Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 143: Finally Exposing Rafael Cruz

(+) Yeah! (+)

Ulti conveniently leaving out that the Podesta that resigned from his company was Tony Podesta, not the man who was involved in Clinton's campaign (John Podesta)

FFDragon posted...

I don't care who gets indicted so long as we actually figure out the extent of the damage tbqh

Also this
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Okay I checked it out

Theyre running with If the FBI was investigating Manafort even as far back as 2014, how come they never told Trump when he hired him? They were trying to set Trump up!

jakyl'd lol
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I think the people who say "this all took place before the election" are being a little shortsighted.

If someone has dirt on you, or you owe them substantial money, then you are very easily compromised. "Hey, get Trump to do this, we'll make it go away."

In fact, there's already been circumstantial evidence of this, when the RNC's platform on Ukraine changed overnight to be far more favorable to Russia, literally the day after (I believe), Trump campaign officials met with Sergey Kislyak.

Not to mention that Manafort was able to run the campaign for free because he had all this illegal Russian money. That's a huge benefit that Trump received as a result of Manafort's crimes.
---

1) Apparently background checks don't exist?
2) Remember when Trump's campaign publicly ignored the intelligence community as long as possible when they were saying Russia was responsible for the hacks?
---

kevwaffles posted...

1) Apparently background checks don't exist?
2) Remember when Trump's campaign publicly ignored the intelligence community as long as possible when they were saying Russia was responsible for the hacks?

Didn't they also ignore it when they were told about Flynn while he was President?

Well, for a few weeks until enough of the story went public that it happened. And even then it seemed to be one of the more reluctant actions taken.
---

xp1337 posted...

Well, for a few weeks until enough of the story went public that it happened. And even then it seemed to be one of the more reluctant actions taken.

Yeah, his response was along these lines:

(from https://www.vox.com/2017/2/16/14640956/trump-press-conference-flynn-fired)

Trumps answer was very odd:

No, I fired him because of what he said to Mike Pence. He was doing his job and his counterparts, so it certainly would have been okay with me if he did it. I would have directed him to do it if I thought he wasnt doing it. I didnt direct him, but I wouldve directed him because thats his job. And it came out that way, and, in all fairness, I watched Dr. Charles Krauthammer the other night saying he was doing his job, and I agreed with him. And since then, Ive watched many other people say that. I didnt direct him, but I wouldve directed him if he didnt do it.

So according to Trump:

Trump did not direct Flynn to call Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and talk about sanctions, so there is no wrongdoing on Trumps part.
But there was also nothing wrong with Flynns decision to call Kislyak and talk about sanctions, so there is no wrongdoing on Flynns part.
Flynn got fired not due to underlying misconduct, but because he told Vice President Pence he hadnt discussed sanctions with Kislyak.
There are a bunch of different puzzling aspects to this.

First among them is the timing. Flynn wasnt fired when Trump was told that Flynn had lied to Pence. Nor was Flynn fired when Pence found out that Flynn had lied to Pence. Rather, Flynn was fired a few hours after the Washington Post told the public that Trump had been told weeks earlier that Flynn had lied to Pence.

So he would have kept him around forever if the public had not found out.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

I just want 100% of the truth out, because the idea 63 million people voted for Trump because of magical Russian voodoo is absurd.

I just want to say that I literally cannot remember ever seeing somebody push this narrative other than maybe right after the news of this potential scandal story broke in the first place and nobody knew what was going on.

I'm sure there's probably some subset of people who have done it recently, but I don't think they are a majority.
---

https://twitter.com/DustinGiebel/status/925174826498707457/video/1

Top tier Freudian slip, Hannity.
---

What if Fox News really is from Timeline B?

It would explain so much.
---

FFDragon posted...

What if Fox News really is from Timeline B?

It would explain so much.

Trump and Hannity could be like an awful version of Rick and Morty.
---

pyresword posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

I just want 100% of the truth out, because the idea 63 million people voted for Trump because of magical Russian voodoo is absurd.

I just want to say that I literally cannot remember ever seeing somebody push this narrative other than maybe right after the news of this potential scandal story broke in the first place and nobody knew what was going on.

I'm sure there's probably some subset of people who have done it recently, but I don't think they are a majority.

anyway, Trump's margin of victory was not 63 million votes

they don't need to have influenced nearly that many people to have an effect on the election
---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/upstairs-at-home/2017/10/30/fd0d0b16-bd87-11e7-8444-a0d4f04b89eb_story.html

man, the faucet is always running in the trump white house. wapo has done really good work with this insider stuff. feels like they just live in the white house.
---

as for fox news

https://www.avclub.com/fox-news-brands-radiohead-the-poor-mans-coldplay-1819850439

okay you've gone too god damn far
---

my bloody valentine stole everything from radiohead though.
---

Speaking of magical Russian voodoo!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/technology/facebook-google-russia.html?smid=tw-share

Oh whoops, did I say "magical Russian voodoo"? I meant "a highly orchestrated and sophisticated misinformation and propaganda campaign specifically intended to interfere with the American presidential election".
---

transience posted...

feels like they just live in the white house.

I like to imagine that one day Trump will realize he doesn't have a personal butler and it was a WaPo reporter in disguise all along.
---

pyresword posted...

UltimaterializerX posted...

I just want 100% of the truth out, because the idea 63 million people voted for Trump because of magical Russian voodoo is absurd.

I just want to say that I literally cannot remember ever seeing somebody push this narrative other than maybe right after the news of this potential scandal story broke in the first place and nobody knew what was going on.

I'm sure there's probably some subset of people who have done it recently, but I don't think they are a majority.

Keep in mind you are quoting someone who believed in Pizzagate so the idea that Russians could have tricked some people with fake news isnt that absurd.
---

Bleh, just realizing how poorly I worded my original comment. What I was trying (unsuccessfully) to say was something like "I don't see anyone approaching this issue from the angle of 'Trump only won the election because of the Russians and I'm going to prove it.'"

I think most people on both sides of the political spectrum agree that the reason to pursue this is to figure out what influence Russia has had and what can be done to prevent that in the future.
---

That would be the smart thing to do. It is also going to require the general public to be a little smarter about what they believe when they read anything as well.
---

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/kelly-civil-war-robert-lee-244353

That's...uh...one way to look at it.
---

FFDragon posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Okay I checked it out

Theyre running with If the FBI was investigating Manafort even as far back as 2014, how come they never told Trump when he hired him? They were trying to set Trump up!

jakyl'd lol

The other emerging narrative is "Manafort worked with the Podesta's and was a deep state/democratic plant anyway".

The mental gymnastics are just extraordinary.

I will say they all at least seem to agree he was a bad guy and deserves what he's getting. Which is honestly more than I was expecting.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/kelly-civil-war-robert-lee-244353

That's...uh...one way to look at it.

If only we could have compromised on human beings as chattel, instead of taking such a hardline stance against it.

The Party of Lincoln, everybody.
---

I hope people will start to focus on our Massive Tax Cuts for Business (jobs) and the Middle Class (in addition to Democrat corruption)!

"I hope losers will fall for my distraction attempts as my administration crumbles around me!"

That was in addition to a few tweets he devoted to yesterday's news, in which he states that few people even knew who George was! Incredible, considering he used his full name explicitly and heaped praise on him. Good job, 45.
---

The shooting from a few weeks ago is entirely out of the news now, so if course there's an active shooter situation at the University of Utah with one already dead.
---

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/925363340553211909
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/925364408364171265

The biggest story yesterday, the one that has the Dems in a dither, is Podesta running from his firm. What he know about Crooked Dems is....
....earth shattering. He and his brother could Drain The Swamp, which would be yet another campaign promise fulfilled. Fake News weak!

This is blithering nonsense even by Trump standards. I think hes rattled
---

dems in a dither has a nice ring to it
---

Is it a campaign promise fulfilled if he had nothing to do with it?
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Is it a campaign promise fulfilled if he had nothing to do with it?

That's all of his "fulfilled" campaign promises so far, so...
---

He and his brother could Drain The Swamp, which would be yet another campaign promise fulfilled.

i love this trump tactic of "i just keep SAYING i'm going to do the stuff i promised to do!"

eventually trump drones are going to stop falling for this, right? well, in preparation for trump inevatibly not fulfilling a lot of his campaign promises stefan molyneux already came up with the argument that "trump's army of voters isn't doing enough to help him" or some bullshit like that.
---

The problem is, what Trump thinks is the swamp isn't the swamp at all.
---

Apparently his lawyers are trying to keep him from spouting off against Mueller directly, but Bannon is pushing him to make it an all-out public bashing
---

MrGreenonion posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/kelly-civil-war-robert-lee-244353

That's...uh...one way to look at it.

If only we could have compromised on human beings as chattel, instead of taking such a hardline stance against it.

The Party of Lincoln, everybody.

The worst thing is, we did compromise. That's why we had peace between the North and South for 80 years!
---

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/925354960656748545

I would imagine that 50% are below average... that's how math works. The real question is what is average now vs before common core. https://t.co/OnwYhzS7iU

Looks to me like someone could use a lesson in math, since he obviously never learned the difference between mean and median.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/925354960656748545

I would imagine that 50% are below average... that's how math works. The real question is what is average now vs before common core. https://t.co/OnwYhzS7iU

Looks to me like someone could use a lesson in math, since he obviously never learned the difference between mean and median.

Don't you still end up with usually (sometimes roughly) 50% on each side of the mean?
---

depends on how extreme the high and low values are. if there a lot of really really bad or really really good scores, it can skew the mean to one end or the other.

like, if you have 10 scores out of 10 and the results are 10, 10, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, your mean is 2.8 and 80% of your scores are below the mean.
---

Only for certain distributions that are explicitly centered on the mean, such as uniform and normal. Consider the example where there are ten people and one randomly selected person receives ten apples. The average is one apple per person, but there are 90% of people below the mean and 10% above it.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Only for certain distributions that are explicitly centered on the mean, such as uniform and normal. Consider the example where there are ten people and one randomly selected person receives ten apples. The average is one apple per person, but there are 90% of people below the mean and 10% above it.

Well, yeah, but the chances of running into something like that in this particular case seems extremely unlikely. >_>
---

in this case, it probably is close-ish to 50%, but that's not "how math works"

probably nitpicky, but whatever.
---

I mean, I get that you can get a skewed mean in situations like that, but in something like ACT scores, the chances of that happening are pretty negligible. You're rarely going to see scores like "100, 100, 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10" in academics.

He's not entirely wrong when it comes to this kind of situation. Worded it poorly, sure
---

The thing i take issue with is "that's how math works," implying a specific thing about the definition of "average" that is not correct, while criticizing a method of teaching mathematics. Whatever one's issues with common core, replacing it with identifiably incorrect things is not a particularly good solution.

Furthermore, i have a particular disdain for assumptions of normal distributions in academic scores.
---

this is a weird thing to get on someone's case about when there's so much more
---

I mean, i brought up other issues to discuss, no one was interested in those
---

I mean this discussion doesn't matter because the article was stating that the scores of the state of Illinois are lagging behind the national average, not "hey why are the around half the people scoring below the average!!???"

It's fake outrage with dumb people banding together to go "ha look how smart we are, we understand how averages work!"
---

My experience with academic scores is that they're a normal distribution centered on 110 out of 100 :^)
---

I don't think anyone's actually outraged over the tweet
---

Regaro posted...

My experience with academic scores is that they're a normal distribution centered on 110 out of 100 :^)

Wowsa
---

donald jr. is such an insufferable person that every tweet he makes becomes way more annoying.

i mentally picture him making that dumb face when writing "that's how math works."
---

anyway if you want to get really outraged about something on twitter how about this

https://twitter.com/senatedems/status/925372702940188672

kill me
---