Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
December 17, 2017, 03:59:31 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory  (Read 16050 times)
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52244

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« on: May 19, 2017, 03:30:44 PM »

If I'm tracking, this conspiracy involves candidate Trump working with the Russian government to get elected president, then becoming a Russian puppet.  It is the most asinine thing I have heard since 9/11 Troofers claimed the U.S. government conspired with foreign terrorists to attack us on 9/11. 

There are a number of reasons this makes no sense, including Russia conspiring with a candidate who everyone (except for poly on this board) thought was not going to be the nominee, and if he was the nominee would get crushed by Hillary.  Why the heck would Russia conspire with someone who nobody believed had a snowball's chance to win?  If anything, they would have conspired with Hillary, especially given her "seedy ties to Russia."

I have yet to see a shred of evidence proving this conspiracy.   

In any event, if you want to see how kooky otherwise reasonably intelligent people can be when they embrace and push a loony conspiracy theory, watch this interview of Krystal Ball by Tucker Carlson. 

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef392mgw9_U" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef392mgw9_U</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31980


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2017, 03:51:25 PM »

There is no CT THEORY involved with any of the investigations

You're probably confused because Republicans have spent last 8 years making up idiotic CT's about Hillary, Obama, etc..

It's kind of your thing

Report to moderator   Logged
Al Doggity
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5784


Honest Discourse


« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2017, 06:52:19 PM »

There are a number of reasons this makes no sense, including Russia conspiring with a candidate who everyone (except for poly on this board) thought was not going to be the nominee, and if he was the nominee would get crushed by Hillary.  Why the heck would Russia conspire with someone who nobody believed had a snowball's chance to win?  If anything, they would have conspired with Hillary, especially given her "seedy ties to Russia."



Let's say you're judging a talent competition. You've got two contestants: one a classically trained pianist who's been playing for decades and the other a self-taught pianist who started playing a few weeks ago. Most people are assuming the trained pianist will win. You approach both of them and say "Hey,I can make sure there are some problems with the sound system during the other guy's performance, but you gotta give me half of your prize money." Assuming both want to win equally as badly, who is more likely to reciprocate? The frontrunner or the person who appears not to  have a shot in hell?


Now let's say the trained pianist has said some pretty nasty things about you in the past and you two have a pretty bad relationship. Meanwhile, the underdog pianist has said a lot of flattering things about you. Which of the two contestants would you be more interested in helping: the one with whom you have a bad relationship or the one who has said nothing but kind things about you?


Now let's say you have a small business that hasn't been doing that well lately. If the winner of this contest decided to come by your store and mention it in their victory speech, that could really help you out. Who would be more likely to want to go the extra mile for you? The frontrunner who was probably going to win anyway and doesn't really care for you too much? Or the underdog who probably wouldn't have won without you.

I'm sure your answer is that both are just as likely to take you up on your offer and you probably have some new, bizarre definitions for "pianist", "contest" and "underdog" that prove it, but most people operating in reality would say that there's a clear difference between how receptive each party would be in each configuration because there's a clear difference in how much there is to gain for each party in each configuration. Whatever influence Russia had over the election wasn't a zero sum proposition.
Report to moderator   Logged
George Whorewell
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 7250


Q CLEARANCE


« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2017, 08:38:49 PM »


Let's say you're judging a talent competition. You've got two contestants: one a classically trained pianist who's been playing for decades and the other a self-taught pianist who started playing a few weeks ago. Most people are assuming the trained pianist will win. You approach both of them and say "Hey,I can make sure there are some problems with the sound system during the other guy's performance, but you gotta give me half of your prize money." Assuming both want to win equally as badly, who is more likely to reciprocate? The frontrunner or the person who appears not to  have a shot in hell?


Now let's say the trained pianist has said some pretty nasty things about you in the past and you two have a pretty bad relationship. Meanwhile, the underdog pianist has said a lot of flattering things about you. Which of the two contestants would you be more interested in helping: the one with whom you have a bad relationship or the one who has said nothing but kind things about you?


Now let's say you have a small business that hasn't been doing that well lately. If the winner of this contest decided to come by your store and mention it in their victory speech, that could really help you out. Who would be more likely to want to go the extra mile for you? The frontrunner who was probably going to win anyway and doesn't really care for you too much? Or the underdog who probably wouldn't have won without you.

I'm sure your answer is that both are just as likely to take you up on your offer and you probably have some new, bizarre definitions for "pianist", "contest" and "underdog" that prove it, but most people operating in reality would say that there's a clear difference between how receptive each party would be in each configuration because there's a clear difference in how much there is to gain for each party in each configuration. Whatever influence Russia had over the election wasn't a zero sum proposition.

What the fuck are you babbling about?
Report to moderator   Logged
Al Doggity
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5784


Honest Discourse


« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2017, 08:55:21 PM »

What the fuck are you babbling about?

You wouldn't understand. Just go back to playing with your legos.
Report to moderator   Logged
George Whorewell
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 7250


Q CLEARANCE


« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2017, 09:03:20 PM »

You wouldn't understand. Just go back to playing with your legos.

Ok Sanford. I'm glad the poly sci classes your taking at the community college learning annex are elevating your self esteem.
Report to moderator   Logged
Al Doggity
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5784


Honest Discourse


« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2017, 09:09:54 PM »

Ok Sanford. I'm glad the poly sci classes your taking at the community college learning annex are elevating your self esteem.

*You're. Maybe consider enrolling in some classes?  Huh I hear Basic English is helpful for a lot of people.
Report to moderator   Logged
Nick Danger
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8631



« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2017, 09:28:33 PM »

*You're. Maybe consider enrolling in some classes?  Huh I hear Basic English is helpful for a lot of people.

Report to moderator   Logged
George Whorewell
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 7250


Q CLEARANCE


« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2017, 09:32:47 PM »

*You're. Maybe consider enrolling in some classes?  Huh I hear Basic English is helpful for a lot of people.

 I'm glad my tax dollars taught you how to punctuate conjunctions on an internet message board at 1:30 in the morning. Your mother must be very proud of you.
Report to moderator   Logged
Al Doggity
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5784


Honest Discourse


« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2017, 09:48:13 PM »

I'm glad my tax dollars taught you how to punctuate conjunctions on an internet message board at 1:30 in the morning. Your mother must be very proud of you.

In that case, should I be embarrassed to point out that you're using "conjunctions" when you really mean "contractions"? Or should I wait until after 9 am to bring it up?  Huh
Report to moderator   Logged
Top Poodle
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2728


No trannies allowed.


« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2017, 10:42:01 PM »

None of them can even verbalize what they think this collusion actually is.

The irony is they're pretending to be worried about Russia compromising the country, whereas they are the ones doing it themselves.

But fuck, maybe that's exactly what they want  Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
Mobil
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2375



« Reply #11 on: May 20, 2017, 12:29:47 AM »

None of them can even verbalize what they think this collusion actually is.

The irony is they're pretending to be worried about Russia compromising the country, whereas they are the ones doing it themselves.

But fuck, maybe that's exactly what they want  Cheesy

Fact Is the democrats made it a goal to stop trump...they have and his own party doesn't like him..we saw it during the mandates to nominate a Republican candidate ....maybe hes on to something  if he's going against the grain ...
Report to moderator   Logged

real men= no rubbers
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 18606


Be honest...


« Reply #12 on: May 20, 2017, 12:49:39 AM »

If I'm tracking, this conspiracy involves candidate Trump working with the Russian government to get elected president, then becoming a Russian puppet.  It is the most asinine thing I have heard since 9/11 Troofers claimed the U.S. government conspired with foreign terrorists to attack us on 9/11. 

There are a number of reasons this makes no sense, including Russia conspiring with a candidate who everyone (except for poly on this board) thought was not going to be the nominee, and if he was the nominee would get crushed by Hillary.  Why the heck would Russia conspire with someone who nobody believed had a snowball's chance to win?  If anything, they would have conspired with Hillary, especially given her "seedy ties to Russia."

I have yet to see a shred of evidence proving this conspiracy.   

In any event, if you want to see how kooky otherwise reasonably intelligent people can be when they embrace and push a loony conspiracy theory, watch this interview of Krystal Ball by Tucker Carlson. 

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef392mgw9_U" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef392mgw9_U</a>

You have a point, however singular it may be.
Report to moderator   Logged
Top Poodle
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2728


No trannies allowed.


« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2017, 01:23:57 AM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef392mgw9_U" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef392mgw9_U</a>

I just watched this, the chick has literally no points.

Left is becoming more and more repulsive by the day.
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #14 on: May 20, 2017, 04:20:57 AM »

It can't be just a CT because the FBI is deeply investigating this.....I'm not saying Trump knew anything but he had a strange group of people that no one had ever heard of SUDDENLY involved in his campaign ALL OF WHOM had either taken money from the Russians or had contacts with Russian operatives.....Flynn.... ..Manafort........Carter Page.......ALL OF WHOM LIED about their contacts with the Russians......

The author of this thread has seriously got his head in the sand............
Report to moderator   Logged
polychronopolous
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16866

In Loving Memory of 240 aka Rob


« Reply #15 on: May 20, 2017, 08:36:31 AM »

If The Democrats are truly wanting to continue to hitch their trailer to this type of shady reporting it will likely be Trump who benefits long term.

NEWSPAPERS RUNNING STORIES BASED ON SOURCES THEY ADMITTEDLY CAN'T VERIFY




The common element in nearly all the major New York Times and Washington Post stories about President Donald Trump this week is that they are based on source documents the outlets cannot authenticate, do not possess, admit are partial, and refuse to share.
Friday’s supposed “bombshell” stories follow the same pattern. The Times reports that Trump told the visiting Russians that former FBI director James Comey was a “nut job,” and that firing him had eased “pressure” in his ability to conduct foreign policy — though the Times takes Trump to mean the legal pressure of the investigation. (That spin makes no sense: firing Comey created more pressure, which was so obvious the Russians joked about it.)

The Times describes its source as “a document summarizing the meeting” that was “circulated” (it does not say by whom). The Times does not have the document. An “American official” simply “read quotations” to the Times.

The Post‘s story, which reports that the probe into potential ties between Russia and the Trump campaign has reached “someone close to the president,” cites “people familiar with the matter.” That does not prove the story is untrue, but the sources are so flimsy that there is no way to have confidence in what the Post calls its “revelation.”

Earlier this week, the Post reported that House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) told a meeting of fellow House Republican leaders: “I think Putin pays [Trump].” According to those present, the remark was a joke. The Post‘s source was an audio recording of the conversation which it did not have in its actual possession, and which it refuses to share with the public so that people can judge for themselves. The Post did publish a transcript, which it does not appear to have produced itself. The transcript actually supports the claim that McCarthy was joking. The Post‘s reporter has insisted that McCarthy meant his remark to be taken seriously, but refuses to provide the audio.

And the day before that, the Times published the now-infamous story that Trump had “asked” Comey to end the investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The source was purportedly a memorandum that Comey wrote about his recollection of a conversation with Trump. But the Times did not share the memo, and never even saw the document. It merely relied on a Comey “associate” who “read parts of it to a Times reporter.”

These four stories, taken together, are said by the mainstream media to build a powerful case that Trump committed obstruction of justice and may soon face impeachment. But every piece of evidence could be made up or distorted, and there would be no way to know. In the “nut job” case, the White House has not disputed that Trump made the comment, but it may not be able to explain the context, because doing so would mean releasing more details of a classified conversation that touched on “highly classified” national security matters (as the Post reported on Monday.)

In their effort to impugn Trump, the Times and the Post violate the most basic journalistic standards. Publishing parts of a document that you do not possess and cannot verify, and timing the release to cause maximum political damage (right after the president leaves the country), is not investigative journalism. It is political propaganda.

It is the mirror image of what the Los Angeles Times did in April 2008, when it published a story referring to a speech then-State Senator Barack Obama gave at a farewell celebration for radical Palestinian-American academic Rashid Khalidi in 2003. The Times was given a video of the speech, but refused to publish the video. Instead, it offered a mere summary, raising suspicions that the Times had sanitized the event to protect Obama’s presidential campaign.

The pattern is the same, from the Khalidi tape to the “nut job” story. For the elite mainstream media, when it comes to protecting Democrats or attacking Republicans, there are no journalistic standards, no ethics, and no shame.
Report to moderator   Logged
mazrim
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3095



« Reply #16 on: May 20, 2017, 09:07:08 AM »

Russia (as well as lots of others) did anything and everything when Obama was in power. They wouldn't want a change in power.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17528


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #17 on: May 20, 2017, 10:02:49 AM »

It can't be just a CT because the FBI is deeply investigating this.....I'm not saying Trump knew anything but he had a strange group of people that no one had ever heard of SUDDENLY involved in his campaign ALL OF WHOM had either taken money from the Russians or had contacts with Russian operatives.....Flynn.... ..Manafort........Carter Page.......ALL OF WHOM LIED about their contacts with the Russians......

The author of this thread has seriously got his head in the sand............

Andre - for a guy who defended o-twinks telling Medvedez about leniency to negotiate after he election - you have some set of tits complaining now.
Report to moderator   Logged
Top Poodle
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2728


No trannies allowed.


« Reply #18 on: May 20, 2017, 04:09:07 PM »

It can't be just a CT because the FBI is deeply investigating this.....I'm not saying Trump knew anything but he had a strange group of people that no one had ever heard of SUDDENLY involved in his campaign ALL OF WHOM had either taken money from the Russians or had contacts with Russian operatives.....Flynn.... ..Manafort........Carter Page.......ALL OF WHOM LIED about their contacts with the Russians......

The author of this thread has seriously got his head in the sand............

Please tell me what you think Russia did, or could have done, that was so malicious.

....... I'll be waiting a very long time for you to come up with something real.
Report to moderator   Logged
bigbenchman
Getbig I
*
Posts: 5


« Reply #19 on: May 20, 2017, 05:56:42 PM »

We know Hillary and Podesta had more shady deals with the Russians such as the uranium deal etc. We know Hillery committed multiple felonies with her email scandal. We had fast and furious and the irs scandal
Where's the special prosecutor ?? What a fuckin joke
Report to moderator   Logged
TuHolmes
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5552


Bitch... Go apply for a 'fatport'


« Reply #20 on: May 20, 2017, 06:03:28 PM »

We know Hillary and Podesta had more shady deals with the Russians such as the uranium deal etc. We know Hillery committed multiple felonies with her email scandal. We had fast and furious and the irs scandal
Where's the special prosecutor ?? What a fuckin joke

The uranium deal was a deal by a lot of angencies. I think 5 or so.

It wasn't a Hillary or Podesta deal.
Report to moderator   Logged
mazrim
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3095



« Reply #21 on: May 22, 2017, 04:38:51 AM »

https://static.theintercept.com/amp/key-democratic-officials-now-warning-base-not-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion.html


"FROM MSNBC POLITICS shows to town hall meetings across the country, the overarching issue for the Democratic Party’s base since Trump’s victory has been Russia, often suffocating attention for other issues. This fixation has persisted even though it has no chance to sink the Trump presidency unless it is proven that high levels of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Kremlin to manipulate the outcome of the U.S. election — a claim for which absolutely no evidence has thus far been presented.

The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies — just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected — that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed...."
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52244

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #22 on: May 22, 2017, 12:42:28 PM »


Let's say you're judging a talent competition. You've got two contestants: one a classically trained pianist who's been playing for decades and the other a self-taught pianist who started playing a few weeks ago. Most people are assuming the trained pianist will win. You approach both of them and say "Hey,I can make sure there are some problems with the sound system during the other guy's performance, but you gotta give me half of your prize money." Assuming both want to win equally as badly, who is more likely to reciprocate? The frontrunner or the person who appears not to  have a shot in hell?


Now let's say the trained pianist has said some pretty nasty things about you in the past and you two have a pretty bad relationship. Meanwhile, the underdog pianist has said a lot of flattering things about you. Which of the two contestants would you be more interested in helping: the one with whom you have a bad relationship or the one who has said nothing but kind things about you?


Now let's say you have a small business that hasn't been doing that well lately. If the winner of this contest decided to come by your store and mention it in their victory speech, that could really help you out. Who would be more likely to want to go the extra mile for you? The frontrunner who was probably going to win anyway and doesn't really care for you too much? Or the underdog who probably wouldn't have won without you.

I'm sure your answer is that both are just as likely to take you up on your offer and you probably have some new, bizarre definitions for "pianist", "contest" and "underdog" that prove it, but most people operating in reality would say that there's a clear difference between how receptive each party would be in each configuration because there's a clear difference in how much there is to gain for each party in each configuration. Whatever influence Russia had over the election wasn't a zero sum proposition.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.  What the heck did I just read??  A pianist???  If I was a violent person and within arm's length distance I would smack you upside the head for making me read this crap.   Angry

Dealing with the actual real world facts, what is the crime, who committed it, and where is the evidence of this purported crime?  
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52244

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #23 on: May 22, 2017, 12:42:48 PM »

What the fuck are you babbling about?

Right? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52244

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #24 on: May 22, 2017, 12:43:27 PM »

None of them can even verbalize what they think this collusion actually is.

The irony is they're pretending to be worried about Russia compromising the country, whereas they are the ones doing it themselves.

But fuck, maybe that's exactly what they want  Cheesy

Exactly.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!