Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 18:13:30 GMT -5
Just because this can't be fully and immediately explained or easily linked to an obvious end game doesn't mean it's not legit. Again, the Wikileaks track record is exemplary. They deal in bonafide leaks. The data is real. We just don't see the big picture yet or the motives for the CIA, which may well have complex inner workings, warring factions, etc.
You say WikiLeaks track record is exemplary and I can find you 10 sources in the next 15 minutes that questions the veracity of some of the documents. Some have been questioned and others shown to be outright fakes. If I did so, you would say that the sources are part of the deep state and this just furthers your belief in a huge conspiracy. I can give you names of security officials both private and public that dispute some of the claims in this thread and they would have an agenda in your eyes.
I understand the argument now but I still find it farfetched. Tony says they were leaking stuff on Hillary to start to delegitimize her but why would anybody with a decent IQ ruin their chances at being the puppet master? Save all your dirt for when she wins. It doesn't make sense to hurt her chances and then have to pivot and dig dirt on Trump quickly. Tony, I also appreciate you explaining what you meant.
I am not saying what is right or wrong, I am just looking at it through my lens and what I consider to be a logical conclusion. It doesn't rely on what the media tells me, what WikiLeaks says, or anybody's opinion persuading me completely. We all know Occam's razor as: "This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler." This is a good rule of thumb that I follow (although it isn't fool proof). So when I am faced with what is more likely with Trump and the CIA I see it as: 1) Deep State theory that is a convoluted mess and would be nearly impossible to orchestrate or (2) There are CIA hold-overs giving Trump a bunch of shit but Trump isn't innocent in the matter because he started out being stand-offish to the intelligence community. He is the only president that went full rage mode on them and now he is having issues with them. Is it a deep state issue or a Trump was a dick and hence this relationship is unprecedented?
It could be the former, I won't dismiss it. I see how the media works. I see how elitist academics act. I notice how people are weaponizing feelings and making it hard to have candid conversations. I just see one theory as being more likely than the other. I'm not even making a claim here or saying you guys are wrong so hopefully you don't go full rage mode on me either cuz it does get tiring just trying to have a conversation without being called a retard, moron, or dumb. I'm just questioning things out loud (or e-out loud) and seeing what makes the most sense.