An example of a discussion going nowhere

From a conversation on Facebook one can see how difficult it is to have a meaningful discussion online without strong moderators or ground rules
***********************

René Upshaw  Follow

July 1 at 12:18am

It’s becoming increasingly clear that the only way forward is going to have to be an abandonment of the Democratic Party by progressives and its replacement by a genuine progressive socialist party that is clearly of and for working people, and for those who cannot find work in this increasingly dystopic America. ”

 

The incredible group-think that has seen the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, President Obama, the Clinton campaign and most of the corporate media braying that…
COUNTERPUNCH.ORG

Comments
Richard Pressl All 17 U.S. Intelligence Agencies affirmed that Russia interfered in the 2016 Election, and the attacks were orchestrated by Vladimir Putin. That fact has nothing whatsoever to do with Clinton’s loss.However a follow up analysis of voting preferences sSee More
LikeShow more reactions

ReplyJuly 1 at 1:26am

 

Richard Pressl Jimi Dauber Marchese men of few words departments do not necessarily indicate wisdom or high intelligence…it can simply demonstrate a lack of it.

Reply

Leah January All 17 intelligence agencies can ‘affirm’ that assertion until the cows come home, they have yet to provide any concrete evidence of it. Whoever did the follow up analysis of voting preferences missed the mark by miles if it showed a small number, as ySee More
LikeShow more reactions

Reply

2

July 1 at 2:47am

 

Richard Pressl Leah…sound as if you are attempting an exculpatory stance for the defeat of Clinton 2016 in favor of Trump….ie: don’t blame the Sanders clan …it was XYZ not us. Partly true…but partly false. When faced with the choice between only two possible outcomes those who make the worst choice share the blame for final results.

ReplyJuly 1 at 3:19pmEdited

 

Leah January Well hell, everydamnthing can be classified as partly true and partly false. Affixing blame outside our own selves is nearly always a futile exercise and rarely ever helpful.

 

Bill Smith The blame for the Trump presidency lies squarely upon the shoulders of the DNC, HRC, the corporate controlled media and the numerous corrupt state and local party leaders and elected officials who participated in the election fraud, election rigging anSee More
LikeShow more reactions

Reply

1

July 1 at 8:56am

 

Richard Pressl There were about a dozen Dem candidates to begin the primary season…it got whittled down to two…then to one. After the primary there were only two candidates available to become President. Are you with me on this yet? Regardless of anyone’s prefereSee More

Reply

 

Richard Pressl Hogwash….sounds like there is a nest of Libertarians here rather than disgruntled Democrats. If they truly believe than in a one-of contest Trump would be better than Clinton then as Dauber Marchese suggests – ignorance does become them.
LikeShow more reactions

ReplyJuly 1 at 2:48pmEdited

 

Dee Turner CNN the NY Times, and now, AP have all been forced to retract their Russia claims. The CIA director in 1975 admitted they publish fake news to manipulate Americans. Maybe you should read this, Richard: http://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-main-peddler-of…/5577160

ReplyJuly 2 at 3:55pmEdited

 

Richard Pressl Dee…I am very familiar with this information, in fact I played a part in it back in 67-68.
LikeShow more reactions

ReplyRemove Preview

1

July 1 at 3:21pm

 

Hide 50 Replies
Dee Turner Richard, first, thanks but I have no PayPal account, they’re an untrustworthy corporation. Second, as a lawyer I’d like to point out the two bullet points at the very beginning of this din.gov report: ““Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in RSee More
LikeShow more reactions

ReplyJuly 3 at 4:05pmEdited

 

Dee Turner Richard, please avoid ad hominem attacks in attempting to score points for your argument. They are logical fallacies that do not support your thesis at all, but only serve to make you look bad.
LikeShow more reactions

ReplyJuly 3 at 4:27pmEdited

 

Dee Turner Richard, you claim “massive intrusions into US domestic voting processes” by Russia. Yet Clinton WON the popular vote by almost 3 million ballots. If there was such “massive intrusion,” why did Russia do such a lousy job? And why aren’t you upset abouSee More

Image may contain: text
LikeShow more reactions

ReplyJuly 3 at 4:26pm

 

Robert Bouillon Richard Pressl “Each one was asked, Do you believe”. No need for facts, I guess, as long as some people “believe” 
LikeShow more reactions

Reply

3

July 3 at 5:55pm

 

Dee Turner Indeed, the very question was designed to skirt the issue of evidence– mere belief is not admissible as evidence of anything in any court in the U.S.
LikeShow more reactions

Reply

2

July 3 at 6:14pmEdited

 

Robert Bouillon It’s like the anti-vax hysteria, though. It doesn’t matter if it’s wrong, or even if you prove it wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt. Once that seed is planted, it’s hard to displace.
LikeShow more reactions

Reply

1

July 3 at 6:16pm

 

Dee Turner And the mass hysteria distracts from real and critical electoral problems: such as the fundamentally anti-Democratic Electoral College and the DNC’s admitted fraud in the primaries. This misdirection was engendered by Podesta, Clinton, and the DNC.
LikeShow more reactions

Reply

1

July 3 at 6:21pmEdited

 

Robert Bouillon Yessssssssssssssss 100%. No one’s talking about the military industrial complex, or prison for profit, or perpetual warfare, or citizens united, or the loss of our special forces to contractors, or police accountability, or any of the other 2349823904823904 issues which require immediate attention.
LikeShow more reactions

Reply

1

July 3 at 6:24pm

 

LikeShow more reactions

ReplyJuly 3 at 6:24pm

 

Dee Turner Yes! (I was limiting myself to electoral issues, but even those pale in comparison to the rest.)
LikeShow more reactions

Reply

1

July 3 at 6:32pm

 

Richard Pressl “We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability See More
LikeShow more reactions

ReplyJuly 3 at 11:05pm

 

Richard Pressl The above comes directly from the DCI report and is linked to there as well. Pointing to other indirectly related issues does not alter the proven judgement by the U.S. Intelligence community that Russia under the direction of Vladimir Putin interfered in the 2016 US Election. Read the report, point out what you disagree with, cite your professional sources and we can take it from there.
LikeShow more reactions

ReplyJuly 3 at 11:10pm

 

Richard Pressl If this discussion is being moderated, than perhaps the person who called me an idiot will also get the ad hominem advisory.
LikeShow more reactions

Reply

1

July 3 at 11:12pm

 

Richard Pressl And here is the JAR Report: – with extensive details on hacking specifics https://tu9srvbirvvtmjakd3d3lnvzlwnlcnquz292.g00.dailydot…
LikeShow more reactions

ReplyJuly 3 at 11:27pmEdited

 

Richard Pressl Dee Turner Points acknowledged regarding the DCI public report. If anyone wants more detailed info on the hackings than let me suggest the JAR report linked to herein. As a former ASA analyst I know the reports are indeed only reflective of judgements made…but there is sufficient detail in the JAR report for “doubting Thomases”.
LikeShow more reactions

ReplyYesterday at 1:05am

 

Dee Turner Richard Pressl, I have looked through the above comments and can’t find anything calling you an idiot. If you could tell me where, please? Also, I already provided my issues re: the dni.govreport, including a source–perhaps you’ve not read my linksSee More

DNI Coats Statement on the President’s Intent To Nominate Susan Gordon to be the Principal…
DNI.GOV
LikeShow more reactions

ReplyYesterday at 2:51amEdited

 

Dee Turner Richard, re: the JAR report, again, notice the disclaimer: “DISCLAIMER: This report is provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information conSee More
LikeShow more reactions

ReplyYesterday at 2:46amEdited

 

Robert Bouillon There’s an unmistakable pattern with these types of debates.

“There’s no evidenc efor Russian hacking.”See More

LikeShow more reactions

Reply

1

Yesterday at 11:00am

 

Richard Pressl Dee Turner Thanks for the details Dee. Please note in Crisler’s writings he specifically says “not used exclusively by RIS threat actors”. Indeed most software exploits share that condition. If the inclination is to be precise in examination of exploitSee More
LikeShow more reactions

ReplyYesterday at 11:57am

 

Richard Pressl Dee Turner – I am not particularly bothered by clumsy insults – and sometimes enjoy the smart ones.

Image may contain: text
LikeShow more reactions

ReplyYesterday at 12:11pm

 

Robert Bouillon Richard Pressl You make the statement, “One must get deep into conspiracy theory territory to deny Russian, (and perhaps other organizations) interference.” I don’t understand this, but I’d like to.

I read up and caught up on what you presented – muchSee More

LikeShow more reactions

ReplyYesterday at 12:29pm

 

Richard Pressl Dee Turner – I just noticed in one of your replies you site as the source for a section of your argument the esteemed RT agency. Will you acknowledge their participation in the whole 2016 interference process?
LikeShow more reactions

ReplyYesterday at 12:29pm

 

Robert Bouillon I don’t understand it… IF, and it’s a big IF, IF Russia did hack the DNC and release the e-mails, how were they not doing us a favor? They exposed the fact that the DNC primaries were a facade. This is HUGE and of critical importance to the interestsSee More
LikeShow more reactions

Reply

1

Yesterday at 12:43pmEdited

 

Richard Pressl Robert Bouillon Some data: in Georgia Clinton won the primary with 71.3% of the Democratic ticket vote. Two weeks before the election the State was rated a “Toss Up” by Nat Silver. Then came the “Comey Letters”, which in the last week before the electiSee More
LikeShow more reactions

ReplyYesterday at 12:44pm

 

Robert Bouillon Richard Pressl – Thanks for replying. It’s so hard to resist the temptation to argue haha  I really do want to understand your perspective better.

So the DNC e-mail leaks going public injured Clinton’s presidential run. I don’t disagree with that.See More

LikeShow more reactions

ReplyYesterday at 12:49pm

 

Richard Pressl Let me be clear: in a survey of political preferences before the final debates my test results showed I supported Sanders positions 95%, Clinton with 91%, and Trump with 21.%. After the debates I was left with only two choices: abstain or vote for ClinSee More
LikeShow more reactions

ReplyYesterday at 12:53pm

 

Robert Bouillon “Do I -believe- there was a concentrated effort to deny the Presidency to Clinton that had nothing to do with her actions? HELL YES!”

So you’re saying that there was a concerted effort, that included Russia, to deny Clinton the candidacy? Can you explain?

LikeShow more reactions

ReplyYesterday at 12:59pm

 

Richard Pressl Like most Americans, we will have to wait for the official report from Robert Mueller’s task force for answers to that question. I am hoping that all American’s will accept the findings….but based on the level of distrust I have seen in this thread I sadly must conclude that will not happen.
LikeShow more reactions

ReplyYesterday at 1:03pm

 

Robert Bouillon I think you’re right – even if the official report comes out, it will be met with such skepticism that it won’t be given the attention it deserves. This goes both ways – if it absolves Russia, those who condemn Russia will find other reasons. If it impSee More
LikeShow more reactions

ReplyYesterday at 1:11pm

 

Richard Pressl Dee: I do examine the links you provide – but I do not acknowledge the veracity of anything on RT, Fox News, CNN, and take what is presented on the Big Three with a handful of salt. I have much more faith in the validity and integrity of items from NPR, Pro Pacifica, Christian Science Monitor, and within bounds from El Pais, Le Monde, Al Jazeera America, and The Guardian.
LikeShow more reactions

ReplyYesterday at 1:15pm

 

LikeShow more reactions

ReplyRemove Preview

1

Yesterday at 1:18pm

 

Robert Bouillon Thanks  I’ll check it out
LikeShow more reactions

ReplyYesterday at 1:22pm

 

Hans Castorp Richard Pressl LIsten, so far everything you’re thrown my way has either already been debunked, retracted or is more speculation without any evidence. As such, I’m not going to waste my time combing through more speculation and BS.

But here’s what I will do:

Send me the “money shot.” OK? Got it? YOU read your own homework, then copy and paste the most damning paragraph in your document, and I’ll read that.

Here’s YET another example of how this process works:

I make a statement like: There is evidence that the Democrats rigged the primary. One of the things they did was pass debate questions to Hillary Clinton in advance.

Here is an email from DONNA BRAZILE GIVING HILLARY CLINTON A DEBATE QUESTION BEFORE THE DEBATE (CHEATING):

“Subject: One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash”

“Her family has lead poison and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the ppl of Flint.”

Here is the LINK:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/38478

See how that works? I’m not asking you to spend a bunch of time reading nonsense. I’m condensing it for you and just giving you the definitive proof for my statement.

Do you understand what I’m asking you to do? Can you do this for your “evidence”?

LikeShow more reactions

Reply23 hrsEdited

 

Dee Turner Richard, I cited RT solely to show you AP’s retraction, which you may also find at: https://www.theblaze.com/…/ny-times-associated-press…/ –As well as: http://dailycaller.com/…/associated-press-corrects-big…/ –And any number of other sites. I research the veracity of the links I post before I publish them. Quit being patronizing, asking me to read what I quoted to you. You have yet to address the questions I asked you about the DNC’s electoral fraud, which they’ve admitted in court. “The DNC is defending against a civil suit filed against it for electoral fraud. They have admitted rigging the primaries, claim Sanders supporters knew about it– and therefore cannot make a claim. Further, they argue they “don’t owe anybody a fair primary process.” http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dnc…/article/26217675.01.17
They say they have a right to choose their candidate behind closed doors, and that the words “impartial” and “even-handed” in their charter are “discretionary” and not subject to interpretation by any court.”http://imgur.com/gallery/cLY1DP9 THIS IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR RUSSIA CLAIM. Why does it not concern you???

LikeShow more reactions

Reply21 hrs

 

Hans Castorp Dee Turner here’s the actual retraction:http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_RUSSIA…

But good luck getting through to this guy. He’s either the dumbest Hilbot I’ve ever encountered, or he’s being paid to troll us

WASHINGTON (AP) — In stories published April 6, June 2, June 26 and June 29, The Associated Press reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. That assessment was based on information collected by three agencie…
HOSTED.AP.ORG
LikeShow more reactions

Reply

1

21 hrs

 

Dee Turner Thanks, Hans. Yes, sadly, Richard seems to have no issue with proven– and admitted in court–electoral fraud by the DNC, but cannot accept that there is still no valid evidence of meaningful interference by Russia. I’m gobsmacked by people who still see Russia as the boogeyman, when U.S. interference in foreign elections since WWll has not only been widespread, but also frequently violently disruptive and regime-changing.
LikeShow more reactions

Reply21 hrs

 

Hans Castorp Dee Turner I think I understand this guy. I mean, look at the guy’s photo. either it’s fake and he’s trolling, or it’s real, which means he’s FROM the 1950s, so he’s already been programmed by the Cold War and McCarthyism to buy into this nonsense. He just needed to be triggered. Assuming he’s for real. The “Democratic” Party hires all sorts of paid trolls to harass independents and change the debate away from primary fraud.

Who knows. It’s the Internets, so anyone could be anyone.

But I suspect that it’s simple case 50s overload, so too much Howdy Doody and Joe McCarthy fucked up his head when he was a kid.

LikeShow more reactions

Reply

1

20 hrs

 

Richard Pressl Dee Turner Oh but the shenanigans of the DNC does disturb me ! …but it pales in comparison to the damage that State sponsored intrusions into our election processes has done, and will do more of in the future….for one primary reason…the former are Americans, the latter are not !!! Russia, China, Brazil, Turkey, and most, if not all, of the countries in the “Middle East” do not have our best interests, however perceived, as a primary focus.
LikeShow more reactions

Reply20 hrs

 

Hans Castorp Richard Pressl It is ironic that the CIA has actually meddled in the elections of most of the countries you just listed, especially in the “Middle East.”

Listen, Richard, I’ve almost finished my time machine. When I get it up and running, I can send you back to the 1950s. You’ll feel safe there.

LikeShow more reactions

Reply20 hrs

 

Dee Turner Hans, my best guess is you’re correct. Pressl and I were probably both in kindergarten when we were forced into “drop, duck, and cover” drills in expectation of Russia’s nuclear bombs. (Never mind that we brought such monstrosities into the world.) I vividly remember walking home after those drills, seeing charred chimneys and believing it had already happened and my house would be gone. Mercifully, I grew up and lucked into an amazing education. Just look at his response to my questions about the DNC. He shrugs that off because “Americans, not Russians”–you cannot reason with that.
LikeShow more reactions

Reply20 hrs

 

Dee Turner Richard, your comment reducing the catastrophic damage to democracy caused by the DNC to mere “shenanigans” because “America vs. Russia” is very, very sad. The DNC and the Democratic Party were the focus of this thread, which you then hijacked. Please leave the thread now, or all your comments will be summarily deleted.
LikeShow more reactions

Reply20 hrs

 

Hans Castorp Dee Turner Yeah. He must have watched more Howdy Doody than you did.
LikeShow more reactions

Reply

1

19 hrs

 

Dee Turner Funny thing, I never saw kids’ TV. I watched William F. Buckley’s “Firing Line,” instead. How our political discourse has been diminished, since! This thread clearly indicates just how low we’ve sunk. I’ll leave it up as evidence of that.
LikeShow more reactions

Reply19 hrsEdited

 

LikeShow more reactions

Reply18 hrs

 

Hans Castorp Dee Turner You watched Buckley? Please tell me you saw him debate Chomsky. That happened on his show, right? Chomsky was still allowed on mainstream media once in a while back then, right? So cool.
LikeShow more reactions

Reply18 hrs

 

Hans Castorp Richard Pressl ? | 5 | ?

Is that how many toes you have on each foot, or is it how high you can count?

LikeShow more reactions

Reply18 hrs

 

Dee Turner Hans, yes! And here’s the Chomsky/Buckley debate in its entirety–enjoy! https://youtu.be/vaR-T_hqRSM

William F. Buckley takes on Noam…
YOUTUBE.COM
LikeShow more reactions

Reply

1

18 hrs

 

Dee Turner Notice how loaded Buckley’s questions are–
LikeShow more reactions

Reply18 hrs

 

Hans Castorp Dee Turner chomsky still kicked his ass
LikeShow more reactions

Reply

1

15 hrs

 

Dee Turner Hans, he did, indeed. Hands down. He nailed it when he said the equanimity, the apathy, of the American people makes everybody complicit in US foreign policy. I was appalled when Buckley then accused him of posing a “theological argument.” And when he so sententiously compared Viet Cong reactions to American brutality with Nazi aggression–! Still, today nobody ever sits down to an hour long, civil political discussion with dozens of intelligent points. sigh*
LikeShow more reactions

Reply12 hrsEdited

 

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>