Need some help my friends. >inb4 blogpost Hear me out. My wifes friends are all shitlibs, like 90% of normies seem to be. She wasn't ever very political before that, which was nice, but lately I've learned I was taking it all for granted. Her friends have all gone nuts pushing anti-Trump media, and most of it is "Russia collusion" themed insanity. My wife is new to politics, and she's starting to freak out that our government has been taken over by foreign agents, etc. I'd like to patrol some of her friends on social media, because in that context it would make a bigger impact on my wife's thinking. When we talk one-on-one, she hears to facts I present, or the flawed reasoning of things she's heard, but then she tells me she just has "an intuition" that her fears are true.
I NEED CREDIBLE MAINSTREAM SOURCES that I can use when I patrol these shitlibs. I'm building a bibliography of sorts, so I can "citation required" anything these faggots demand. I say I want credible sources, meaning more mainstream sources that they would have trouble simply dismissing. Are there any mainstream sources that admit holes or errors in the "Russia collusion" myth?
Since normies only seem to respect mainstream articles that lay everything out simply, here this (forbes I think) article that came out recently showing how the entire premise for the Russia was based on known lies and extremely biased FBI agents with ties to the Clinton campaign.
What's more, no real evidence has actually been presented for the Russia conspiracy theory that the public has been allowed to see. Trying to prove a negative is absurd because the burden of proof is on those who made the claim, it's silly to just spout whatever and then everyone else is obligated to disprove it. As far as evidence of hacking, remember that the Democrats refused to turn their servers over to the FBI, Crowdstrike does not have a lot of merit and ended up walking back their initial statements, and thanks to WikiLeaks Vault 7 we know CIA hacking tools got out in the wild including UMBRAGE, that can fake another nation's 'digital fingerprint' for the express purpose of framing. Everything liberal losers cite is either wholly unverified or nothingburgers that they are drawing inferences from because they want to believe.
If you need to show them video pundits breaking the shit down, give them some Jimmy Dore Show. He is the type of leftist that establishment democrats have zero rebuttal to.
Jayden Parker
Can't prove a negative. The demrats need to show evidence of this "collusion". So far they have showed nothing.
Zachary Gray
Buy a Russian bot t shirt from Mark dice and they won't bother you anymore
Jason Collins
Thanks. I'm actualy kind of shocked more people around here didn't respond. Is this board basically dead now? I thought I would have received a flood of replies and resources.
>Can't prove a negative. Didn't ask for help to prove a negative, the assertion "Trump colluded with Russia" is a positive statement. "Trump DIDN'T collude with Russia" would be a negative. I asked for debunking resources to the positive statement "Trump colluded with Russia".
Perfect, saved. This is exactly what I was looking for. Didn't we used to have threads where people posted contradictory headlines from the same sources side by side?
Ethan Torres
This is dank. We need more good work like this. We have lost our focus and OP reminds us of the practical need for such cited dankness that shuts up delusional lefties
Justin Edwards
Also it must be said:
concise = force multiplier
verbose = force diluter
less is more. juxtaposition is potent
Matthew Taylor
Sup Forums cant help you cuz its all true
The golden shower tape is true
Trump raping women is true
Trump murdering Cher's friend is true
Trump's small penis is true
Its all true. Sup Forums cant help you OP
Dylan Ortiz
I still see em now and then but the MSM is just the little dangly bit in front of the angler fish. check catalog to avoid slide threads
Anthony Powell
more mainstream liberal sites such as CNN have admitted surprising things int he past. Lets just keep our eyes open and intentions constant.
It's probably because you are smart enough to understand words but stupid enough to argue an incorrect point. "Durr I don't want to prove rump didn't collude, I just want to prove the he didn't"
David Russell
when the world starts to notice the pedophile rings they'll have to come up with a bigger distraction than usual
Xavier Edwards
Once again, I wasn't asking to "prove a negative". The assertion "Trump colluded" is a positive statement, subject to falsification. I'm asking for resources to falsify that assertion. Critical thinking and rational discourse 101 you fucking mong.
Ryder Brown
just remind your friends that they have no evidence for collusion and are just assblasted that they lost the election. no need to humor their retarded conspiracy theories
Blake Rogers
But they're owned by the guy that owns Fox News, so automatic REEEEEEEE drowns out anything op says.
Nathaniel Parker
Its actually pretty effective to calmly beat people over the head with sources. Liberals can't fight extensively sourced arguments. They just give up and go home, its how their brains work. That's why I want sources they would likely use themselves or see as legit, because its highly demoralizing to them. If my wife can't see her idiot gaggle of hens rebut the facts as I present them, she'll realize how weak they are.
I've done it before on other issues, I'm just asking for help prepping some bibliography for when I do this.
Noah Nguyen
Remind her of AIPAC.
Ethan Ross
What do they say about all this in Russian media? Do they even pay attention to what burgers are accusing each other of?
Samuel Reyes
When CNN was saying it was illegal to view anything put out by wikileaks, wikileaks leaked that the US IC is capable of changing their digital fingerprints to match another country's intelligence agency. All to avoid being detected when doing shit they shouldn't be doing.
Julian Scott
Muh Ukraine crucifying naked children as always. Also the """state media""" tries to paint sanctions like they aren't targeted at close circlejerk of Putin's friend.
Jason Stewart
You don't sound like you trust much of what your media says either.
Austin Russell
It's because you wrongly assume US and russian media are anything similar. In US media started as entertainment, but in USSR it was used strictly for propaganda purposes.
Hunter Morris
>In US media started as entertainment, but in USSR it was used strictly for propaganda purposes. No, I'm familiar with that difference. Our media critics commonly mention it, to argue that our current media is actually worse than soviet-era media, because people don't think its propaganda, but in Soviet times, everyone knew it was propaganda, so it didn't work as well. That's the argument they make. >In US media started as entertainment No, "infotainment" is a more recent thing. There has traditionally been an expectation that journalism be "factual and objective" in the US, which has probably never rally been true. Even when you read journalism from the early 1800s, most of it is obviously biased toward this or that political faction, so I doubt we ever even had an age of "honest" journalism.
That being said, "entertainment" media is something unique to the age of radio and television.
Nicholas Bennett
Why haven't you russophobes debunked this? Oh.. you can't
John Taylor
>but in Soviet times, everyone knew it was propaganda No they didn't. TV propaganda was and is crucial for sustaining state power, as it provided the "information" about outside world for poorfags. That's why the "I am poor but my country is the greatest ever" logic doesn't seem contradictive for a typical Putin-voting russian. That's why the first thing the people attempting the coup in 1991 did is securing the Ostankino TV tower. Literally take out TV and Russia will crumble in a month.
