What did he mean by this?

What did he mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

usapoliticstoday.com/voter-fraud-uncovered-hillary/
thegatewaypundit.com/2016/12/report-massive-nevada-voter-fraud-uncovered/
truthfeed.com/breaking-massive-voter-fraud-uncovered-in-nevada/39482/
redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=52242
theblaze.com/podcasts/third-party-candidate-in-nevada-uncovers-voter-fraud/
newsmaxtv.vegas/huuuge-nevada-voter-fraud-uncovered-worse-than-acorn/
cnbc.com/2016/12/08/homeland-security-tied-to-attempted-hack-of-georgias-election-database-report.html
cyberscoop.com/georgia-hack-dhs-brian-kemp-jeh-johnson/
thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/309530-state-of-georgia-allegedly-accusing-homeland-security-of-attempted-hack
wsj.com/articles/georgia-reports-attempt-to-hack-states-election-database-via-ip-address-linked-to-homeland-security-1481229960
youtu.be/ejmjWjM6M1o
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

fucken dumb ape. goddamn fucken ape. so pathetic. so truly pathetic. i cannot stand to look at that wedge-headed oaf any longer. dirtbrown muzzie chunk of catshit. cancer in your asshole, obama! centuries of temporal pain in your afterlife!

Doubling down on the bullshit. Why is he suddenly at work. He spent the last 6 months playing golf and doing talk shows and hillshilling and suddenly he's all busy fixing the narrative?

I'm confused. Was he spreading fake news when he said it can't be rigged, or when he said it can be rigged?

Absolutely nothing is going to change, he is only going to embarrass himself. Trump is already aware of this and he played the 'rigged election' narrative on purpose.

>tfw you can't even make a web site for your government but you can actually hack the elections of superpower

>encounters something that contradicts one's worldview
>lizard brain activates
>begins outlining possible explanations to the phenomenon in the least charitable way possible
>As long as it's internally consistent with one's preconceived view of how the world works, it's plausible
>Thinks because it's plausible, then it's likely to be true.
>is lazy and does no rigorous scientific analysis
>believes conspiracy theory on basis of free association of ideas within his mind.
>gets mad and calls people niggers on Sup Forums
>cycle repeats
>This method goes mainstream and contributes to the election of the inexperienced, reductio ad absurdum of America, Donald Trump.
>Trump shills spend the rest of their days sucking valuable air, contributing nothing to society, only to die and be forgotten by subsequent generations.

>tfw the goyim will fall for it

>tfw Russia has the means to hire and/or coerce private contractors into hacking the election of a superpower, but Sup Forumstards conveniently disregard this explanation because it creates dissonance in their lizard brains.

You spent billions of dollars investigating Hillary for some emails.

Isn't another country hacking into your elections a lot more important than what she did?

You're doing it for free now? Or has CTR not given up?

Because now Hillary won't shill his "Legacy" so he actually has to try now. He's got a little over a month to "fix" things for himself and Hillary.

It means...

Trump should have never been elected President in the first place because my corruption never should have came out to the public.

LITERALLY mad because their corruption exposure cost the Demshits the election. What a world we live in.

this sounds like fake news


will he recount california?

CTR still runs a skeleton crew

Do circumstantial ad hominem fallacies come this easy to everyone on Sup Forums?

1. Even if I was CTR (which I'm not), simply because I was being paid by a particular person/organization to argue a particular point, doesn't mean that it's false-- circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.

2. Nice attempted red herring.

Who really cares?
The electoral college meets in a few days to vote.
Trump will be elected.

Obongo's recount will find more Trump votes, just like the others.

Pottery

its fake news, obama himself said the election could not be hacked and we need to abide by the results.

>overwhelming evidence that the DNC rigged the election and have been for years
>Zero evidence of Russia hacking the election
Hmmmm

Good. I mean trump is bad idea you need better guy, i think you need another black guy in office.

Is this explanation the further evolution of the unfalsifiable "CTR shills shouldn't be trusted or listened to" hypothesis?

They are talking about the DNC hack, not the voting machines

Trump should go full bore with prosecuting Hillary and smear Osama for lying on camera then, fuck these sore losers

I think it needs to be investigated.

>unfalsifiable CTR shill hypothesis is bad
>unfalsifiable Russians hacked the election narrative is good

>(which I'm not)
So you're doing it for free.

You sound pretty butt hurt, is it still chapped from being blown the fuck out from the electoral college?

It should be investigated, just like Hillary was investigated for her emails.

Nice repeating integers.
Open a search engine and check. The top articles are how (in the last hour) he changed his mind, and a national review will be done. Then comes he 100 articles where he said it was impossible to hack the election.
Most states don't connect those systems to the internet, so it's largely pointless. But he has done a 540 degree turn about, and an "election review" is going to take place.

>LIZARD BRAIN
>REEEEEE
>BE SMARTER LIKE ME
Try not to hurt yourself buddy :^)

I actually believe this is Obama's plan. From the day after Trump was elected, he has been talking about accepting the results, peaceful transition, etc. However, the retarded Jill Stein came in and said, "We think there's hacking, let's have a recount!" However, you don't just get a recount because you demand one, there are legal procedures in place for that, but Stein doesn't care and think it's a travesty that her cases are being thrown out. I know normally reasonable liberals who are completely unhinged about this recount, they are convinced it's a Russian conspiracy. Obama, who liberals trust more than anyone, is conducting this "review", which won't find anything, so that liberals stop bitching about the recount and start accepting Trump.

>doesn't provide any evidence for DNC "rigging election"

though I take it that Sup Forums has again adopted the PoMo method of defining down terms to push political ends via artificial semantic drift, but whatever. You gonna point me to James o'Keefe or some bullshit. LOL ACORN LOLOLOL.

>there must not be *zero* evidence that Russia hacked the election (which really refers to the DNC and Podesta hacks) if the FBI is willing to announce this publicly.

The same sort of thing happened when Comey announced that he was reopening the Clinton email investigation on account of there being seeming connection between Anthony Weiner's correspondences and the prior investigation.

Point is that it could all turn out to be false, but to reject it out-of-hand is intellectually dishonest, and to be so inconsistent is even more so.

No one cares what you think. You have no political influence in our country.

Controlling the narrative *
Can anyone say guilty by association? If Trump actually gets sworn in, who do think he's gonna sink those teeth into first? If big O doesn't find a way to rig the vote then the game is over for a lot of people and it's not gonna pretty.

Thank fuck, you'll go back to the physical paper ballots entirely.

>before: :DDDD it cant be rigged your just losing XXXDDDDDD

>after: >:((((( fucking russian hackers :( recount until we get the right result >:o

The russian hacking hypothesis isn't unfalsifiable because we wouldn't be able to test it if it was. Thus Obama wants further information with the hopes of falsifying it.

I certainly hope that it isn't true.

Keep up.

>No one cares what you think.

Your president seems to agree though.

sounds spooky

This

>implying President Donny is actually going to do anything to all them democrats

He's going to be too busy doing ego tours of the world to do any actual presidenting

You're the one projecting that I think that I'm smarter than everyone else. It seems to me that fringe conservative thought (and SJWs, but seriously fuck those babies) is the only one having trouble finding a sound method for fixing their beliefs. I'm just following principles of common sense, i.e. not uncharitably interpreting opposing viewpoints to push unfalsifiable conspiracy theories.

Inferiority complex, much?

>AAHHH IZ DA RUSSIAN HACKERS!!!!!:::::::::::::::DDDDDDD

I can't believe this shit.

>you didn't provide evidence
>LOLOLOL WOW MOVING THE GOALPOSTS MUCH
>[continues to not provide evidence]
>lizard brain intensifies

Trump called for an investigation into fraud and voting corruption and got laughed at. But now that he won we got to be "intellectually honest" and consider the most absurd things.

We found out they re all pedophiles and they re calling everything fake so people don t find out and kill them

Look up stratfor
They re running info wars as well

I hope you're right. It's a smart move to help the country's current divide.

Fuck off back to s4sgag

You're an idiot aren't you? Have you not been paying attention to Michigan's recount which was thrown out because of fraudulent Hillary votes? Not to mention other states like Nevada

usapoliticstoday.com/voter-fraud-uncovered-hillary/

He s a pedophile
They all pedophiles
Everyone is working for pedophiles

1. Trump merely asserted that there was voter fraud w/o evidence, and then called for an investigation (while citing shit like the discredited James O'Keefe)

2. Obama calls for investigation into voter fraud *by a country who doesn't like us* and cites the FBI.

Who's standing on firming ground?

You're conflating mere assertions with well-reasoned retroductions. Stop with the PoMo bullshit.

I thought the FBI said there was no evidence?

I hope we actually get ID laws out of this. Absolutely insane that every other country has centralized health care and voter ID laws, yet we can't.

Stop whining.

LUGENPRESSE

Didn't Obongo say it was dangerous to even suggest elections could be rigged?

>points me to fringe conservative news organization.
>implies that because this story hasn't gone mainstream and because the FBI hasn't taken this report seriously, the crux and foundation of the American justice system is incorrigible.

Come on now. What are we, 14 years old? I took off my tinfoil hat in 9th grade.

You live in a country with amenities that people for millenia have spent their entire lives trying to secure even a fraction of, and you're telling me that you think our government is so corrupt that they'd go to lengths to cover something up that could be easily ousted by a low-tier conservative news cite?

You must think that stupid people can get away with large scale corruption, huh?

>fringe news

Because we should believe a reputable outlet like CNN instead right?

>Who's standing on firming ground?
Firmer*

And, probably the guy who won, instead of the guy who bet on the losing horse and is now crying foul.

>and cites the FBI.
Cites a statement from the FBI, without presenting any empirical evidence. As they have been doing all along with this Russian hacker boogeyman farce.

>You're conflating mere assertions with well-reasoned retroductions
Like the well reasoned retroduction that blamed Benghazi on a YouTube video?

Occam's razor does not suggest that Democrats lost the election because it was hacked by Russians. Is suggests that Democrats lost fair and square after taking the working class for granted.

This is propaganda being used to clamp down on "unapproved speech", and the continuation of a coping mechanism by the gullible left to get through watching their hopes and dreams of an infinite leftist cultural-political mandate falling to pieces.

>You must think that stupid people can get away with large scale corruption, huh?

... you haven't studied very much history, have you?

We need the negus of ethiopia to run the country and restore the power of Jah and black consciousness to live in utopia

hmmm

I said you were an idiot, but I hoped you weren't that stupid.

The Nevada story was covered by lots of different news outlets
thegatewaypundit.com/2016/12/report-massive-nevada-voter-fraud-uncovered/
truthfeed.com/breaking-massive-voter-fraud-uncovered-in-nevada/39482/
redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=52242
theblaze.com/podcasts/third-party-candidate-in-nevada-uncovers-voter-fraud/
newsmaxtv.vegas/huuuge-nevada-voter-fraud-uncovered-worse-than-acorn/

Plus there are these reports too for Georgia

cnbc.com/2016/12/08/homeland-security-tied-to-attempted-hack-of-georgias-election-database-report.html

cyberscoop.com/georgia-hack-dhs-brian-kemp-jeh-johnson/

thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/309530-state-of-georgia-allegedly-accusing-homeland-security-of-attempted-hack

wsj.com/articles/georgia-reports-attempt-to-hack-states-election-database-via-ip-address-linked-to-homeland-security-1481229960

No, no we shouldn't take CNN too seriously.

How's it feel dealing with a centrist?

This

Dumbass boomer.

Everything that you have provided me with falls into one of two categories:

1. News organizations with conservative bias

or

2. Reports that give rise to suspicions *that should be taken seriously,* but that don't call for us to attenuate our beliefs to a high likelihood that there exits large-scale voter fraud.

As for the first category, no it should not be dismissed *only* on the basis that it has a conservative-bent, but these fuckers report the voter fraud as if it's a forgone conclusion, and given their bias, we are epistemically justified in not taking subsequent reports seriously.

As a kid, were you ever told the story of the boy who cried wolf?

Loaded question.

Provide me with examples. Perhaps I'm just not familiar with them.

It isn't crazy to suggest that mass-scale corruption can't be carried out by stupid people ( and I mean stupid as in careless. Maybe they aren't book-smart, but I doubt you can lack savvy-ness(is this even a word, I dunno?) and get away with it.

Furthermore, I don't believe that fringe conservative news organizations are the harbingers of truth in this case, sorry.

We need someone qualified to do the job AND truly represent the people. Who cares what fucking color he is? He just needs to ball out of control as a pillar for the free world.

I'm worried

>1. News organizations with conservative bias
Be specific.
Cite examples.
Post counter evidence.

>2. Reports that give rise to suspicions *that should be taken seriously,* but that don't call for us to attenuate our beliefs to a high likelihood that there exits large-scale voter fraud.
Be specific.
Cite examples.
Post counter evidence.

For example, which category do that CNBC and WSJ ones fall into? How so? What evidence do you have that supports this?

As an adult, right now, are you simply triggered by an overabundance of facts you don't like?

Do you believe people when they piss on you and tell you it's rain?

>centuries of temporal pain in your afterlife

i don't give a shit, i'm using this. here, have a WELL deserved (you) for that one.

What if Putin is paid to say he likes Trump?

>could I be wrong?
>no! It's those damn white males who are wrong!

Bumb

Dude, I think that the dems lost the election fair-and-square.

I don't actually believe that the Russians gave the election to Trump, so to speak.

The point is that if they *tried* to do it, then this is important. We should lambast them on these grounds.

It's like the 2000 election where Bush won every recount (and likely won fair-and-square), but pulled out all the stops with the intent of stealing the election.

Intentions matter at least as much as consequences, if not more in many cases.

This is all I'm saying.

To review:

Who won the election? Trump.

Did he win it fair and square? Yes.

Did Russia try to influence our election? Possibly.

Should we disregard this possibility? No.

Should Obama and Clintonites spin this to mean that Russia most likely influenced our election on a grand scale? Absolutely not.

>Pile of evidence in front of (You)
>chooses to dismiss it on a whim
>meanwhile no evidence for Russians

Fuck off dude

youtu.be/ejmjWjM6M1o

>Provide me with examples. Perhaps I'm just not familiar with them.
Or perhaps the issue is that you're a self-obsessed tool who's metric for stupidity is "people who think like and agree with me" and "people who don't."

>It isn't crazy to suggest that mass-scale corruption can't be carried out by stupid people ( and I mean stupid as in careless. Maybe they aren't book-smart, but I doubt you can lack savvy-ness(is this even a word, I dunno?) and get away with it.
Example A- stumbling to define your own criteria without actually doing so by feigning uncertainty because it would mean self-projecting.

>Furthermore, I don't believe that fringe conservative news organizations are the harbingers of truth in this case, sorry.
Example B- suddenly no longer feigning specifics when it comes to criteria with "muh conservatives", but not much more than basic 5pm news filler vocabulary.

Back to Facebook with you.

This isn't about race. I don't blame white men for all of america's problems. That's stupid. Don't lump me in with progressive trash.

RIDF pls

...

>I don't actually believe that the Russians gave the election to Trump, so to speak.
Yes you do.

>The point is that if they *tried* to do it, then this is important. We should lambast them on these grounds.
There's zero evidence for this, otherwise it would have been presented in some sort of tangible form. I know it. You know it. Holy god knows it.

>It's like the 2000 election where Bush won every recount (and likely won fair-and-square), but pulled out all the stops with the intent of stealing the election.
[citation needed]
Enough with the double speak.

>This is all I'm saying.
That you're a gullible idiot. Gotcha.

>Did Russia try to influence our election? Possibly.
Is there again, any empirical or tangible evidence for this beyond hearsay and appeals to authority? No.

>Should we disregard this possibility? No.
Yes. Can you even out line how such "interference" would have taken place when each state has their own method of conducting elections and counting votes, not all of which even involve internet connections computers? Again, no.

>Should Obama and Clintonites spin this to mean that Russia most likely influenced our election on a grand scale? Absolutely not.
Are they doing this? Yes.
Do you believe it? Evidently, yes.

Are you full of hot gas? Dangerously so.

The whore of babylon is destined to rule and see the fall of BABYLON

AMERICA, YOUR TIME IS THROUGH

GOD'S JUDGEMENT AND WRATH SHALL OVERCOME THEE

I'm demarcacting news outlets by the strength of their conclusions in proportion the evidence that is likely to be possessed by the average, minimally informed American citizen.

So when someone posts a report with something like "mass voter fraud uncovered," especially in the context of citing things like ACORN and O'Keefe, then I'm automatically skeptical.

I'm not skeptical because they are conservative per se, I'm skeptical of the strength of the conclusions; if I'm to remain consistent, then I must first leave the drawing of strong conclusions and precedents to our institutions, as I would in any other case (e.g. murder, rape, arson, etc.)

Furthermore, WSJ and those others you have listed have a liberal-bent. I don't accept their stories because they are liberal, but because they don't draw wildly disproportionate conclusions to available evidence.

Also, you can't tell me that "RED STATE WATCH" and (the Glenn Beck created) "The Blaze" *don't* have a conservative bias.

I take it that you've never taken an epistemology course in your life.

White Knight who brought the world back from the brink of global annihilation. How about that ego tour? What better way to cement your legacy if you're know for purging the all power corrupt and their legacy.

are you one of those "redditor" types?

Except this was written 22 November right? So it wasn't stein who inspired it.

I did intend to say fixing purely because he has to undo the damage done to the narrative first before he gets control of it.

And yeah, this last 6 months has been all about cruising along and making us remember him as the cool president - hence the talk show circuit. Now he's scrambling. The Syria thing- he's fucked when the world finds out we were fighting we AQ against Assad and Assad was the good guy. He's fucked when we all find out who funded Isis. He's fucked when people find out the liberal media is an extension of the govt and PR machine. He's fucked if trump actually fixes the broke America that he inherited from bongo and he's fucked when people snap out of it and realise how divided and messed up the country is because of him. BLM anyone? He's a warmongering cunt who nearly destroyed the country while telling the world to chew soap. So he has to get control of it again. Otherwise we all might snap the fuck out of it and think: Wash your mouths out. You've been eating shit for 8 years.

you forgot
>should I trust what the CIA and NSA have to say
no you shouldn't

HE IS REFERRING TO THE EMAIL HACK, NOT VOTE HACKING
>believing CNN headlines at face value
I thought Sup Forums was smarter than this.

Lol you guys simply psychologize everything, and fail to give cogent counterarguments. I didn't call anyone stupid, nor do I think you all are stupid-- just wrong. There's a yuge difference, and if you can't see it, then on second thought, maybe you are stupid.

Second of all, the sum total of all your objections to me seems to be ad hominem potshots..

Maybe you should read some Frege or Peirce and see why adding dubious psychological premises into our logic ruins inquiry and actually makes people dumber.

YEAH I JUST FUCKIN NAME-DROPPED. FIGHT ME BRO.

>accuses others of flaunting the validity of factual claims and using argumentative fallacies

>posts this garbage

>knowingly post something that heavily implies that one who has the capabilities of doing an action are the likely culprits of said actions

only can be judged if we truly know other's capabilities; which in terms of security and intelligence, we don't even share that much info amongst the 5 eyes, let alone amongst enemies

>tl/dr: you're a moron who uses convoluted language and redressing the sticky of this board to sound intelligent

>S accuses interlocutor of a thing x
>interlocutor i denies believing x
>S accuses i of x on the basis of his rejection of not x

Dude, we refuted Freud a good 50 years ago. You're just brow-beating some false consciousness, continental philosophy, gibberish. That's the sum-total of your method. I feel sad for you.

>discredited James O'Keefe
Stopped reading here.

Only in leftist minds is O'Keefe in any way discredited.

Pro-tip: Just because the fake news networks call you "discredited" doesn't make it so!

no, fuck reddit

woops mixed up my logics.

Should read: "apparent assent to not x" rather than "rejection of not x"

I'm going to shut you up once and for all because I've had enough of your left-wing bleating.

>Dude, we refuted Freud a good 50 years ago.
And we refuted all of your arguments just now.

>You're just brow-beating some false consciousness, continental philosophy, gibberish.
>false-consciousness
Annnnnnnnd there's the defensive self-projection, only a few minutes late.

>That's the sum-total of your method. I feel sad for you.
I know you do. Mentally ill people love to project their own personal crusades onto others and love using pitty for said others as a barrier to their own feelings of inferiority and guilt.

Not to worry though friend, it time for pills!

The nurse isn't a Russian agent either, in case you're wondering.

...

...