DescentBB

3rd dump of Podesta mails commentary, quite interesting.

http://www.politico.com/live-blog-updat ... aks-000011

how so? It's been shown, in a couple cases to not even be legitimate(originals edited) and what I've read is the usual back and forth between players in a campaign. Pretty boring, actually. What do you find fascinating?

The details about the networking that's going on.

Edit: like this eg. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/c ... ils-229605

Too bad the DNC didn't just run Chelsea Clinton as their first woman candidate for president. She sounds like she's got a way better head on her shoulders for honesty than her mom does.

tunnelcat wrote:Too bad the DNC didn't just run Chelsea Clinton as their first woman candidate for president. She sounds like she's got a way better head on her shoulders for honesty than her mom does.

yet, children reflect their parents.

Grendel wrote:The details about the networking that's going on.

Edit: like this eg. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/c ... ils-229605

really? That's it? Do you get out much? I mean, in the sense of getting an understanding of how things network ALL THE FREAKING TIME? Find me the tangible threat in this.

callmeslick wrote:really? That's it? Do you get out much? I mean, in the sense of getting an understanding of how things network ALL THE FREAKING TIME? Find me the tangible threat in this.

Really ? Where did I say anything about a threat ? Or that I don't understand networking ? You need to get out of the DBB sphere more if you take every topic as directed at you personally and start harassing people because you don't like it. If you don't find these details interesting or worth posting about, stay out.

callmeslick wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Too bad the DNC didn't just run Chelsea Clinton as their first woman candidate for president. She sounds like she's got a way better head on her shoulders for honesty than her mom does.

yet, children reflect their parents.

Not always.

callmeslick wrote:how so? It's been shown, in a couple cases to not even be legitimate(originals edited) and what I've read is the usual back and forth between players in a campaign. Pretty boring, actually. What do you find fascinating?

Where was it shown?

on the last batch, right here:
http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin- ... nik-508635

That Newsweek Article wrote:The Russians engage in a sloppy disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee for president is standing on a stage reciting the manufactured story as truth.

That's pretty ★■◆●ing bad right there.

Grendel wrote:The details about the networking that's going on.

Edit: like this eg. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/c ... ils-229605

reads like the plot of a bad spy movie.

And again, at the request of Russia, the USA provided no evidence to back up their words about the hacker attacks.

More interesting ★■◆●:



Some coverage here as well:

LoL, heavily edited footage with dramatic music underneath.

NEXT!

I'm too tired to really get into those videos, Grendel.

but...

Hannity? And a heavily-edited botch job of a conspiracy video?

This is a joke, right? This is like, woodchip-level of fuckery, dude.

Part II:



If there is a grain of truth in these, the level of corruption is concerning to say the least. Hannity is pretty much the only higher profile outlet picking up on it, so I added the link. Here's some more coverage (less biased) :

http://www.inquisitr.com/3605790/octobe ... p-rallies/

Hope some reporters will take the time to verify what's shown.

when you(or others) have to preface a piece of intellectually empty crap like this, with the words,"if there is a grain of truth to this" you are hopelessly lazy intellectually. Find out if there is, and then post it, please.

...And no "Loose Change" style videos.

There could be a grain of truth to some of this, but the fact that James O'Keefe is involved really makes the whole thing stink to high heaven from the beginning Grendel. The man loves to make up crap to suit his little video attacks. The only reason for the grain of truth part is that both sides like pull dirty tricks when it suits them and neither parties are angels when it comes to getting their candidate elected. I'm certainly not going to defend the Dems, or the Clintons since I haven't been a fan of either for a long time.

Grendel wrote:If there is a grain of truth in these, the level of corruption is concerning to say the least. Hannity is pretty much the only higher profile outlet picking up on it, so I added the link. Here's some more coverage (less biased) :

If there is a grain of truth, YOU should tell us what it is, instead of giving us these ridiculous videos.

I've said this to other people, and now, unfortunately, I have to say it to you.

If you have a claim, back it up using your own words, and using credible sources.


I hope that you haven't gone off the deep end. I really do. But if you have, you're not going to like me.

as I said earlier to a few folks on FB: You clearly have never had ANY access to the inner workings on the ground of any campaign. Watching the sausage get made isn't pretty sometimes, but this much is true: It happens in every campaign, on all sides(if they are competent), and NOTHING approaches the onslaught that awaits after being sworn in. These two people(let's discount fringe parties for the sake of reality in an Electoral College system) are vying to be President of the United States. If you can't handle what a campaign throws at you, heaven help us you become President.

Ferno wrote:If you have a claim, back it up using your own words, and using credible sources.

No claim, basically just a FYI; Hence, "interesting ★■◆●". Some of the people in those videos appear to be real persons (as far as google info allows to tell), makes me wonder why they say what they say. Finding credible sources has become almost impossible, most media outlets/talking heads are biased to the extreme. So sometimes in the quest of piecing together a bigger picture fringe info can yield puzzling clues.

Ferno wrote:I hope that you haven't gone off the deep end. I really do. But if you have, you're not going to like me.

Define "deep end" Posting "extreme" stuff, claiming it to be true ? Trying not to do that. Posting the same w/ a "check this out", sure. Guess I'll expand my disclaimers in the future.

Let me reiterate my position -- neither of the two main candidates makes for a good president, both suffer from serious lack of integrity IMHO. I don't think that Trump has a chance to be elected so I mostly look at what's going on around Clinton.

Edit: some fallout from that 1st video: http://descentbb.net/viewtopic.php?p=372746#p372746

note, the description of the two fired people. The only one with ANY substantial connection to anything(he's married to a midwest Congresswoman) is even referred in news articles as 'little known', and that is being charitable. They were a couple of low level nobodies, speculating, likely over drinks over what they'd LIKE to do. No indication that ANYONE ever went through with anything, or especially that anyone APPROVED or even was AWARE at any level about theirs. Big freaking deal there.

vision wrote:LoL, heavily edited footage with dramatic music underneath.

NEXT!

A typical vision reply. In that case Trump footage of language was heavily edited so the Dem base can get all emo.

Woody, you want to see edited footage? THIS is what's called "edited footage".

Well, there must be some grain of truth to this whole mess since Scott Foval himself was just fired from Americans United for Change.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/19/scott- ... ng-videos/

Now if Project Veritas would just release the unedited videos, we could all make up our own minds about who did what.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... deo-sting/

Grendel wrote:

Ferno wrote:If you have a claim, back it up using your own words, and using credible sources.

No claim, basically just a FYI; Hence, "interesting ★■◆●". Some of the people in those videos appear to be real persons (as far as google info allows to tell), makes me wonder why they say what they say. Finding credible sources has become almost impossible, most media outlets/talking heads are biased to the extreme. So sometimes in the quest of piecing together a bigger picture fringe info can yield puzzling clues.

Well if you're looking for more reasonable sources of news, rationalwiki has turned out to be a pretty good aggregator of such resources. It has a snarky streak to it though, nothing too horrid though -- and it's pretty funny usually. They use the snarkiness to go after egregious claims.

It seems that the media is hiding something from us. Russia continues to increase spending on the army and security forces in fantastic amounts. Oddly.

It's not "odd" at all. The Cold War escalations have started up all over again. It's so, so stupid for both of our countries to be engaging in right now too. A nuclear arms race only results in a zero sum game, and yet, we both keep playing the game like either one of us could win. I've got news, there are no winners.

TC, it seems that here soon will not be ordinary citizens. It seems that almost all are related to the security forces. This is an abnormal phenomenon, in my opinion.

sigma wrote:It seems that the media is hiding something from us. Russia continues to increase spending on the army and security forces in fantastic amounts. Oddly.

Too bad they don't spend it on their navy:

Belching smoke through the Channel, Russian aircraft carrier so unreliable it sails with its own breakdown tug
The plumbing is so bad on the 55,000 ton Admiral Kuznetsov that many of its toilets cannot be used

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... -problems/

Sad commentary on a country that has a first rate space program.

they have a 'first rate space program' with a massive amount of help garnered through 25 years of cooperation with NASA and other nations. Not so on the whole Navy thing. It shows.

Watched a special on Russian rocket engines. Would you care to guess what engine design we use now and how old that design is?

woodchip wrote:Watched a special on Russian rocket engines. Would you care to guess what engine design we use now and how old that design is?

forget the model, but I know Orbital is using the Antares to get to the space station and that is a repurposed lunar rocket of Russian origin. I was just sort of tweaking Sigma with the Navy crack, but it might be containing some truth. Sad to put forth for him, but his nation is intertwined with US interests, and we have every interest in them having a robust space program. Not such interest in them having a navy......

The general Soyuz rocket family is the most reliable launch system in space exploration history. The engines Orbital ATK originally used for their Antares vehicle were something else entirely; they were actually constructed in the 60s and 70s for the never-realized Soviet lunar program. The Russian-designed RD-180 engine is currently used in the first stage of Atlas V rockets, although there are currently overtures being made to finding a suitable replacement. It's fascinating how this stuff winds up working out.