no bombastic claims of veritas (in vino?) - I prefer this Meshugger any day! Great!

 

And I love you for mentioning Ulysses. I read it when I was eighteen, and what an utterly confusing eyeopener it was. I had no idea literature could be like that.

 

Sure, don't mention it.

 

Elon Musk as well.

 

I think he would be more interested in the presidential election on Mars.

[ktchong]

Not sure if this was already posted, but here it is...

 

Bad Hombres and Nasty Women!

 

[Zoraptor]

 

 

The problem lies in that there is just too much data. By leaking hundreds of thousands emails that mostly contain nothing of importance, they create data block than isn't verifiable by any common person, because it take month probably years for person just to read all that information let alone alone check if all those emails are real. And then when somebody highlights one email from that pile, it is very difficult to check if if it is only email about subject or tone of earlier and later correspondence between same parties or parties from same circles. In other words there is so much information that for most people that read about wikileaks emails, it would be same if emails that aren't highlighted by somebody didn't exist because they will never read them. Drowning people on too much information is what big law firms nearly always do in tv series (and probably in some extent in real life) all the time by sending every unnecessary document with documents that opposition actually wants in order to hide those documents from their opposition.

 

 

Nah. This ain't 'The Practice' or 'The Good Wife', it isn't even 'Boston Legal'- though I'd suspect Trump would like to be played by James Spader Bill Shatner would be far more accurate- it's stuff released on the internet. So instead of maybe a dozen people having to pore through hundreds of pages of documents while tense music plays and time counts down there's millions of people using search terms on a search engine with as much time as they want to spend. Document dumping is also an obviously negative tactic in legal terms, designed to obfuscate. Here it's just WL's modus operandi; and if they did editorial control you can bet every cent in Bill Gates' bank that that would be the point of attack instead, ie that they were selectively releasing stuff.

 

More generally, information overload can be used as a negative for any subject. Climate Change or any complex science, international crises/ relations, economics or whatever, there's frequently more information available than any reasonable person could either assimilate or validate alone. That usually isn't seen as an actual negative though, just an inevitability, unless someone is trying to do a quick and dirty job of discrediting someone ("oh, you haven't read every study written on Climate Change? Your view is therefore invalid")

 

Attaching "leaks" to any bulk of information is deliberately suggestive of wrongdoing, of an assorted collection of conspiracies, of anything bad you wish to read into the stuff in question.

 

That works both ways though. The information will be seen as automatically salacious by some because it is 'leaked' information rather than being 'legitimately' released; but others will automatically dismiss it because it has been leaked rather than officially released. Realistically which is which does largely depend on the person's predetermined views.

 

 

You have a link for that? Doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that if true. Certainly isn't like cops pretending to be rioters.

 

 

Sending agents provocateur to opposition rallies is not a good look, and it isn't the first time it's happened from the Dem side albeit the other time was more overtly provocative. Sending observers is fine of course; but that's the equivalent of Glasgow Celtic Football Club 'proving' Rangers are a bunch of violent thugs by sending someone into the home stand at Ibrox wearing a Celtic jersey. Technically any violence would still be the fault of the Rangers fans, but they'd have to know they'd get that response and most of the point was to get it too.

[Malcador]

Well in that example, it's proof enough. All depends on the provocation, I suppose.

[ktchong]

Mike Pence and the First Stage of Grief

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4ntatuvJTA

Edited November 6, 2016 by ktchong

[Malcador]

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37892138

 

So all rigged again?

[Volourn]

He's now the Dems' best friend again. And, Trump's enemy. FLIP FLOPPY.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Volourn

[licketysplit]

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37892138

 

So all rigged again?

 

Keeping a private server was illegal and she never had to answer for it. She got a break where others haven't. If there's no criminality, then great, but there was still deliberate negligence. Also, I can hardly wait for for Chelsea to run and we get yet another Clinton in office after Hillary's done. Why break the streak? They've been so good to America. 

[Meshugger]

Excellent, now all the emails can be released for our entertainment.

[Malcador]

That is true, Wikileaks will probably play their strongest card on Monday, if anything. Maybe can finally see something stunning.

[HoonDing]

[Elerond]

 

More generally, information overload can be used as a negative for any subject. Climate Change or any complex science, international crises/ relations, economics or whatever, there's frequently more information available than any reasonable person could either assimilate or validate alone. That usually isn't seen as an actual negative though, just an inevitability, unless someone is trying to do a quick and dirty job of discrediting someone ("oh, you haven't read every study written on Climate Change? Your view is therefore invalid")

 

 

Climate change is a topic that shows how information overload can make information obscure and how people can't comprehend all the information that they get and usually seek somebody that gives shorter, simpler and straightforward answers. It is topic where people have hard time to tell what is false and what is truth, which is why conversations of said topic are usually more based people precognitive notions about subject than actual facts and studies. And where people's opinions about subject seem to be on same line as scientific studies about subject. It is probably subject where I see even people appeal to authority even in circles that should be experts. In short climate change topic in my opinion is excellent example how too much information, especially badly structured and presented information can make that information meaningless and leaving people on mercy of lobbyists.

[Guard Dog]

What I want from this election:

 

1. I hope it's close. Less than 2% in the popular vote. That way whomever wins can't claim a mandate. 
2. I hope it's over on Tuesday. No lawsuits, no recounts, no bitching.
3. The White House & Congress remain in the hands of opposite parties. We'll all sleep better that way.
4. Gary Johnson gets his 5%. It would be nice if Stein did too. But if Johnson does we'll call it a win. 

[Guard Dog]

Oh yeah, one more thing. No 269-269 scenario. That would be entertaining as hell but... no