Wikileaks Drops Bombshell Cia Provided Podesta Emails To Wikileaks Not Russia! [video]

a reply to: seasonal

Knew it. Glad as hell. Thanks guys!!

a reply to: theantediluvian

Trust is not, in truth, at issue. It's wheeled out as a convenient golden cow to be worshipped because it disarms rational questions about how trustworthiness is determined. What has happened here is that the far right has invented their own reality from whole cloth. It is satisfactory merely to assert that a source is mainstream to move it into the column of irrelevance. No other argument need be made. And if a source provides sufficient cooing sounds that reinforce the "virtue" of far-right politics, it is to be believed regardless of its provenance. If the liberal mosquitos like yourself or like myself are persistent enough in making the source unpleasantly demanding to defend, it will be silently abandoned and another one chosen. At no one point will the academically noble confession arrive: you're correct, this source is illegitimate, let's strike it. I participated passionately in several #PizzaGate threads and was easily able to underline blatant fabrications. Each and every time I did there was not a whisper of "Oh my, you're right! That's just not true! Let's remove that from the list and focus on these other sources." No. Instead I was accused of being part of a pedophile circle.

This is not now and never was about any honest perception of truth. It is a fundamentally post-truth political posture and it is one this world has seen before. Unfortunately, countless millions died last time it rose to prominance. I hope that we do better at heading this illness of this time.

Thank you for your tireless efforts in calmly arguing for the truth.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: underwerks

Why would they want to play favor with the lesser 1/2 of the people who voted? Not like we had 320,000,000 people vote and they are trying to curry favor with them.

Its more likely a psyop like pizzagate or any of the other fake news being spread by people that don't realize they're being used in doing so.

Just a way to watch how stories spread in the "new" media and fine tune their propaganda.

If there were any credible sources behind this, I wouldn't be so distrustful, but there aren't.

I have to agree with underwerks, I think everything on the news has been a psyop about the election, in fact I believe the entire election has been a psyop to cover up something. Did anyone notice the Democratic Party had a proven candidate while the republicans put up the worst candidate possible? It was if the republicans were throwing the election on purpose. This election had to be payment for something, something big.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: kaylaluv
Remember when all the poles showed Hillary was a for sure winner, and she was as good as POTUS?

No, not at all...(smiles)

Weren't you paying attention, the Russians were faking those reports.

sarc/

a reply to: AmbroseMachine

Who was the repubs best candidate?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: seasonal

Unnamed sources. I see. Sounds totally legit.

Why are you even on ATS when you don't consider any possibilities? Maybe just once, consider the information something that needs to be researched instead of immediately calling it bs? Just a thought.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I agree, this is called ATS, not perfect news stories cut up into perfect squares to ensure perfect digestion.

for a couple of weeks i have been lurking on other websites that are more actively researching stuff. confess i´m to freaked out and scared to click links or research on myself so it´s kinda impossible to know whats true or not by now. it´s horrible- that i understood. maybe i just dont find the right threads on ats ... but it seems that the real research is done on other websites

a reply to: glowdog
what web sites?

a reply to: seasonal

it just seems to me that the real digging is done elsewhere.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

What's imparticular mean. I can't find it in the dictionary.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

I understand the U.S. ordered drone strikes on less sure intelligence so I think they were pretty sure.

This is just more fake news from very questionable sources plus who believes this crap but tenth graders?

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: seasonal

Unnamed sources. I see. Sounds totally legit.

Why are you even on ATS when you don't consider any possibilities? Maybe just once, consider the information something that needs to be researched instead of immediately calling it bs? Just a thought.

That's not how critical thinking works, buddy. You don't just assume everything you read on the internet is true, unless there is verifiable evidence. Alex isn't providing that here.

I am on ATS to Deny Ignorance.

a reply to: Sillyolme

This is just more fake news from very questionable sources

Just like this fake news, correct...... ?



Just remember all you Hillary supporters still on ATS this sword cuts both ways.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

don't let the facts get into the way.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Just like this fake news, correct...... ?

Nope. The expression "fake news" refers to fictions designed to lure people into clicking on links for profit. Clickbait. You might not like CNN, but it is not clickbait.

originally posted by: AmbroseMachine

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: underwerks

Why would they want to play favor with the lesser 1/2 of the people who voted? Not like we had 320,000,000 people vote and they are trying to curry favor with them.

Its more likely a psyop like pizzagate or any of the other fake news being spread by people that don't realize they're being used in doing so.

Just a way to watch how stories spread in the "new" media and fine tune their propaganda.

If there were any credible sources behind this, I wouldn't be so distrustful, but there aren't.

I have to agree with underwerks, I think everything on the news has been a psyop about the election, in fact I believe the entire election has been a psyop to cover up something. Did anyone notice the Democratic Party had a proven candidate while the republicans put up the worst candidate possible? It was if the republicans were throwing the election on purpose. This election had to be payment for something, something big.

I FIGURED YOU OUT, In this dimension we did not see it that way. Insane people hating from the left is what is in this dimension, sorry if you have to deal with the opposite. In this dimension, logic is the truth and liars get outed after some defense by sycophant media.

ETA

Hillary a proven what, politician with a bad to just plain disgusting power trip fanaticism history? That candidate you mean?

and you probably laughed at Ron Paul.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Sillyolme

This is just more fake news from very questionable sources

Just like this fake news, correct...... ?

Just remember all you Hillary supporters still on ATS this sword cuts both ways.

This is not an example of fake news. It is an example of polling models that failed to accurately predict the outcome of the election. It may surprise you to learn that even strong models are guaranteed to produce failed predictions at least some of the time. As has been pointed out here, even Team Trump's internal models supported the notion that Clinton was likely to win. It has also been pointed out in this thread that Infowars has a long trail of poor predictions behind it. We are still not living under martial law and no one has been carted off to the purported FEMA detention camps.

Do you honestly not see the difference?

Regarding "Hillary supporters" that are still on ATS, you'd do well to remember that many opponents of Trump were at best reluctant Clinton supporters and many did not vote for Clinton at all. It's telling that you don't seem to acknowledge the difference between a Hillary Clinton fan and a Trump opponent. It's even more telling that you associate skepticism of dubious propaganda outlets with Trump opponents. You're probably on point about that one. Conversely, Trump supporters are frequently enamored of obvious falsehoods that aim to prop up questionable narratives.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: AmbroseMachine

Who was the repubs best candidate?

The machine thought "bush" but I think Cruz was at least a conservative more than all of them. The establishment R's are RINO wussies who were bending over IMHO.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Sure, it was flawed, and the Huff ran it. But according to you it is not fake, just terribly flawed news?