Russia just hacked the French election

[The Grand World Order]

Remember, wanting Russia on board with an NFZ is bad.

Literally the only end result of an NFZ over Syria is removing one of the advantages Assad has over opposition/ISIS forces in the country. Russia sure as hell wasn't going to be on board with an NFZ, considering they consider FSA and whatnot to be just as bad as ISIS. Why would they?

[Proctopeo]

If I remember correctly, with the No Fly Zone over Syria, didn't multiple military experts say that would probably be a dumb idea, as well as being something that both Sanders and Trump considered a dumb idea? This was a while ago so I'm not 100% sure.

[Shofercia]

Remember, wanting Russia on board with an NFZ is bad.

Yes, it's bad, because it shows that whoever wants that, fails to grasp the situation. Russia is not going to agree to NFZ after what happened in Libya.

[The Portland Territory]

I like how no ones batting an eye that it is fact that the CIA meddled with the last French election but everyone's going nuts over the theory that Russia hacked the French

[Vassenor]

I like how no ones batting an eye that it is fact that the CIA meddled with the last French election but everyone's going nuts over the theory that Russia hacked the French

Let's see your source.

[Improved werpland]

I like how no ones batting an eye that it is fact that the CIA meddled with the last French election but everyone's going nuts over the theory that Russia hacked the French

To be honest I like that too, but they didn't meddle, they monitored the candidates.

[Cedoria]

>no proof

> https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Is that an unbiased source? Exactly. Get an actual source or stop trying to cover up for (((them)))

If you mean 'unbiased' in terms of the way that term is popularly used, there is no such thing.

You are biased, so am I. Too demand an 'unbiased' source is too cry for the moon.

If you use the word unbiased according to its proper definition, which essentially means factually accurate, that's easier to do.

Just because a source makes a point that does not conform to pre-conceived notions of yours doesn't make it untrue.

[Cedoria]

Can you provide any examples of "unbaised" sources?

BBC, All Jazeera, CBC, uncucked news networks.

None of those are 'unbiased' in the sense to which you refer.

Every source has a political viewpoint it reports from. If you demand one that doesn't have one, you won't find it. Of course, what you really want is one that reports from YOUR preconceived notion.

[Proctopeo]

Is that an unbiased source? Exactly. Get an actual source or stop trying to cover up for (((them)))

If you mean 'unbiased' in terms of the way that term is popularly used, there is no such thing.

You are biased, so am I. Too demand an 'unbiased' source is too cry for the moon.

If you use the word unbiased according to its proper definition, which essentially means factually accurate, that's easier to do.

Just because a source makes a point that does not conform to pre-conceived notions of yours doesn't make it untrue.

Often, when people request an "unbiased" source, it's a request for a source with minimal bias.

[Cedoria]

This help didn't arrive soon enough. I really wanted this dirt on Macron to really swing the French election to Le Pen. I had high hopes for this.

The fact you felt it necessary to receive the assistance of a despotic regime's security agencies to favor 'your' candidate says a lot about the mindset which explains why La Pen lost in the first place.

Europe has a long memory for Fascism, and they don't want it back. Good for them.

[Proctopeo]

This help didn't arrive soon enough. I really wanted this dirt on Macron to really swing the French election to Le Pen. I had high hopes for this.

The fact you felt it necessary to receive the assistance of a despotic regime's security agencies to favor 'your' candidate says a lot about the mindset which explains why La Pen lost in the first place.

Europe has a long memory for Fascism, and they don't want it back. Good for them.

I don't think Le Pen was fascist. Wasn't she just nationalist?

[Cedoria]

If you mean 'unbiased' in terms of the way that term is popularly used, there is no such thing.

You are biased, so am I. Too demand an 'unbiased' source is too cry for the moon.

If you use the word unbiased according to its proper definition, which essentially means factually accurate, that's easier to do.

Just because a source makes a point that does not conform to pre-conceived notions of yours doesn't make it untrue.

Often, when people request an "unbiased" source, it's a request for a source with minimal bias.

No, often it means "I want a source that agrees with me, irrespective of whether it's actually true"

Again, what do you mean by 'minimal bias'? Minimal bias would technically mean only minimally inaccurate. Or a source that simply doesn't proclaim which agenda it supports openly? Cause the latter is even more dangerous then a source that declares its true colours.

I always am more inclined to trust the authenticity of a source that tells me in advance where it's coming from and the political position it espouses, then I am to trust in the pseduo-objectivity of those who claim the truth is their only concern, but still push just as much of an agenda. Likewise, I always try to do people the favour of proclaiming my allegiances and background openly when I try and write something, so they can understand where I'm coming from when evaluating the usefulness of my critique.

[Cedoria]

The fact you felt it necessary to receive the assistance of a despotic regime's security agencies to favor 'your' candidate says a lot about the mindset which explains why La Pen lost in the first place.

Europe has a long memory for Fascism, and they don't want it back. Good for them.

I don't think Le Pen was fascist. Wasn't she just nationalist?

She denied the Vichy Government helped send the Jews into the death camps, and her father was an out and out Neo-Nazi. She's had too pretend to be more moderate, but she also once said her father never told her a lie that she knew of.

So no, Fascist pretending to be merely a nationalist perhaps, but Fascist is pretty accurate.

[Proctopeo]

Often, when people request an "unbiased" source, it's a request for a source with minimal bias.

No, often it means "I want a source that agrees with me, irrespective of whether it's actually true"

Again, what do you mean by 'minimal bias'? Minimal bias would technically mean only minimally inaccurate. Or a source that simply doesn't proclaim which agenda it supports openly? Cause the latter is even more dangerous then a source that declares its true colours.

I always am more inclined to trust the authenticity of a source that tells me in advance where it's coming from and the political position it espouses, then I am to trust in the pseduo-objectivity of those who claim the truth is their only concern, but still push just as much of an agenda. Likewise, I always try to do people the favour of proclaiming my allegiances and background openly when I try and write something, so they can understand where I'm coming from when evaluating the usefulness of my critique.

Something can often mean two things. "Often" doesn't mean "usually". And I meant the former; I am a fan of knowing what stance something is coming from.

I don't think Le Pen was fascist. Wasn't she just nationalist?

She denied the Vichy Government helped send the Jews into the death camps, and her father was an out and out Neo-Nazi. She's had too pretend to be more moderate, but she also once said her father never told her a lie that she knew of.

So no, Fascist pretending to be merely a nationalist perhaps, but Fascist is pretty accurate.

Looking into her comments, they seem poorly worded but not fascist/naziist in any way. She blamed the people in power, not France itself, which I see as a legitimate assessment. As for her father, I'll need actual evidence, as I'm suspecting that your statement is due to his political position relative to yours.

[Thermodolia]

No, often it means "I want a source that agrees with me, irrespective of whether it's actually true"

Again, what do you mean by 'minimal bias'? Minimal bias would technically mean only minimally inaccurate. Or a source that simply doesn't proclaim which agenda it supports openly? Cause the latter is even more dangerous then a source that declares its true colours.

I always am more inclined to trust the authenticity of a source that tells me in advance where it's coming from and the political position it espouses, then I am to trust in the pseduo-objectivity of those who claim the truth is their only concern, but still push just as much of an agenda. Likewise, I always try to do people the favour of proclaiming my allegiances and background openly when I try and write something, so they can understand where I'm coming from when evaluating the usefulness of my critique.

Something can often mean two things. "Often" doesn't mean "usually". And I meant the former; I am a fan of knowing what stance something is coming from.

She denied the Vichy Government helped send the Jews into the death camps, and her father was an out and out Neo-Nazi. She's had too pretend to be more moderate, but she also once said her father never told her a lie that she knew of.

So no, Fascist pretending to be merely a nationalist perhaps, but Fascist is pretty accurate.

Looking into her comments, they seem poorly worded but not fascist/naziist in any way. She blamed the people in power, not France itself, which I see as a legitimate assessment. As for her father, I'll need actual evidence, as I'm suspecting that your statement is due to his political position relative to yours.

Her father has gone to prison for holocaust denial, hes admitted to being a neo-Nazi.

[Cedoria]

No, often it means "I want a source that agrees with me, irrespective of whether it's actually true"

Again, what do you mean by 'minimal bias'? Minimal bias would technically mean only minimally inaccurate. Or a source that simply doesn't proclaim which agenda it supports openly? Cause the latter is even more dangerous then a source that declares its true colours.

I always am more inclined to trust the authenticity of a source that tells me in advance where it's coming from and the political position it espouses, then I am to trust in the pseduo-objectivity of those who claim the truth is their only concern, but still push just as much of an agenda. Likewise, I always try to do people the favour of proclaiming my allegiances and background openly when I try and write something, so they can understand where I'm coming from when evaluating the usefulness of my critique.

Something can often mean two things. "Often" doesn't mean "usually". And I meant the former; I am a fan of knowing what stance something is coming from.

She denied the Vichy Government helped send the Jews into the death camps, and her father was an out and out Neo-Nazi. She's had too pretend to be more moderate, but she also once said her father never told her a lie that she knew of.

So no, Fascist pretending to be merely a nationalist perhaps, but Fascist is pretty accurate.

Looking into her comments, they seem poorly worded but not fascist/naziist in any way. She blamed the people in power, not France itself, which I see as a legitimate assessment. As for her father, I'll need actual evidence, as I'm suspecting that your statement is due to his political position relative to yours.

"Poorly Worded". Wouldn't it be nice if everytime I acted like a dick, I could rely on people to defend me by saying it was 'poorly worded'. La Pen is not a stupid communicator, she knew exactly the impression her remarks were intended to convey to her knob-head supporters, and she did convey them.

And to claim France was mistreated for it at the end of the war is alaughably revisionist and self-serving of post-war history. If anything France got off lightly (fine in my book, the French Resistance deserves a lot of credit for helping us finish off the Nazis).

Source for her Father being at least an apologist, if not actual sympathiser, of National Socialism.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... ust-detail

[Cedoria]

Something can often mean two things. "Often" doesn't mean "usually". And I meant the former; I am a fan of knowing what stance something is coming from.


Looking into her comments, they seem poorly worded but not fascist/naziist in any way. She blamed the people in power, not France itself, which I see as a legitimate assessment. As for her father, I'll need actual evidence, as I'm suspecting that your statement is due to his political position relative to yours.

Her father has gone to prison for holocaust denial, hes admitted to being a neo-Nazi.

I'm sure I heard he had called himself such before now, I can't find the source right now though, but the holocaust denial was findable after only about two minutes of searching.

Anybody who just wants to call him a nationalist had better re-examine their position on this, or else question WHY they are so determined to keep him away from the 'Nazi' label when it is so richly deserved.

When you consider his history of committing war crimes in Algeria, it's hardly surprising he should end up being such a nut.

[Proctopeo]

That makes sense.

I find it a little bit absurd that you can go to prison for denying the Holocaust. Might just be my first amendmentitis.

[Cedoria]

That makes sense.

I find it a little bit absurd that you can go to prison for denying the Holocaust. Might just be my first amendmentitis.

I'm not in favour of it either, if only because it makes martyrs out of crackpots.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Track down the hackers, apprehend them, and drag them to the country they wronged.

I'm sick of seeing "national sovereignty" used to get away with this crap.

[The Portland Territory]

I like how no ones batting an eye that it is fact that the CIA meddled with the last French election but everyone's going nuts over the theory that Russia hacked the French

Let's see your source.

https://wikileaks.org/cia-france-elections-2012/

[Proctopeo]

Let's see your source.

https://wikileaks.org/cia-france-elections-2012/

In before "Putinleaks" comments.

[Imperial Zorika Jouth]

Is that an unbiased source? Exactly. Get an actual source or stop trying to cover up for (((them)))

If you mean 'unbiased' in terms of the way that term is popularly used, there is no such thing.

You are biased, so am I. Too demand an 'unbiased' source is too cry for the moon.

If you use the word unbiased according to its proper definition, which essentially means factually accurate, that's easier to do.

Just because a source makes a point that does not conform to pre-conceived notions of yours doesn't make it untrue.

Can you provide any evidence for the claim that Russia used hacks to support anyone on any side of either the US or French elections that doesn't amount to "these people say so?"

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

If you mean 'unbiased' in terms of the way that term is popularly used, there is no such thing.

You are biased, so am I. Too demand an 'unbiased' source is too cry for the moon.

If you use the word unbiased according to its proper definition, which essentially means factually accurate, that's easier to do.

Just because a source makes a point that does not conform to pre-conceived notions of yours doesn't make it untrue.

Can you provide any evidence for the claim that Russia used hacks to support anyone on any side of either the US or French elections that doesn't amount to "these people say so?"

What, you expect our pathological-liar-in-chief who flip-flops on everything under the sun to be more likely to be telling the truth than institutions dedicated to investigating things?

If so, what do you figure is behind Trump's decision to fire Comey?

[Vassenor]

Let's see your source.

https://wikileaks.org/cia-france-elections-2012/

So can you demonstrate the double standard you are alleging then? Proving it happened is only half of what you accused us of.