Conspiracy Theories (“Alternative Research”)

[cduggles]

If you go to Wikileaks and search for any of the keywords of what I said - the email in question will instantly pop up.

By “links to sources” I meant “links to sources”, not utfse.

Tbc, I was not implying Wikileaks is a bad source.

 

[yepyepwoah]

@yepyepwoah Russiagate conspiracy post disappears, is there a conspiracy inside the CEPS forum .Or did he delete it himself:censored:

I was really just trolling trying to say the whole FISA/Russia thing is just as much a conspiracy theory as "Lizard people running the show" at this point. As in, the proof I see for "Russian collusion" is as sketchy to me as the proof I could bring up for things most consider conspiracy theory. Seemed disingenuous when I realized I didn't are enough to argue/debate it though so I deleted it.

Also. 1967 CIA dispatch revealved in 1976 FOIA request

The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by … propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.

f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way ….

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Conspiracy Theory in America

Ever since the Warren Commission concluded that a lone gunman assassinated President John F. Kennedy, people who doubt that finding have been widely dismissed as conspiracy theorists, despite credible evidence that right-wing elements in the CIA, FBI, and Secret Service—and possibly even senior...

books.google.com

 

[JGrimez]

 

[Xorkoth]

You claimed that you were super serious about the Russian threat. If that's true you would not have said "that's whataboutism", you would've said "Yes those scandals are extremely worrying considered there's evidence of Russian collusion there with US officials". But because it targets your preferred party, it's "whataboutism". "Whataboutism" is a made up term that is designed to deflect from hypocrisy. I'm sorry you did expose yourself. You lied when said you're very concerned about the Russian threat, what you should've said is that you only care about a Russian threat if it makes Trump look bad.

No, whataboutism is a term used to describe exactly what you were doing... it's when someone makes a claim and instead of responding to it, you deflect it by saying "but XXX happened", and fail to address the original claim. For example, I might say "Burger King's food contains pink slime and we should be concerned about this". If you answered that with "but what about McDonald's? Their food also contains pink slime! Why haven't you said anything about McDonald's?", then that would be whataboutism. Do you see why that's deflection? I might fully agree with you that McDonald's ALSO contains pink slime, but it has no bearing either here or there on Burger King or what I just said about Burger King. Me not mentioning McDonalds also doesn't mean I disagree with you about McDonalds being equally (or more) shitty. But I was trying to discuss Burger King at the moment and your reply entirely bypassed my point.

Thanks for calling me a liar though, and presuming to know how concerned I am about Russia.

So do you think Clinton (and others) should be investigated for their crimes with Russia, or has the time passed?

Yes, they should be investigated

 

[Chris42393]

Conspiracy theory... My Chief is Big Foot... Dude is huge and hairy.

 

[JGrimez]

No, whataboutism is a term used to describe exactly what you were doing... it's when someone makes a claim and instead of responding to it, you deflect it by saying "but XXX happened", and fail to address the original claim. For example, I might say "Burger King's food contains pink slime and we should be concerned about this". If you answered that with "but what about McDonald's? Their food also contains pink slime! Why haven't you said anything about McDonald's?", then that would be whataboutism. Do you see why that's deflection?

I understand the concept of "whataboutism", but the term was literally created by the Democrats and media when people began to point out Clinton's ties to Russia, while they were accusing Trump.
And I'll tell you the big difference - it's the severity of the different incidents, along with the evidence. Trump colluding with Russia and Russia altering the results of the election didn't happen/wasn't proven. But allowing them to illegally export uranium, and permitting unapproved access to sensitive state secrets are facts and were proven. I agree Russians (not the government) did try to sow a bit of chaos among citizens, but that's about all we can prove and it was on an extremely small scale (and not even always in favor of Trump.)

Thanks for calling me a liar though, and presuming to know how concerned I am about Russia.

You made a claim about how you felt about Russia so I was seeing if you actually meant it. I wouldn't necessarily call you a liar, but I think your hate for Trump and protection of Democrats overrides your genuine desire for the truth.

 

[alasdairm]

You believed it even if you didn't explicitly state it.

prove that. prove i believed it or please withdraw that claim and apologise.

alasdair

 

[JGrimez]

I withdraw the claim. You hoped and prayed it were true. You also flippantly dismissed all the evidence I presented proving the conspiracy theory was bogus from the beginning. Sorry.

 

[JGrimez]

Alex Jones is full of shit.
Donald Trump is full of shit.

 

[JGrimez]

Voter fraud is real:

Los Angeles county has a registration rate of 112% its adult population

The entire state of California has a registration rate of 101%

11 of 58 counties in CA have registration rates above 100%

Is this why California is solid Blue?

?

 

[JessFR]

Voter fraud is real:

Los Angeles county has a registration rate of 112% its adult population.

So I decided to fact check that too, and as best I was able to tell, the origin of that claim is an organization called judicial watch, who made the claim with no evidence. I also went to their website, their about page self identifies them as a conservative organization in the first sentence.

So here we go again. So you have any evidence to back up this claim?

 

[yepyepwoah]

So I decided to fact check that too, and as best I was able to tell, the origin of that claim is an organization called judicial watch, who made the claim with no evidence. I also went to their website, their about page self identifies them as a conservative organization in the first sentence.

So here we go again. So you have any evidence to back up this claim?

I should get paid for this shit.

– Judicial Watch announced today that it signed a settlement agreement with the State of California and County of Los Angeles under which they will begin the process of removing from their voter registration rolls as many as 1.5 million inactive registered names that may be invalid. These removals are required by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

The NVRA is a federal law requiring the removal of inactive registrations from the voter rolls after two general federal elections (encompassing from 2 to 4 years). Inactive voter registrations belong, for the most part, to voters who have moved to another county or state or have passed away.

The Judicial Watch lawsuit also uncovered that neither the State of California nor Los Angeles County had been removing inactive voters from the voter registration rolls for the past 20 years. The Supreme Court affirmed last year in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Inst., 138 S. Ct. 1833 (2018) that the NVRA “makes this removal mandatory.”

The new settlement agreement, filed today with U.S. District Court Judge Manuel L. Real, requires all of the 1.5 million potentially ineligible registrants to be notified and asked to respond. If there is no response, those names are to be removed as required by the NVRA. California Secretary of State Padilla also agrees to update the State’s online NVRA manual to make clear that ineligible names must be removed and to notify each California county that they are obligated to do this. This should lead to cleaner voter rolls statewide.

California and Los Angeles County to Remove 1.5 Million Inactive Voters from Voter Rolls – Settle Judicial Watch Federal Lawsuit - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it signed a settlement agreement with the State of California and County of Los Angeles under which they will begin the process of removing from their voter registration rolls as many as 1.5 million inactive registered names that may be...

www.judicialwatch.org

JW v Logan California NVRA settlement 08948 - Judicial Watch

[pdfexcerpt]

www.judicialwatch.org

A leftover from earlier in the week that I wanted to make sure didn't get buried amid fast-moving news cycles: The state of California is being forced to purge up to one-and-a-half million voters from its statewide rolls, following a legal settlement that arose from a Judicial Watch lawsuit. This development follows similar outcomes in Kentucky and Ohio, also spurred by the conservative watchdog group's legal actions.

And via the Sacramento Bee, the state is now actively investigating whether non-citizens participated in recent California elections after they were improperly registered to vote through a Department of Motor Vehicles error (a cynic might put the word "error" in scare quotes):

California officials still can’t say whether non-citizens voted in the June 2018 primary because a confusing government questionnaire about eligibility was created in a way that prevents a direct answer on citizenship.

Revealed: Number Registered to Vote in Los Angeles County Far Exceeds Population of US Citizens

UPDATE: Settlement Mandates Purge of 1.5 Million Inactive Voters Statewide.

townhall.com

 

[JessFR]

It's interesting, but I'm still not seeing solid evidence of the figure of 112% registration rate.

This does bring up something else I find interesting though.

It seems to be saying that whats being removed is inactive registrations. As in voter registrations that aren't being used.

Isn't it plausible that if there are 112% of the population registered, that many or perhaps most of those are simply inactive registrations not being used?

Regardless, I looked over the evidence you provided, I didn't see anything affirming the 112% number. So if it's in there could you perhaps direct me to it?

 

[cduggles]

From @yepyepwoah ’s first quote:

Inactive voter registrations belong, for the most part, to voters who have moved to another county or state or have passed away.

 

[yepyepwoah]

For the most part, could technically mean 51%.

As far as 112%, I don't know.

I'm just having fun playing Devil's Advocate here. Keep the conversation moving ya know.

To add on.

Why are we running our nationwide election system on outdated software. WINDOWS outdated software to be exact?

It seems common sense that if The Powers That (were) ... were interested in "fair" elections. We would have proprietary software no? How bout some of that NSA/CIA/DARPA software that is super leet and top secret? Perhaps dedicate a subset of alphabet boys to creating and maintaining voter systems?

I'm just the guy asking questions here...

Furthermore, the AP says that two of the three major election equipment vendors — Election Systems and Software LLC, and Hart InterCivic Inc — supply machines running outdated software: Hart InterCivic’s operating system will reach the end of its mainstream support on October 13th, 2020 (apparently Windows 10 Enterprise 2015 LTSBWindows 10 IoT Enterprise 2015 LTSB), while Election Systems and Software says that it will be offering a new system running on Windows 10. However, it’s unclear if that will be cleared for use and distributed to counties before the 2020 election in November. The AP says that a third vendor, Dominion Voting Systems Inc., is unaffected by the issue, but points out that it does have systems that it “acquired from no-longer-existing companies that may run on even older operating systems.”

Seems like we would have more interest in the security of our software for something that takes up a large part of news coverage and public interest seemingly every day of the year. What do I know, I'm just an egalitarian humanist. ;-)

Microsoft tells the AP that it will issue free security updates for Windows 7 through 2023. But, while the company can continue to release patches for its systems, system owners will need to actually install them. In 2017, the WannaCry cyberattack crippled thousands of computers in over 100 countries that were running versions of Windows XP and Windows 7 that didn’t have security patches installed. Windows ended up issuing a special patch for Windows XP users, and has since released additional patches to fix new vulnerabilities. But even more than two years later, Microsoft says that more than a million computers are still vulnerable to security exploits.

As US counties update their voting machines, many run on outdated software

Many systems run Microsoft’s Windows 7, which will stop receiving support in January 2020

www.theverge.com

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Isn't it plausible that if there are 112% of the population registered, that many or perhaps most of those are simply inactive registrations not being used?

From the San Diego Tribune

What exactly does Judicial Watch claim?
Judicial Watch says 11 counties in California are in violation of a section of the National Voter Registration Act that requires states to do a “reasonable list maintenance” of voter registration lists.

To support its argument, it compares population numbers in the 2011-2015 U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey to California’s registered voters — which combines those on active and inactive voter lists. By that calculation, 11 counties have more total registered voters than adults over the age of 18.

So, older census numbers (likely lower population than current) compared to active and INACTIVE registered voters - not WHO VOTED. Jess is right on this, it's a number game JW is using to purge inactives. While I understand the reasoning of the laws to clear inactive voters, and believe they should be enforced, I have a distaste for hyperbole or misrepresenting facts.

 

[yepyepwoah]

Fhat San Diego Tribune article was two years before the court verdict... Do you bave anything more recent?

If he had nothing to hide why not hand it over.

I would like to see actual logs of votes and compare to the list of recently ourged voters.

 

[alasdairm]

I withdraw the claim. You hoped and prayed it were true.

again no i didn't.

please prove that i hoped it and prayed it or withdraw the claim.

indeed, here are a couple of quotes which directly contradict your claim.

while i think that the papadopolous and flynn revelations are troubling for trump and suggest there is more to come, i'm going to wait for mueller's conclusions

and no, i really didn't hope he was a russian whatever. the idea of the president as a russian puppet/agent/colluder is awful to me as a u.s. citizen.

you are simply wrong here and you're (yet again ironically and hypocritically) unable to acknowledge the facts due to your own bias.

alasdair

 

[JGrimez]

Another previously-considered "conspiracy theory" which is now fact. Google censoring certain news outlets and manually curating results from certain search terms:

 

[JGrimez]

A former prosecutor weighs in: