Board 8 > Google censorship cracks down on anti-war left-wing sites, too

(+) Yeah! (+)

Assange didn't outright say it because WikiLeaks would lose a lot of trust if they revealed a source. However, WikiLeaks' actions since the murder have heavily implied it.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Vlado how do you think search engines should work?

Should they not have an algorithm in place that punishes sites that regularly post false "news" and instead promotes legitimate sites?

There should not be a bias towards mainstream media, no. Mainstream media lie all the time to push their agendas. They are anything but legitimate.
---

So if you're 100% sure Seth Rich was a source purely because of how Assange acts, what's the difference between that and just outright saying it.

IMO, Assange benefits by implying it but not saying it because it allows fools to fill in blanks with their own fanfiction all without saying anything legally false.
---

Seth Rich was Assange's source based on no evidence and heavy implication, yet Vlado refuses to believe Russian involvement in the hacking despite more evidence pointing that direction.

Repeat after me: unless Vlado already believes it, it's not true.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

So if you're 100% sure Seth Rich was a source purely because of how Assange acts, what's the difference between that and just outright saying it.

IMO, Assange benefits by implying it but not saying it because it allows fools to fill in blanks with their own fanfiction all without saying anything legally false.

Your theory is not impossible. We can't make a solid conclusion without solid facts. However, Occam's razor indicates that the data was leaked, and Rich's murder makes it all the more likely.

BTW, in case you've missed it, the Guccifer 2.0 "leaks" were all but proven to have been staged by DNC.

http://g-2.space/
http://g-2.space/dnc/
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
---

Hey, I'll give Vlado credit.

He admitted that it's just implied and not said, and he's choosing to believe it based on the implication.

Atleast he's not Ulti, who can't get through a single post without lying.
---

So the idea is that the US intentionally "leaked" stuff as Guccifer 2.0, and planted things that would appear to be Russian hacking fingerprints in the leaks to frame Russia?
---

"The US"? What? DNC, not "the US." Pretty sure US intelligence wouldn't do such a sloppy job.
---

US intelligence believes Russia was the source, at any rate
---

Jakyl25 posted...

US intelligence believes Russia was the source, at any rate

Wrong. They know very well that they are lying to you.

Anyway, the crux of the matter:

Forensicator’s first decisive findings, made public in the paper dated July 9, concerned the volume of the supposedly hacked material and what is called the transfer rate—the time a remote hack would require. The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.

These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed. Compounding this contradiction, Guccifer claimed to have run his hack from Romania, which, for numerous reasons technically called delivery overheads, would slow down the speed of a hack even further from maximum achievable speeds.

What is the maximum achievable speed? Forensicator recently ran a test download of a comparable data volume (and using a server speed not available in 2016) 40 miles from his computer via a server 20 miles away and came up with a speed of 11.8 megabytes per second—half what the DNC operation would need were it a hack. Other investigators have built on this finding. Folden and Edward Loomis say a survey published August 3, 2016, by www.speedtest.net/reports is highly reliable and use it as their thumbnail index. It indicated that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half 2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications. These speeds averaged 15.6 megabytes per second and 14.7 megabytes per second, respectively. Peak speeds at higher rates were recorded intermittently but still did not reach the required 22.7 megabytes per second.

---

Looking into that information, it looks like there are two obvious flaws. One, it specifically states that CONSUMER internet service is incapable of those download speeds, but doesn't take into account corporate or government internet speed, which hackers likely would be using in this instance.

Two, even if that download speed implies impossible download speeds over the internet, it doesn't take into account the possibility that the leaked information wasn't copied directly from the DNC to a computer and subsequently published from there. If the data was passed across numerous computers, then the metadata would be altered to reflect coming from that new computer. Thus, the high download speeds could be achieved by hackers, under the same conditions the DNC is being accused of using to falsify the attack.
---

Instead of trying to come up with unlikely scenarios in which your lol-worthy version just might hold up against the small excerpt I quoted, how about you read the whole thing.
---

Vlado posted...

Instead of trying to come up with unlikely scenarios in which your lol-worthy version just might hold up,

you probably shouldn't say shit like this when you believe in bullshit infowars conspiracy theories.
---

As I said, I don't follow infowars. Water filter salesman is controlled opposition. If he wasn't, he never would have been allowed to get this big.
---

Vlado posted...

Instead of trying to come up with unlikely scenarios in which your lol-worthy version just might hold up against the small excerpt I quoted, how about you read the whole thing.

As opposed to your "The Russia narrative is a hoax by the globalists and the deep state" scenarios that are well-researched and likely.
---

Guys, what if this is a call for help? What if the Russian government kidnapped vlado's loved ones and threatened him? You know, if he ever makes a post on gamefaqs that even appears to be mildly critical of Russia, those loved ones are dead? What if they're being tortured as we speak and won't be let go until we all have been convinced by vlado's posts?




Hahaha that's funny, vlado doesn't have loved ones.
---

What if they've kidnapped his waifu? What then?!
---

I think Tifa could get out of it on her own
---

TheRock1525 posted...

If someone said "I want to sit on the top of your house and yell obscenities at people walking by" and you said "no" are they allowed to yell "CENSORSHIP!" because that's essentially what you're saying whenever a privately owned company opts to do the same thing.

If your house was hosting public events, and you turned around and opted to exclude people based on views. Yes.

Not all censorship is bad, but there's a very fine line.
---

Espeon posted...

As opposed to your "The Russia narrative is a hoax by the globalists and the deep state" scenarios that are well-researched and likely.

It is researched and a fact, but it doesn't even need to be. "Innocent until proven guilty." There is not a SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE implicating Russia so far.

And you're choosing to ignore the clear evidence presented on that site... That's entirely on you. You choose to be ignorant.
---

Vlado posted...

It is researched and a fact, but it doesn't even need to be. "Innocent until proven guilty." There is not a SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE implicating Russia so far.

And you're choosing to ignore the clear evidence presented on that site... That's entirely on you. You choose to be ignorant.

June 3rd, 2016. Donald Trump Jr. received an email care of the russian government that offered to give the trump campaign dirt on hillary clinton.

Now that doesn't prove that Russia was successfully able to swing the election in Trumps' favor. But it does show us that they were TRYING to.



June 7th, 2016. Only FOUR days later, and before the arranged Russia/TrumpJr meeting took place Donald Trump himself gave a campaign speech indicating that the following week he would have even more dirt to dish on Hillary. Specifically hillary and her russian connection.

This proves that Trump KNEW about the impending meeting, or at least knew that people in his campaign were about to get their hands on something.




So here is what I see:

We can conclude with reasonable certainty that Russia was attempting to swing the election. And it isn't just from the meeting, there are a litany of damning implications.

Further, we can conclude that Trump was at the very least AWARE OF these efforts enough to promise to deliver information from a secret meeting that hadn't taken place yet.

Therefore it is pretty reasonable to say that Trump was aware of the attempts at criminal activity to swing the election on his behalf. Even if we can't yet prove they did enough to actually have an impact on the results, the fact of the matter is that they tried, and that's still a pretty fucking illegal thing to do.


"Well you see officer, yeah I shot my gun at her a bunch of times, but all my shots missed so really no crime was committed, right?"

^That type of logic does not work.




But then you, seeing the same evidence decide to say "WELL LETS NOT JUMP TO ANY HASTY CONCLUSIONS. YOU ARE READING TOO MUCH INTO ALL THESE SHADY DEALINGS. AND STOP CONNECTING LINES. TREAT THESE ALL AS FULLY UNCONNECTED AND EQUALLY UNLIKELY SCENARIOS."


I put that in ALL CAPS because in my mind you have your fingers shoved in your ears and you are shouting as loud as you can.
---

Holy crap, you still haven't picked up that the Don Jr. thing was a setup and Russia weren't involved at all? That was months ago, dude. "The prime prosecutor of Russia," as advertised in that e-mail, is just some random lawyer whose existence Putin is probably unaware of.
---

Standard Vlado: "There's no evidence of X besides the mountains of evidence I dismiss in favor of Russian propaganda"
---

Show me some proof that the woman in question is in any way related to the Russian government, and I'll consider the possibility. You won't because there isn't any. If there was, the globalist media would've exploded already months ago.
---

Vlado,u only share articles you like

Isn't that censorship? You should share all articles equally
---

Vlado posted...

Show me some proof that the woman in question is in any way related to the Russian government, and I'll consider the possibility. You won't because there isn't any. If there was, the globalist media would've exploded already months ago.

"MOSCOW — The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. last year after his father had won the Republican nomination for president had once represented Russia’s top intelligence agency in court, according to at least two public records.

The lawyer, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, who is now at the center of the political intrigue over the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with Russia during Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign, represented a military unit founded by the Russian Federal Security Service in 2002, publicly available records show.

The service, known as the F.S.B., is the successor agency to the K.G.B. and was once headed by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia."

Are you really going to say she's just some random lawyer

Don't you think that's awfully coincidental
---

I just want to remind everyone that Vlado "The e-mails that Donald Trump Jr. personally released with ties to Russia don't mean anything" Vlaykov is the same guy who made a topic during the DNC e-mail leak where he claimed proof of a globalist media conspiracy based on a sarcastic comment that the website he stole his opinion from took out of context.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Are you really going to say she's just some random lawyer

Don't you think that's awfully coincidental

prediction of vlado's response:

"When you're trying to find poor, roundabout excuses to justify your version, it's time to give up. I'll keep trusting the 100% factual and unbiased reporting by the state sponsored Russian media."
---

I think the issue is that even if we grant vlado the handicap of "this Russian is unconnected to the Russian government", he's from a backwater country and doesn't understand that it's against our domestic laws for a presidential campaign to accept explicit assistance from any foreigner. She could be a homeless Russian beggar who is trying to fuck Don Jr and just wants to get close to him, and lies about having dirt on Clinton. Regardless of her connection to the government, regardless of what she does or does not have - it's illegal and improper to include foreign agents in an American campaign.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Vlado posted...

Show me some proof that the woman in question is in any way related to the Russian government, and I'll consider the possibility. You won't because there isn't any. If there was, the globalist media would've exploded already months ago.

"MOSCOW — The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. last year after his father had won the Republican nomination for president had once represented Russia’s top intelligence agency in court, according to at least two public records.

The lawyer, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, who is now at the center of the political intrigue over the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with Russia during Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign, represented a military unit founded by the Russian Federal Security Service in 2002, publicly available records show.

The service, known as the F.S.B., is the successor agency to the K.G.B. and was once headed by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia."

Are you really going to say she's just some random lawyer

Don't you think that's awfully coincidental

And that makes her "Russia's prime prosecutor" or whatever that e-mail said?

You're going to need something more concrete than that. Especially considering she gave Don Jr. nothing of value. Why would Putin send someone to Don Jr. who would be of no help to him at all? Unless of course you claim Putin was helping Clinton. :)

Peace___Frog posted...

I think the issue is that even if we grant vlado the handicap of "this Russian is unconnected to the Russian government", he's from a backwater country and doesn't understand that it's against our domestic laws for a presidential campaign to accept explicit assistance from any foreigner. She could be a homeless Russian beggar who is trying to fuck Don Jr and just wants to get close to him, and lies about having dirt on Clinton. Regardless of her connection to the government, regardless of what she does or does not have - it's illegal and improper to include foreign agents in an American campaign.

Talking to a person does not make them part of the campaign. Clinton's campaign obviously talked to lots of foreigners, too. You're grasping at straws, and it's frankly a waste of everyone's time to continue talking about this.
---

rewatching the donald jr. interview with hannity, it's incredible how don jr. manages to be almost as unlikable and insufferable as his father in the span of one interview.

that face he makes after he says the line "someone sends me an e-mail" jesus christ i want to punch him.
---

Vlado posted...

Talking to a person does not make them part of the campaign. Clinton's campaign obviously talked to lots of foreigners, too. You're grasping at straws, and it's frankly a waste of everyone's time to continue talking about this

He didn't just "talk" to her. He explicitly stated that he would love her assistance. And that's over the legal line, regardless of your personal feelings on where the line should be.

Or do you think that a society does not have the right to codify into law where they think the lines of legality should be?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

rewatching the donald jr. interview with hannity, it's incredible how don jr. manages to be almost as unlikable and insufferable as his father in the span of one interview.

that face he makes after he says the line "someone sends me an e-mail" jesus christ i want to punch him.

And that's why you guys are so clueless about geopolitics. You are controlled by your childish emotions.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

He didn't just "talk" to her. He explicitly stated that he would love her assistance. And that's over the legal line, regardless of your personal feelings on where the line should be.

Is it? Let's see the law in question. Considering it was obviously bait and nothing of value was obtained, I doubt it'd lead to a guilty verdict even if there was such a law, which I doubt.
---

Vlado posted...

And that makes her "Russia's prime prosecutor" or whatever that e-mail said?

You're going to need something more concrete than that. Especially considering she gave Don Jr. nothing of value. Why would Putin send someone to Don Jr. who would be of no help to him at all? Unless of course you claim Putin was helping Clinton. :)

No, it doesn't. But it also makes the likelihood that she had zero connection to any Russian government agency also very slim, too, wouldn't you atleast agree to that much?

Like, you don't choose just any lawyer to represent a country's intelligence agency, and then they don't just return to being some regular nobody lawyer.

So while it's obviously not proof that she was actually sent by Russia directly to do anything, I think you can atleast see why it's worth looking into. She was somebody with government ties of some manner, and it'd be foolish to ignore that if you think something illegal might have happened. It could turn out nothing did at all, but you have to look into it.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

No, it doesn't. But it also makes the likelihood that she had zero connection to any Russian government agency also very slim, too, wouldn't you atleast agree to that much?

No, I wouldn't. There are probably hundreds of Russian lawyers who represented a government-affiliated organisation once or twice. Doesn't mean that they are all working for the Russian government at any given time.

And let's not forget this lady was posting anti-Trump nonsense on her facebook. It's most likely a setup.

HashtagSEP posted...

Like, you don't choose just any lawyer to represent a country's intelligence agency, and then they don't just return to being some regular nobody lawyer.

Citation needed.

HashtagSEP posted...

So while it's obviously not proof that she was actually sent by Russia directly to do anything, I think you can atleast see why it's worth looking into. She was somebody with government ties of some manner, and it'd be foolish to ignore that if you think something illegal might have happened. It could turn out nothing did at all, but you have to look into it.

Sure. They are most definitely looking at it. Nothing's turning up, however.
---

Vlado posted...

No, I wouldn't. There are probably hundreds of Russian lawyers who represented a government-affiliated organisation once or twice. Doesn't mean that they are all working for the Russian government at any given time.


HashtagSEP posted...
Like, you don't choose just any lawyer to represent a country's intelligence agency, and then they don't just return to being some regular nobody lawyer.

Citation needed.

So you think they just randomly pick lawyers and go "You represent the CIA now"

Okay. That says about all that needs to be said.
---

I'm saying that you don't suddenly become some top dog just because you represented the government a couple of times. Again, there are probably hundreds like her.

Funny how you conveniently won't comment on the rest of the post.
---

Vlado will post any link/article/video that confirms to his pre-existing beliefs without any additional research whatsoever (like the ignorant sheep he is), but anything he disagrees with, he'll automatically call it fake, again doing zero research. Vlado is a lazy troll.

I guarantee that if Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin came out in an interview with Julian Assange saying they all colluded to rig the American election, Vlado would either completely ignore it and continue posting lies and nonsense within a week, or he would claim that the Deep State was coercing them to say that.
---

Espeon posted...

Vlado will post any link/article/video that confirms to his pre-existing beliefs without any additional research whatsoever (like the ignorant sheep he is), but anything he disagrees with, he'll automatically call it fake, again doing zero research. Vlado is a lazy troll.

I guarantee that if Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin came out in an interview with Julian Assange saying they all colluded to rig the American election, Vlado would either completely ignore it and continue posting lies and nonsense within a week, or he would claim that the Deep State was coercing them to say that.

You believe a claim without evidence. I say it's false, due to the lack of evidence.
---

Vlado posted...

Espeon posted...

Vlado will post any link/article/video that confirms to his pre-existing beliefs without any additional research whatsoever (like the ignorant sheep he is), but anything he disagrees with, he'll automatically call it fake, again doing zero research. Vlado is a lazy troll.

I guarantee that if Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin came out in an interview with Julian Assange saying they all colluded to rig the American election, Vlado would either completely ignore it and continue posting lies and nonsense within a week, or he would claim that the Deep State was coercing them to say that.

You believe a claim without evidence. I say it's false, due to the lack of evidence.

Apologize for spreading lies about Seth Rich then. Where's the actual evidence there?
---

I mean, I don't know what you're looking for, here.

"In another email Goldstone referred to Veselnitskaya as “the Russian government attorney.”"

There's nothing false about this. She was a government attorney.
---

Again, you spent one of these topics arguing that an out-of-context quote from an e-mail was proof of a media conspiracy to push a globalist agenda. Yet an e-mail chain published by Donald Trump Jr., in which he is offered support from Russian sources to help his father's presidential campaign and he ACCEPTS THE OFFER, is worth your skepticism. You ONLY believe sources that confirm your biases. Period. You are incapable of critical thinking, or really, independent thought in general. You just parrot whatever lies fit your narrative so you can keep up this facade of being smarter than everyone else.
---

Why are you people engaging with this chucklefuck?

You don't get the excuse that you're arguing for the sake of the lurkers. Nobody lurks Vlado topics. This is literally just you wasting your time with a nobody fanfiction writer with nothing of value to contribute. He has never admitted wrong doing or changed his mind on anything. You're talking to a bot, not a person.
---

Espeon posted...

Apologize for spreading lies about Seth Rich then. Where's the actual evidence there?

I've never said that he's 100% the WikiLeaks source, just that it's most likely. Different things. And if you deny that his murder was suspicious, lol.

HashtagSEP posted...

I mean, I don't know what you're looking for, here.

"In another email Goldstone referred to Veselnitskaya as “the Russian government attorney.”"

There's nothing false about this. She was a government attorney.

Just because somebody represented the government in 2 cases some years ago (considering your source is even correct, I don't care enough to verify) doesn't make them "a government attorney" for life.

Anyway, don't quote dumb globalist media shills. Quote the source itself.

https://twitter.com/donaldjtrumpjr/status/884789839522140166

"Crown prosecutor of Russia"... lmao

Look, if you're looking for Russian involvement in the elections, you're far more likely to find something real if you look into Russians influencing social media. RT were clearly biased in favour of Sanders and Trump (in that order). They've got a massive following - just read today they recently reached 5 billion views on youtube.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. Americans have been meddling in other countries' affairs since forever, it's only fair they get a taste of their own medicine.
---

Vlado posted...

Just because somebody represented the government in 2 cases some years ago (considering your source is even correct, I don't care enough to verify) doesn't make them "a government attorney" for life.

Perhaps you should actually look into her more so you know what you're talking about and don't appear so foolish.
---

Anyway, don't quote dumb globalist media shills. Quote the source itself.

https://twitter.com/donaldjtrumpjr/status/884789839522140166

"Crown prosecutor of Russia"... lmao
---

Vlado posted...

"Crown prosecutor of Russia"... lmao

"But lawyers and others in Moscow’s legal community called her a trusted insider, one who could be counted on to argue and win important high-profile court cases that matter to the government and to one senior, well-connected official in particular."

Again, you should probably look into her more so you don't appear so foolish.
---

Are you serious? Did you even read the first sentence in my previous post? Are you expecting anything else than globalist media trying to spin that person into someone important, in desperate hopes that this farce can live on for a bit more?

There's nothing that holds your story together.

Again, how do you comment on her anti-Trump facebook posts? Why does Putin send someone to Trump who offers nothing of use?

You are trusting people with clear agenda - and for no other reason than it matching your own agenda. I trust the facts. That's the difference between us.
---

Vlado posted...

Are you serious? Did you even read the first sentence in my previous post? Are you expecting anything else than globalist media trying to spin that person into someone important, in desperate hopes that this farce can live on for a bit more?

There's nothing that holds your story together.

Again, how do you comment on her anti-Trump facebook posts? Why does Putin send someone to Trump who offers nothing of use?

You are trusting people with clear agenda - and for no other reason than it matching your own agenda. I trust the facts. That's the difference between us.

lmao

Goodbye
---

This is all surprisingly relevant considering Don Jr is testifying about it to the Senate this week

https://twitter.com/adamgoldmannyt/status/905814642127196164
---