Jump to content
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

Hate to bring up politics, but breaking news of Trump's alleged omorashi dealings in Russia


Recommended Posts

On 1/11/2017 at 11:18 AM, KozmoFox said:

CNN's owner, Time Warner, was one of Clinton's biggest campaign donors.

Also, did you see the thing that just happened where a CNN journalist flipped his goddamn shit when Trump pointed out one of their stories was false? Guy lost his mind and was demanding Trumps attention and disrupting everything. Got shut down when Trump called CNN fake news and the entire section of journalists started clapping. It was pure comedy gold.

( @Lisk please tell me you saw it)

Not only did I see it, Kozmo, but I laughed my ass off at it :) it was probably the lulziest thing I've ever seen. The butthurt is so delicious! By the way hun, when's the next lotto??? Can't wait!

Link to comment
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

People will make up anything these days. Buzz Feed is not a reliable source.... I really don't believe this.  

Even if he was into Omorashi, it wouldn't make him any more of a likeable person. 

Trumporashi.

Posted Images

From what I can gather, this was trolling from /pol/ that got out of hand. All I know is that this year is going to be nuts. I guarantee there's going to be more controversies like this boiling up because there are many people who'd love to get Trump impeached. And I will be in the background eating popcorn and laughing.

Link to comment

It bothers me that of all the shit he's done, stolen land, dodged taxis, cheated workers, stoked racism, drove up the arms race etc - the thing that gets a 'gate' and becomes a twitter hashtag involves golden showers. Apart from the playground point-and-laugh sexual prudishness and casual disregard of the humanity of the sex workers involved, it annoyed me the same way as David Cameron allegedly possibly shagging a pig corpse and that becoming more of a sensation than any of the cuts he presided over, whil the NHS is being gutted. The internet is a fickle place of vacuousness and voyeurism

Link to comment
22 hours ago, supernerd222 said:

Russia/Putin has compromising information on Trump and has been manipulating him throughout the election. I base this on the reputations of the people and organizations who have taken this document seriously, the plausibility of the story it tells, and the reactions of the various interested parties after the story broke.

The God-Emperor of Mankind did do that indeed. That's what the documents say, right? Reputations mean nothing, since killarists are going all-in at this monent, but still. According to this so-called "report", US is just another Bananastan, where elections can be swayed be an outside force as it wants them to be swayed. Killary didn't lose because it called half of its electoral base "deplorables" and was generally retarded, it lost because of the dreaded Russian Hackers. Isn't. That. Cute? I'd cuddle it and tell it that everything will be okay, if it wasn't twice as old as I am and therefore almost expired.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Lisk said:

The God-Emperor of Mankind did do that indeed. That's what the documents say, right? Reputations mean nothing, since killarists are going all-in at this monent, but still. According to this so-called "report", US is just another Bananastan, where elections can be swayed be an outside force as it wants them to be swayed. Killary didn't lose because it called half of its electoral base "deplorables" and was generally retarded, it lost because of the dreaded Russian Hackers. Isn't. That. Cute? I'd cuddle it and tell it that everything will be okay, if it wasn't twice as old as I am and therefore almost expired.

Your arguments are sound, and I don't think I'm a good enough at debate to win against you, but would you like to make a little political bet? My offer of a tit-for-tat on posting a redaction in this thread still stands if you're not comfortable risking money. Or I'd even be willing to place some bitcoin or dollars on the table about this. I made a bet with another one of my friends: one bitcoin to me if the Trump administration directly causes a major adverse international incident between Jan 20th and May 31st 2017. Would you be interested in something similar regarding this dossier? We can work out some agreeable terms of victory and a timeline. It should be easy money if you're as sure as you sound.

Link to comment

If people could start focusing on the fact that the person who is president in a week refused to even interact with a journalist because there was some article from the same organisation, which that journalist probably had no part in, that he didn't like, that would be great. He just keeps on repeating the media are wrong without anything to back it up and is making sure critical press isn't heard for as far as he can control it. That's why that reporter lost his shit. He didn't lose his shit over Trump's claim about the article, and rightly so because there wouldn't be any journalistic value to it at that moment if he did. 

Edited by TheGreatNobody (see edit history)
Link to comment
8 hours ago, supernerd222 said:

Your arguments are sound, and I don't think I'm a good enough at debate to win against you, but would you like to make a little political bet? My offer of a tit-for-tat on posting a redaction in this thread still stands if you're not comfortable risking money. Or I'd even be willing to place some bitcoin or dollars on the table about this. I made a bet with another one of my friends: one bitcoin to me if the Trump administration directly causes a major adverse international incident between Jan 20th and May 31st 2017. Would you be interested in something similar regarding this dossier? We can work out some agreeable terms of victory and a timeline. It should be easy money if you're as sure as you sound.

But I didn't deny that Trump woud cause some kind of an international crisis. He's is by any means no dove. It's just that his focus would be shifted towards China. The focus of attention is shifting, and that's good for me. The more imbalance, the better. However, I don't think that the incident would happen this soon. It will take time. By "incident" I mean something really major, like the stance of the US on Iranian nuclear deal, EU/NATO policy and Obama's anti-Russian sanctions. Starting yet another war in the Middle East also counts. I say that these events are unlikely to take place until the middle of this year. Let's say July 4th (for no real reason, I just like it). If it happens sooner than that, or if it doesn't happen at all until the end of Trum's term, I'd be very, very surprised. I'm already surprised that Trump was allowed to be elected (or that Obama failed to crown its successor), so who knows? Realistically speaking, we should give him at least a month on the real duty before we start making predictions. But that shouldn't stop us from gambling. No major disaster-inducing incident in the international relationships between US and another country that would lead to bloodshed will happen until the 4th of July, 2017. I've said it in lime green that only russian hackers can use. If it does happen, that would mean that I've lost and people died. In that case, I'd post a redaction.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Lisk said:

No major disaster-inducing incident in the international relationships between US and another country that would lead to bloodshed will happen until the 4th of July, 2017.

Do acts of terrorism count if they're explicitly in response to the actions of the Trump administration? (they do in my other bet)

I want to do one about this dossier too though. I think I would be convinced that it's bogus if two U.S. intelligence agencies make statements to that effect, AND two of CBC, BBC, and Al-Jazeera publish non-opinion pieces which accept that conclusion as fact. Is there anything - short of Trump admitting it all, cause that's never going to happen - that would convince you of the truth of these allegations?

 

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, supernerd222 said:

Do acts of terrorism count if they're explicitly in response to the actions of the Trump administration? (they do in my other bet)

I want to do one about this dossier too though. I think I would be convinced that it's bogus if two U.S. intelligence agencies make statements to that effect, AND two of CBC, BBC, and Al-Jazeera publish non-opinion pieces which accept that conclusion as fact. Is there anything - short of Trump admitting it all, cause that's never going to happen - that would convince you of the truth of these allegations?

 

Despite their claims, terrorists rarely do what they do in response to something. They're terrorists, they're doing their things to promote themselves and make themselves look stronger. When radical islamists attacked radical democrats from Charlie Hebdo, they didn't do so because of so-called art produced by charlists that insulted their religion. They were sent there by their superiors to give a message: "We can kill you in your own country and there's nothing you can do about it. Fear us." Besides, fighting against terrorism is what any administration would have done. Iraqi forces and international coalition that supports them began their attempts to kick DAISH from Mosul under Obama's watch, and it would be silly to think that DAISH won't try to retaliate. Stopping them from doing so is the reason why police and special forces exist.

But if, say, Mexicans try to protest against building The Wall (C)(R)(TM) and their riots go out of hand to the point where the government will have to use military force to stop them, and there will be casualties among the uninvolved, that counts.

As for the dossier, no. DDB and Al-Jazeera are prodemocratic to the core, and even if they weren't, the current state of media in general leaves much to be desired. I wouldn't even believe Trump himself if he admits it. Especially if he does admit it. We'll probably never learn whether it really happened or not, unless someone leaks a video of it actually happening, so let's believe what we believe in.

 

Bernie ;_;

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Downjacket said:

To flip it around, what would convince you they're fake?


And could a mod maybe move this thread to the off topic forum? It's not really about wetting anymore.

In the sentence preceding the one you quoted, I talked about a scenario in which I'd be convinced they're fake. There are others, but that's the most likely one I can think of. What would it take to convince you that it's real?

Incidentally, I started a topic on this in off-topic, but this is the one that took off.

4 hours ago, Lisk said:

Despite their claims, terrorists rarely do what they do in response to something. They're terrorists, they're doing their things to promote themselves and make themselves look stronger.

They do it to terrorize people. When people are scared, they do dumb things. It de-stabilizes the fabric of society and makes people more willing to sacrifice freedom for security. Eventually, when a population is scared enough, it starts breeding xenophobia and fascism, a repressive regime takes power, and the terrorists win. Of course, this could never happen in the states: the USA is kind of exceptional in that it's the country that values freedom the most. Besides, the whole electoral system was specifically engineered to prevent tyrants from taking power, so fascism can never be a threat.

Anyway, if a terrorist group attacked a Trump property outside of the U.S., their intentions would be clear, no?

Quote

As for the dossier, no. DDB and Al-Jazeera are prodemocratic to the core, and even if they weren't, the current state of media in general leaves much to be desired. I wouldn't even believe Trump himself if he admits it. Especially if he does admit it. We'll probably never learn whether it really happened or not, unless someone leaks a video of it actually happening, so let's believe what we believe in.

Given how strongly you believe that the dossier is a hoax with the scant evidence available, I think you're setting the bar unreasonably high for being convinced otherwise.

Link to comment
On 15.01.2017 at 5:06 AM, supernerd222 said:

Given how strongly you believe that the dossier is a hoax with the scant evidence available, I think you're setting the bar unreasonably high for being convinced otherwise.

Ah, I apologize for not explaining my reasoning here. While pulling an Umineko-type gambit is one of my goals, it is not the cause for that. The actual issue is not my belief, but my disbelief, as my opinion of official media in general took a nosedive over the course of this electoral period. The official media, both liberal and conservative (but especially liberal) sources were sticking to a certain pattern way too many times. Here's how it goes:

A: "According to CIA, X is Y. They have the evidence, but they refuse to disclose it for secrecy reasons."

B: ""X is Y" - reveals CIA sourse that preferred to remain anonymous. What could it mean? Our opinion on the recent article by A's reporter."

C: "According to A and B, X is Y."

D-F: "X is Y! X is Y! X is Y!"

Repeat ad nauseam. Therefore, while I normally prefer to gather data on the subjects that interest me from multiple sources that represent both sides, this time I'm just going with the flow. The noise to signal ratio is too high to even bother, and the assorted "experts" are basically nonfactors. Luckily, we're not those "experts" and we're doing it solely for our mutual amusement, so it's okay.

 

Little girl: "Waaah! I didn't pee in my panties! Russian hackers on steroids peed in them!"

 

Someday I'll seriously write a story like that

On 15.01.2017 at 5:06 AM, supernerd222 said:

They do it to terrorize people. When people are scared, they do dumb things. It de-stabilizes the fabric of society and makes people more willing to sacrifice freedom for security. Eventually, when a population is scared enough, it starts breeding xenophobia and fascism, a repressive regime takes power, and the terrorists win. Of course, this could never happen in the states: the USA is kind of exceptional in that it's the country that values freedom the most. Besides, the whole electoral system was specifically engineered to prevent tyrants from taking power, so fascism can never be a threat.

Debatable, but I think that there was already a discussion about that before and ultimately everyone agreed to disagree, so there's not much to add.

On 15.01.2017 at 5:06 AM, supernerd222 said:

Anyway, if a terrorist group attacked a Trump property outside of the U.S., their intentions would be clear, no?

Indeed. Attacking the property of the president (regardless of who that president is) is a very clear signal. Their issue, however, would not be with Trump as a person, but with Trump as the leader of the army that is officially fighting with against them.

 

Link to comment

I think we are seeing 'the future'   if you want to trash somebody, it used to be that you report that they liked 'gay sex in dirty public toilets with unwashed druggy scumbags'....now that sort of thing is mainstream with actors and singers being caught doing it, so it does not have the shocking effect anymore....so what do you do look for? something that is perceived as even dirtier??  roll on the 'golden showers' (to be honest something that although I love to lick a girl's pussy through her panties while she pees in them) I draw the line at (being peed all over or peeing all over another being)   So it was normal for 'them' to come up with something like this......somewhere in the past, I wrote another post saying that more and more stars and people who rely on pics in the media and who just are not getting the coverage they used to will resort to peeing their panties in public and saying 'Oh my god cameraman look over here at what I just done and it was an accident and poor little me,  I just couldn't help it"   since that post the Kylie Jenner pics came out........not as blatant as Le Bucherettes lead singer and maybe even just a spilled drink?   but it got the desired effect and photos all over the world.   I predict that many more will resort to peeing their pants or faking it, not because they are 'one of us'...but because any publicity is good publicity. 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Lisk said:

Ah, I apologize for not explaining my reasoning here. While pulling an Umineko-type gambit is one of my goals, it is not the cause for that. The actual issue is not my belief, but my disbelief, as my opinion of official media in general took a nosedive over the course of this electoral period.

It's completely fine to be skeptical and wait for further evidence. But I was under the impression you believed this all to be a 4chan hoax. Was I mistaken? Do you have a pet theory on who came up with this stuff if wasn't 4chan or objective reality?

12 hours ago, Spurgle said:

The BBC only do opinions. They don't care about facts.

I went on BBC and picked the first Trump-related non-opinion piece I could spot. Here it is. I tried, but I can't spot the bias in the reporting. Could you help me understand how that piece pushes an agenda?

Link to comment
11 hours ago, supernerd222 said:

It's completely fine to be skeptical and wait for further evidence. But I was under the impression you believed this all to be a 4chan hoax. Was I mistaken? Do you have a pet theory on who came up with this stuff if wasn't 4chan or objective reality?

No pet theories yet, unfortunately, but when I encounter dubious information in the mainstream media and don't have enough data to create a solid theory, my first thought is cui prodest. Since media manipulation is what the democrats are good at, and given the large-scale media attack on Trump, it is likely to be a part of their campaign. What is the opposite of Putin's trolls from Putin's troll factories? Obama's elves? Those guys, for the reason stated in the post above. In that sense, it doesn't even matter where it started. What does matter is the fact that it started to spread.

However, as the traditional media outlets have started to lose their credibility, social networks quickly began to catch up. Which is not surprising, really - you can choose any truth you want. I wonder if the future historians would see DNC and GOP as the branches of some kind of religion, like Shia and Sunni muslims or the branches of Christian church, but I digress. 4chan can be accessed by anyone and it already had that Piss For Equality prank thing, so I wouldn't be surprised if this scenario also started there. But, as I said, it doesn't really matter. It's like the zombie outbreak: even if you find the Patient Zero, secure them and use them to create the cure, it wouldn't change the fact that the world is already screwed up.

Link to comment

I'm way less than sure that this report is legit - and I'm not a Trump supporter, just an actual leftist who isn't about to suddenly decide the security state is my friend because they're going after Trump - but I'm 98 percent sure the idea that it originated as a 4chan hoax is... a 4chan hoax. 

 

(Also while the "piss for equality" thing was a successful hoax in the sense that it got some media outlets to report it, it was not so much a success in the sense of getting a lot of real people who were not fake accounts to piss their pants!)

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Lisk said:

No pet theories yet, unfortunately, but when I encounter dubious information in the mainstream media and don't have enough data to create a solid theory, my first thought is cui prodest. Since media manipulation is what the democrats are good at, and given the large-scale media attack on Trump, it is likely to be a part of their campaign. What is the opposite of Putin's trolls from Putin's troll factories? Obama's elves? Those guys, for the reason stated in the post above.

What would the democrats stand to gain by pulling such a stunt at this stage of the game? And since the documents have been floating around since the summer, why wouldn't they do this gambit back then instead of now? Couldn't they have manipulated the media into reporting it just as much as they are now, but back when it could make a difference? Do you reckon John McCain and the related intelligence agencies are in on the con, or have they all been tricked?

Quote

Which is not surprising, really - you can choose any truth you want.

Naw. You can choose your own narrative to impose on the world, but some narratives eventually fail to line with actual objective reality. Recently, we've seen some people whose narratives stopped resembling the real world, and instead of changing their narratives, they withdrew from the real world to immerse themselves in perpetual confirmation bias (and yes, unfortunately, we saw this happen with a subset of the left along with a subset of the right). When a person gets their information from social media, they're not getting a reporter's approximation of reality - not even a biased approximation like one might get in a slanted news source. I'd describe it as more like an algorithm's approximation of the reader's pre-existing narrative. It doesn't serve to inform the reader - only to tickle the part of their brain that lights up when someone tells you that you're right about something.

1 hour ago, Mister_P said:

I'm way less than sure that this report is legit - and I'm not a Trump supporter, just an actual leftist who isn't about to suddenly decide the security state is my friend because they're going after Trump

The security state isn't our friend, but they're also the most credible voice that's audible right now. We don't have enough evidence to make a conclusion with certainty. However, if you take the evidence we do have and weight it by credibility, it's pointing towards legitimacy.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, supernerd222 said:

What would the democrats stand to gain by pulling such a stunt at this stage of the game? And since the documents have been floating around since the summer, why wouldn't they do this gambit back then instead of now? Couldn't they have manipulated the media into reporting it just as much as they are now, but back when it could make a difference?

Loss taking. They didn't expect to lose, not after the effort money they've spent and the media campaign they got. This is actually the weakest spot in my pet conspiracy theory; however, I can't help but think that the current team is desperately grasping at straws. I can't blame them, I was very surprised by Trump's victory myself, but this is probably the most hostile transition I've seen in my life. The usually indecisive Obama is literally doing everything in its power to make things harder for Trump in order to solidify as much of its achievements as possible. It almost reminds me of the time when George [the button above S is missing, please replace] Bush took the office.

14 hours ago, supernerd222 said:

Do you reckon John McCain and the related intelligence agencies are in on the con, or have they all been tricked?

I believe that John McCain is either in on the con, or his judgment is very clouded, given his past (especially the military service part of it), personality and his previous statements. I will elaborate further on that matter in the next post if you would like me to do so, because that would require digging up quite a bit of source material that I've had at some point, but didn't keep for the future use.

14 hours ago, supernerd222 said:

You can choose your own narrative to impose on the world, but some narratives eventually fail to line with actual objective reality. Recently, we've seen some people whose narratives stopped resembling the real world, and instead of changing their narratives, they withdrew from the real world to immerse themselves in perpetual confirmation bias (and yes, unfortunately, we saw this happen with a subset of the left along with a subset of the right). When a person gets their information from social media, they're not getting a reporter's approximation of reality - not even a biased approximation like one might get in a slanted news source. I'd describe it as more like an algorithm's approximation of the reader's pre-existing narrative. It doesn't serve to inform the reader - only to tickle the part of their brain that lights up when someone tells you that you're right about something.

Yes, that was my point exactly. But that brings us back to the media distrust issue I've brought up before. Where exactly should we draw the border between a biased opinion and a blatant lie?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

×
×
  • Create New...