Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
timschochet

Conspiracy Theories

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Don't Noonan said:

95% of the echo chamber thought he was colluding with Russia and the Mueller report would nail him.  The Mueller report was awesome for Trump because it said no proven collusion/conspiracy with Russia.

This really has nothing to do with what I wrote. Are you now saying that you no longer believe the Mueller Report exonerates Trump? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, moleculo said:

is there anything tying Crowdstrike to Ukraine?  anything at all, besides internet randos thinking Dmitri Alperovitch is Ukranian?

Their webmaster is Ukrainian.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are all conspiracy theories fair game here? 

Can we talk about aliens and anal probes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is as much evidence of the existence of the pee tape as there is of tue Crowdstrike crap and DNC server in Ukraine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

There is as much evidence of the existence of the pee tape as there is of tue Crowdstrike crap and DNC server in Ukraine.

I would say the tape is far more credible. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bucky86 said:

Are all conspiracy theories fair game here? 

Can we talk about aliens and anal probes?

:popcorn:

 

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bucky86 said:

Are all conspiracy theories fair game here? 

Can we talk about aliens and anal probes?

I believe the impeachment investigation is an anal probe.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, sho nuff said:

There is as much evidence of the existence of the pee tape as there is of tue Crowdstrike crap and DNC server in Ukraine.

It’s a wee bit more credible considering the Trump campaign communicated about it months before the Steele dossier even became known. It may or may not exist but the campaign sure seemed to think it existed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...still no links to back up the claims about the server...Crowdstrike being the only ones to inspect the dnc “server”...and so on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sho, let me help you out because you are making false accusations again.  Saints asked what the Ukraine theory was with Crowdstrike and I posted a detailed analysis of that theory.  I never said I fully believed it or had links.  Unlike you, I tend to wait until the facts present themselves before making up my mind on something.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Don't Noonan said:

Sho, let me help you out because you are making false accusations again.  Saints asked what the Ukraine theory was with Crowdstrike and I posted a detailed analysis of that theory.  I never said I fully believed it or had links.  Unlike you, I tend to wait until the facts present themselves before making up my mind on something.  

No accusation against have made is false...never has been and that is yet another bogus assertion by you.

You presented those things as fact and ran away once they were questioned.

Detailed analysis...you posted a bunch of false claims.

And you posted the same thing word for word on another board ( as I saw when i searched the text to find out where you may have copied it from).

Care to go back ams answer questions that were posted about what you had said and cote some things as we have been asked by moderation to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

No accusation against have made is false...never has been and that is yet another bogus assertion by you.

You presented those things as fact and ran away once they were questioned.

Detailed analysis...you posted a bunch of false claims.

And you posted the same thing word for word on another board ( as I saw when i searched the text to find out where you may have copied it from).

Care to go back ams answer questions that were posted about what you had said and cote some things as we have been asked by moderation to do?

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say in this post and I read it three times.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Don't Noonan said:

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say in this post and I read it three times.

Stop...its plenty clear and the questions that have been asked and ignored are clear.  This is not honest discussion by you...please stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don't Noonan said:

Sho, let me help you out because you are making false accusations again.  Saints asked what the Ukraine theory was with Crowdstrike and I posted a detailed analysis of that theory.  I never said I fully believed it or had links.  Unlike you, I tend to wait until the facts present themselves before making up my mind on something.  

I'm assuming you are still waiting for the facts to present themselves that Ted Cruz's father was part of the JFK assassination?*

*another conspiracy theory put forth by Trump.  seriously

Quote

 

“His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's being — you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous,” Trump said Tuesday during a phone interview with Fox News. “What is this, right prior to his being shot, and nobody even brings it up. They don't even talk about that. That was reported, and nobody talks about it.”

“I mean, what was he doing — what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death? Before the shooting?” Trump continued. “It’s horrible.”

 

 

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2019 at 11:38 AM, Don't Noonan said:

The whole premise of the Russians hacking the DNC server was to get dirt on Hillary to help Trump.  The DNC 'hired' Crowdstrike, a forensic intelligence company to 'determine' how  those emails got out.  Crowdstrike has DEEP ties to Hillary and the DNC through its founder.

To date, Crowdstrike was the entity allowed to examine the alleged server.  The FBI 'requested' to do so (did they?) but were rebuffed and ultimately only received a partial draft of Crowdstrike's report, not the final product.  Knowing that the FBI kicks in doors to seize evidence and given the possibility of affecting a National election, why didn't the FBI seize the server?  Why take Crowdstrike's word for what occurred, especially given their ties to the DNC/Hillary?

The ICA (Intelligence Community Association) written by Clapper's  hand picked squad based a great deal of their report on the DNC server being hacked.  The rest is mostly news stories that were quite possibly leaked to the media by Fusion GPS, Brennan, i.e.circular reporting or unsubstantiated rumors.  The DNI, CIA, and FBI (Clapper, Brennan, and Comey - all under criminal investigation right now) expressed high confidence in that assessment with the sole dissenter being Admiral Rodgers (NSA Director).  Admiral Rodgers was the guy who went and warned Trump about the illegal surveillance on him whereby Clapper tried to get him fired.

Mueller used the ICA as well as the server hack as a cornerstone to his report.  Take away the DNC hack and the ICA is nothing more than unsubstantiated rumors most liked ginned up by Clapper/Brennan and Hillary's hacks Sid Bleumenthal, etc. to feed to Glenn Simpson/Fusion GPS.

There are computer experts who proved the download speeds the emails were taken could not have been anything but local access at the DNC i.e. an inside job.  That gives credence to the Seth Rich story which is a can of worms.

Can you please answer questions on these claims.

A.  Please cite where Crowdstrike was the only one to examine things...I believe this is false.  Also, please show where the FBI only received a partial draft of the report and not data copies (along with other agencies who received such copies).

B.  Why would the server be in Ukraine...and why is the theory surrounding one server...as if there was not more than one?

C. Please cite this information about download speeds...this has been shown to be false multiple times.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't see what this exercise -- and it is constant as a reader -- is attempting to do.

It seems awfully futile, this debate with DN about conspiracy stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I really don't see what this exercise -- and it is constant as a reader -- is attempting to do.

It seems awfully futile, this debate with DN about conspiracy stuff.

To show he is here in good faith and not just spreading false stories and propaganda?

It probably is futile to give the benefit of the doubt that he is willing  to engage in actual discussion 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

To show he is here in good faith and not just spreading false stories and propaganda?

It probably is futile to give the benefit of the doubt that he is willing  to engage in actual discussion 

So when you don't respond to questions asked of you, it's proof you aren't here for discussion in good faith?  Good to know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

To show he is here in good faith and not just spreading false stories and propaganda?

It probably is futile to give the benefit of the doubt that he is willing  to engage in actual discussion 

:goodposting:

the other option is he really believes them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

:goodposting:

the other option is he really believes them

And that stuff needs to be exposed and refuted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

So when you don't respond to questions asked of you, it's proof you aren't here for discussion in good faith?  Good to know.

When they're repeated, from multiple different questioners, and are directly related to the truthfulness of your claims? Yeah.

Noonan has pretty clearly shown that he's not interested in actual discussion. In the spirit of Joe's civility plea I tried on this exact same subject just a few days ago. After I pointed out several critical flaws in the "theory," he tried to wriggle out of responsibility for the stuff he spreads by saying he didn't necessarily "agree with" it. A day or two later he's in this thread repeating the same things I challenged him on, with no caveat about whether he believes it or not. He's looking for reactions and doesn't care that the things he says are untrue. I'd pull out that Sarte quote but I don't want to be accused of calling him an anti-semite or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, mcintyre1 said:

When they're repeated, from multiple different questioners, and are directly related to the truthfulness of your claims? Yeah.

Noonan has pretty clearly shown that he's not interested in actual discussion. In the spirit of Joe's civility plea I tried on this exact same subject just a few days ago. After I pointed out several critical flaws in the "theory," he tried to wriggle out of responsibility for the stuff he spreads by saying he didn't necessarily "agree with" it. A day or two later he's in this thread repeating the same things I challenged him on, with no caveat about whether he believes it or not. He's looking for reactions and doesn't care that the things he says are untrue. I'd pull out that Sarte quote but I don't want to be accused of calling him an anti-semite or something.

Forget it...the guy knows i have him on ignore...knows I wont respond...and complains that I won’t  answer his questions.

To compare that to DN engaging in discussion and then ignoring challenge to assertions he has made is just the typical crap and one of many reasons uts not worth trying with that poster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sho nuff said:

And that stuff needs to be exposed and refuted.

It already has been...a billion times now....I think there is basically ZERO value in engaging him anymore.  I know I'm trying my best, but last week I had some REALLY boring meetings :bag: 

ETA:  And I meant to :goodposting: rock on that last one....my bad.

Edited by The Commish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Commish said:

It already has been...a billion times now....I think there is basically ZERO value in engaging him anymore.  I know I'm trying my best, but last week I had some REALLY boring meetings :bag: 

ETA:  And I meant to :goodposting: rock on that last one....my bad.

Commish (or Rock), do you or did you actually understand the Presidents' claim? Do you know what it is?

Everyone got Nixon, right? He had nothing to do with the coverup, end of story. When it was determined he was involved, that was the end of that. - By contrast do you understand what's going on here?

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Commish (or Rock), do you or did you actually understand the Presidents' claim? Do you know what it is?

Everyone got Nixon, right? He had nothing to do with the coverup, end of story. When it was determined he was involved, that was the end of that. - By contrast do you understand what's going on here?

The President or DN? We were talking about DN in those posts.  Not sure what you're asking about regarding the President.  Which "claim" of the President's are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Commish (or Rock), do you or did you actually understand the Presidents' claim? Do you know what it is?

Everyone got Nixon, right? He had nothing to do with the coverup, end of story. When it was determined he was involved, that was the end of that. - By contrast do you understand what's going on here?

As I understand it, the President's claim is that he has the right to use the power of the Presidency investigate his personal theories of corruption (and to coerce other countries to help him), even if those theories serve only to help him on a personal level, even if the theories are demonstrably and laughably false.

What cracks me up about DN and similar acolytes is that they conveniently ignore the part about the theories being debunked (no matter how honestly SiD tries to engage them). That's how you know that they are either not engaging in a good faith discussion, or that they are unwilling or unable to comprehend the sincere arguments which challenge their worldview. That's their "tell".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, The Commish said:

The President or DN? We were talking about DN in those posts.  Not sure what you're asking about regarding the President.  Which "claim" of the President's are you referring to?

Lol this is exactly the problem - that is the President's claims. They are, and I am not kidding because it comes straight from the whacko pages:

  • Crowdstrike stole the DNC server and is hiding it in Ukraine.
  • CIA Director Brennan set up Trump using Mifsud as bait to entrap Papadopoulos and start the spying campaign.

There is no separation here, that's what's going on in the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Lol this is exactly the problem - that is the President's claims. They are, and I am not kidding because it comes straight from the whacko pages:

  • Crowdstrike stole the DNC server and is hiding it in Ukraine.
  • CIA Director Brennan set up Trump using Mifsud as bait to entrap Papadopoulos and start the spying campaign.

There is no separation here, that's what's going on in the White House.

oh...yeah, I am aware of the President's claims.  I'm not sure DN is or understands what he's repeating.  That's why I was asking.  It's full on "this is what happens when a person with no knowledge of foreign policy buys in 100% to conspiracy theories they read on the internet" type stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump seized on a conspiracy theory called the 'insurance policy.' Now, it's at the center of an impeachment investigation.

Quote

 

Just months after Trump’s inauguration, conspiracy theorists pushed a fanciful and unsubstantiated narrative in which the DNC framed Russia for election interference.

An anonymous post from March 2017 on the far-right 4chan message board teased a conspiracy theory that would eventually make its way to the White House.

“Russia could not have been the source of leaked Democrat emails released by Wikileaks,” the post teased, not citing any evidence for the assertion.

The post baselessly insinuated that CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm that worked with the Democratic National Committee and had been contracted to investigate a hack of its servers, fabricated a forensics report to frame Russia for election interference. The 4chan post was published three days before then-FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

And that was how it started. That post is the first known written evidence of this unfounded conspiracy theory to exonerate Russia from meddling in the 2016 election, which more than two years later would make its way into the telephone call that may get President Donald Trump impeached. (Federal law enforcement officials have repeatedly made it clear that Russia unquestionably did meddle in the election.)

In the years that followed the original 4chan post, at least three different but related conspiracy theories would warp and combine on the fringes of the internet, eventually coalescing around Ukraine’s supposed role in helping Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Ukraine wasn’t originally part of the theory, but in July, Trump floated CrowdStrike’s name during a call with the president of Ukraine as just one piece of a convoluted conspiracy accusation. That phone call is now at the center of a congressional investigation and impeachment inquiry into whether the president abused his power for political gain. ...

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 3:31 PM, Maurile Tremblay said:
Quote

In September, an obscure Twitter account promoting a fringe belief about an anti-Trump cabal within the government tweeted out a hashtag: #FakeWhistleblower.

....Then Mr. Trump tweeted the hashtag himself. ...

- This is a really thick piece, and it' important, and it's really disturbing what is going on in the presidency right now.

But just on this point alone something that is going on is that the White House and the President are being influenced from the ground up, and the effect of that is a massive rebroadcasting of the message from the Presidency of the US.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

@Don't Noonan - I would love to discuss this subject with you sometime thoroughly. Just let me know.

Aren't we already discussing it in the impeachment thread?  Is there  different conspiracy theory besides the Russia one which we have beaten to death?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Aren't we already discussing it in the impeachment thread?  Is there  different conspiracy theory besides the Russia one which we have beaten to death?

Which one do you think is crazier? Crowdstrike or Burisma? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don't Noonan said:

Aren't we already discussing it in the impeachment thread?  Is there  different conspiracy theory besides the Russia one which we have beaten to death?

I think discussing it here allows fuller discussion without bothering people. I guess my starting point is that Trump and his supporters are pushing out information from people like Firtash, Parnas & Fruman, and their associates, it’s just laundered disinformation.

And the President is represented by the same person representing these oligarch interests. I think it’s also really striking that Firtash has been represented by DiGenova & Toensing, who has also been representing John Solomon.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.