The Boy Who Cried Wolf, A Story the Progressive-Left Fails to Heed.

[RabidAlpaca]

What is amusing and a little sad at the same time is that you don't know he was not telling a joke.

Literally the only difference between a "joke" and a "statement" is your own subjective interpretation of it. When a presidential candidate goes on TV and states something like that, it is taken seriously, and we now know the Russians didn't think it was a joke and reacted to his command.

Where did this come from?

Years of Republican paranoia and conspiracy theories.

 

[code1211]

That is absolutely not "assumed" as every Republican was screaming at the top of their lungs there was no Russian involvement until long after it was proven there was. Dozens of Russians have been indicted as well as many in the Trump campaign. Further we have video evidence of Trump going on live TV and asking the Russians specifically to do this hack.

Were the denials with regard to the Russian attempts at interference or with regard to the now debunked charges of COLLUUUUUUUSION?

Still clinging to your delusion.

 

[haymarket]

Hildebeast would disappear for weeks on end. She looked ill. She collapsed. She had coughing fits. She NEVER went to Wisconsin. She was a poor candidate. She surrounded herself with celebrities, never really having an "I feel your pain" moment.

That's why she lost.

You failed to answer my question. Again... If you are invoking monetary value in the campaign - could you please tell us how much money the free coverage of Trump invoking the wikileaks & Russian information over 160 times in the closing weeks of the campaign was worth to his campaign?

 

[code1211]

Look, we get it that you're fine with US presidential candidates calling on our foreign enemies to attack their opponents, but most Americans see that as a fundamental threat to our democracy.



You'll recall he's tried to shut down, obstruct and kill the investigation about a thousand times already.

You will need to link to the attempts that you imagine have occurred.

We have a pretty straight line connection from Hillary through her hired attorneys to Steele and then to the Russians.

We have no such trail of facts leading from the Russians to Trump.

It's amusing that the deeper they dig, the more dirt is found on Hillary and the Dems and how they continue to find nothing on Trump.

In the mean time, Trump just keeps piling on the wins. I think the score is up to about a million to nothing right now.

How's your 401K doing?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Were the denials with regard to the Russian attempts at interference or with regard to the now debunked charges of COLLUUUUUUUSION?
Still clinging to your delusion.

It was that Russia was involved at all, until it was shown that our intelligence agencies were correct and they were involved, then you shifted gears to arguing it happened but he wasn't involved. He stood in front of the entire world on live TV and told the Russians to hack his opponent, so they did. Not sure how that's not collusion.

 

[Moot]

Anyone remember the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf?

I found the shortest video version for your edification:

(Warning: Foul language.)



I bring this up because that's how I see many on the Progressive-Left and in the MSM acting ever since President Trump was elected.

Story after story about how some action by the Mueller investigation, or revelation by some anonymous information source, or even some side-show (like Stormy Daniels) is going to be "the wolf" that eats Trump, proving once and for all Trump stole the election through some dastardly trick.

That he'll finally be impeached, and the world will be all roses and sunshine again.

Yet each time the "Wolf! Wolf!" turns out to be nothing; a false alarm which raised hopes then had to be quickly dropped. Subsequently a new "revelation" occurs, and "Wolf! Wolf!" is cried loudly and clearly again only to end up with no wolf after all.

Most recently it is the indictment of 12 Russian GRU agents, one of whom pretended to be a Romanian hacker using the name Guccifer 2.0.

Apparently, per our wolf-crying peers, Roger Stone is now the new "certain connection" to Russian collusion which will finally tie all the loose strings together to oust Trump so that truth, justice, and the American Way will prevail. :roll:

Yet it all remains (as usual) blatant speculation and conspiracy theory touted as "Truth!" :yes:

Has anyone thought that it might be better to simply let the investigation run it's course?

And yet, it's Trump and congress that are crying "witch hunt" instead of letting the investigation run it's course.

Nevermind, that almost everyone around Trump had contact with Russians and lied about it....or the 30 or so indictments and the five or six guilty pleas....or Trump calling for the Russians to hack Hillary's email....or giving Russians classified information....or alienating our allies and buddying up to dictators and tyrants....or trying destroy NATO for Putin...and now meeting with Putin in secret. Yes, Virginia...there is a wolf. His name is Trump.

That IF any actual tie to the President or his Administration FACTUALLY comes to light, and indictments are presented stating so, THEN would be the time to shout that a "Wolf!" has entered the fold?

Until then, all this "crying wolf" sounds like desperately bored and frustrated shepherd boys trying to keep relevant when they know there is no actual wolf.

Just like in The Boy Who Cried Wolf, if something ever does show up, the townspeople will just ignore it because they have no reason to believe you anymore.

Many people, including myself, are already there. Hence our silence when a new Anti-Administration thread is posted in the Forum which becomes an echo-chamber for the wolf-criers. :coffeepap:

If I recall the story ends with the town's people getting eaten by wolves because they stopped believing the boy. So the moral of the story is, it's better to be safe and believe the boy than it is to be sorry and get eaten by wolves.

 

[code1211]

Literally the only difference between a "joke" and a "statement" is your own subjective interpretation of it. When a presidential candidate goes on TV and states something like that, it is taken seriously, and we now know the Russians didn't think it was a joke and reacted to his command.



Years of Republican paranoia and conspiracy theories.

So you're sticking to this parnoid delusion, then?

Are you seriously saying that the Russian interference into the election process evident over decades started only AFTER Trump gave them the Green Light?

Do they have a time machine?

 

[Captain Adverse]

... If I recall the story ends with the town's people getting eaten by wolves because they stopped believing the boy. So the moral of the story is, it's better to be safe and believe the boy than it is to be sorry and get eaten by wolves.

You recall incorrectly;

The tale concerns a shepherd boy who repeatedly tricks nearby villagers into thinking wolves are attacking his flock. When a wolf actually does appear and the boy again calls for help, the villagers believe that it is another false alarm and the sheep are eaten by the wolf. In later English-language poetic versions of the fable, the wolf also eats the boy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

As for Congress and Trump crying "witch hunt?" MY understanding is not that they are saying there was no attempt to interfere in the process...but that it is a witch hunt by trying to show Trump was a knowing and willing co-conspirator.

Trump could really care less if Russia is shown to have interfered, as long as people don't include him in that accusation. That is actually what your side is always trying to do, show his campaign colluded with the Russians.

See the difference?

 

[code1211]

It was that Russia was involved at all, until it was shown that our intelligence agencies were correct and they were involved, then you shifted gears to arguing it happened but he wasn't involved. He stood in front of the entire world on live TV and told the Russians to hack his opponent, so they did. Not sure how that's not collusion.

Is that what he told them to do? Here's the actual quote: "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

These are the emails that were under subpoena when they were destroyed in a blatant move to obstruct justice by Hillary and her team. In legal parlance, her co-conspirators.

Anyway, it reads less like he's asking them to hack her and more like he is assuming that the server in the linen closet was already hacked and was only asking if they would release the stuff that they certainly already have.

You know what? I wish they would, too.

 

[jimbo]

I think the bigger problem is all of this so-called journalist work that does not even attempt to be fair to our President.

Or journalism for that matter.

People notice.

And people who notice are the people who vote.

 

[holbritter]

It is becoming much like that. Every time something new comes up, this board explodes in gleeful, self-congratulatory "I knew it", "This proves it without a shadow of a doubt", etc. And then dies down. To many people an indictment means guilt. It most likely means something is there, but it is in no means definitive guilt, and to keep on with the "This is it!" each time when it's probably not dilutes the supposed importance of the newest development.

The funny thing is that I think most already accept the Russians interfered and maybe more than usual (there's no way to know since it wasn't looked into as much before). Heck, Obama and company knew but did nothing to stop it, or we would have had as many headlines and threads, right?

But here's the kicker: It is nothing new! It just never has been scrutinized like it is now. The U.S. has done it many times, Russia has done it many times, and I'm sure other countries have as well. I'm in no way saying it's OK or acceptable.

An to those who say "yeah, but not like this!" How do you know? Was it ever investigated like this? No, it wasn't.

If anyone was influenced by learning a truth, why is that a bad thing? In this case the messenger has been thoroughly killed by now, but what about what the actual message? Or does that not matter, which would be very hypocritical since considering the truth about Trump is what everyone is hammering.

In any case there is no proof those DNC emails influenced that many people, to swing the election in Trumps favor. By the time they were released many people already had their mind made up either way.

 

[jimbo]

Any reasonable person with a brain in their head knows he wasn't ****ing serious.

Any reasonable person

with a brain.

You're giving never Trumpers way too much credit.

 

[holbritter]

That is exactly what independents and liberals have been calling for, letting the investigation run its course. Republicans have been actively obstructing, denying, distracting and lying to try to get the entire investigation shut down from day 1. Hell, on Monday it's expected for House Republicans to impeach Rosenstein. They do not want to discover the truth because they realize what it means for their political position.

It is now AN INDISPUTABLE FACT that Russian intelligence agents actively hacked our political parties and intentionally steered our election outcome with targeted leaks and propaganda, yet Trump and the majority of his supporters refuse to even accept this FACT. The investigation will continue no matter how hard Republicans scream at the top of their lungs that it should stop. Crying wolf would be saying something is happening then finding out it isn't. This situation is the exact opposite as it's Republicans saying something didn't happen when it turns out it did.

Do they really? It's becoming a broken record, because I think most already know and accept the Russians interfered.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Do they really? It's becoming a broken record, because I think most already know and accept the Russians interfered.

Yes, as of July 2018 most of them do accept that Russia did interfere, they just have shifted their arguments to "He wasn't involved and even if he was I don't care". Prior to a few months ago very few on the right would even admit that the Russians had done anything at all in our elections and suggesting so was a "deep state conspiracy witch hunt".

 

[jimbo]

No.



In point of fact, his exact words were "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."

He did not ask them to "Hack Hillary." The 30,000 email's referred to were already deleted from Hillary's private server...hence the "missing" emails.

It is a blatant misrepresentation of what he actually said, clearly in jest in any case, and a continued falsehood your side has been perpetuating.

The fact the GRU attempted a hack later is no evidence of anything. Correlation does not imply causation. :coffeepap:

Those exact words. Somehow in librolese that translates to Russia hacked our election and totally on their own steered our election to case the shoo in next perpetrator of the liberal agenda to lose.

 

[HowardBThiname]

I'm glad the Mueller investigation has gotten far enough that even spineless partisan Trump bots like yourself are admitting they did interfere with our elections, you just have shifted your argument to "You can't prove it had an effect on an election won by a few tens of thousands of votes in a few select states. Also, I don't care!" Mueller is going to continue to drag your dishonest, partisan ass into the reality of the situation one dozen indictments at a time.

The above emboldened is not correct. What they did was attempt to influence voters' minds. They hacked the DNC and other entities, they ran ads on Facebook and other social media outlets.

They did not, however, "interfere with our election" as you falsely state. Our election went off without a hitch and there has been no indication of meddling in the actual election.

The question here is whether or not a foreign nation has the right to try to influence voters to choose one US candidate over another. And, if they have that right -- to what extent? Obviously not to the extent that they break our laws, such as hacking, which is a crime in the US. But, can they run ads? At this point, I think we have to allow advertisement because we do that in other countries during their elections, so we can't really cry foul over that. But, of course we have to forbid crimes.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Those exact words. Somehow in librolese that translates to Russia hacked our election and totally on their own steered our election to case the shoo in next perpetrator of the liberal agenda to lose.

How else do you "find" someone's private emails without hacking? That is exactly what he called for them to do, and he did it on live TV in front of the entire world.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

The above emboldened is not correct. What they did was attempt to influence voters' minds. They hacked the DNC and other entities, they ran ads on Facebook and other social media outlets.

They did not, however, "interfere with our election" as you falsely state. Our election went off without a hitch and there has been no indication of meddling in the actual election.

The question here is whether or not a foreign nation has the right to try to influence voters to choose one US candidate over another. And, if they have that right -- to what extent? Obviously not to the extent that they break our laws, such as hacking, which is a crime in the US. But, can they run ads? At this point, I think we have to allow advertisement because we do that in other countries during their elections, so we can't really cry foul over that. But, of course we have to forbid crimes.

No, this is not about the ads, it is about the hacking after being directed by then candidate Trump to do so, then the steady leak of said hacked material leading up to the election. Being the worthless partisan Trump-bot that you are, you may not care about presidential candidates calling for our enemies to attack their political opponents, but those that value our democracy find that troubling.

 

[jimbo]

Where did this come from?

When it's all you got, it's what you use.

 

[Lovebug]

Party over country. The GOP is scared poopless of Trump's base - they know Trump has almost 90% support within the GOP party. The cowardly GOP lawmakers care only about the next election - short term gain for them - long term damage to this country and our democracy.

Partisanship over country, that is true. The left wailed when the birthers stopped at nothing to bring down Obama, now the roles are reversed. No need to make excuses for either.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That is exactly what independents and liberals have been calling for, letting the investigation run its course. Republicans have been actively obstructing, denying, distracting and lying to try to get the entire investigation shut down from day 1. Hell, on Monday it's expected for House Republicans to impeach Rosenstein. They do not want to discover the truth because they realize what it means for their political position.

It is now AN INDISPUTABLE FACT that Russian intelligence agents actively hacked our political parties and intentionally steered our election outcome with targeted leaks and propaganda, yet Trump and the majority of his supporters refuse to even accept this FACT. The investigation will continue no matter how hard Republicans scream at the top of their lungs that it should stop. Crying wolf would be saying something is happening then finding out it isn't. This situation is the exact opposite as it's Republicans saying something didn't happen when it turns out it did.

It is also an indisputable fact that this hacking, leaking and propaganda ocurred while Obama was POTUS (and possibly even before that) yet Trump is trying to be blamed for causing it. One should take a step back and examine why the unauthorized gathering and release of factual information (the antics of the internal workings of the DNC were exposed - not some classified government data) is of such grave concern to the nation, rather than mainly (only?) demorats.

 

[jimbo]

How else do you "find" someone's private emails without hacking? That is exactly what he called for them to do, and he did it on live TV in front of the entire world.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem or a denial of facts problem, or both?

The exact statement has been posted. That is not exactly what he called on them to do. In fact now President Trump didn't call on them to do anything.

 

[Cameron]

Anyone remember the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf?

I found the shortest video version for your edification:

(Warning: Foul language.)



I bring this up because that's how I see many on the Progressive-Left and in the MSM acting ever since President Trump was elected.

Story after story about how some action by the Mueller investigation, or revelation by some anonymous information source, or even some side-show (like Stormy Daniels) is going to be "the wolf" that eats Trump, proving once and for all Trump stole the election through some dastardly trick.

That he'll finally be impeached, and the world will be all roses and sunshine again.

Yet each time the "Wolf! Wolf!" turns out to be nothing; a false alarm which raised hopes then had to be quickly dropped. Subsequently a new "revelation" occurs, and "Wolf! Wolf!" is cried loudly and clearly again only to end up with no wolf after all.

Most recently it is the indictment of 12 Russian GRU agents, one of whom pretended to be a Romanian hacker using the name Guccifer 2.0.

Apparently, per our wolf-crying peers, Roger Stone is now the new "certain connection" to Russian collusion which will finally tie all the loose strings together to oust Trump so that truth, justice, and the American Way will prevail. :roll:

Yet it all remains (as usual) blatant speculation and conspiracy theory touted as "Truth!" :yes:

Has anyone thought that it might be better to simply let the investigation run it's course?

That IF any actual tie to the President or his Administration FACTUALLY comes to light, and indictments are presented stating so, THEN would be the time to shout that a "Wolf!" has entered the fold?

Until then, all this "crying wolf" sounds like desperately bored and frustrated shepherd boys trying to keep relevant when they know there is no actual wolf.

Just like in The Boy Who Cried Wolf, if something ever does show up, the townspeople will just ignore it because they have no reason to believe you anymore.

Many people, including myself, are already there. Hence our silence when a new Anti-Administration thread is posted in the Forum which becomes an echo-chamber for the wolf-criers. :coffeepap:

I think relatively few people are certain that Trump colluded with Russia, but many think there is enough to warrant a full investigation.

I'm more troubled by those that feel so certain he didn't that they don't even want to investigate.

The boy who cried wolf stuff is also pretty rich coming when the other side has for years living in Benghazi and Obama-is-a-Kenyan conspiracy land. The Trump-collusion "conspiracy" has about 100x more going for it than either of those dramas did.

 

[Thoreau72]

Anyone remember the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf?

I found the shortest video version for your edification:

(Warning: Foul language.)



I bring this up because that's how I see many on the Progressive-Left and in the MSM acting ever since President Trump was elected.

Story after story about how some action by the Mueller investigation, or revelation by some anonymous information source, or even some side-show (like Stormy Daniels) is going to be "the wolf" that eats Trump, proving once and for all Trump stole the election through some dastardly trick.

That he'll finally be impeached, and the world will be all roses and sunshine again.

Yet each time the "Wolf! Wolf!" turns out to be nothing; a false alarm which raised hopes then had to be quickly dropped. Subsequently a new "revelation" occurs, and "Wolf! Wolf!" is cried loudly and clearly again only to end up with no wolf after all.

Most recently it is the indictment of 12 Russian GRU agents, one of whom pretended to be a Romanian hacker using the name Guccifer 2.0.

Apparently, per our wolf-crying peers, Roger Stone is now the new "certain connection" to Russian collusion which will finally tie all the loose strings together to oust Trump so that truth, justice, and the American Way will prevail. :roll:

Yet it all remains (as usual) blatant speculation and conspiracy theory touted as "Truth!" :yes:

Has anyone thought that it might be better to simply let the investigation run it's course?

That IF any actual tie to the President or his Administration FACTUALLY comes to light, and indictments are presented stating so, THEN would be the time to shout that a "Wolf!" has entered the fold?

Until then, all this "crying wolf" sounds like desperately bored and frustrated shepherd boys trying to keep relevant when they know there is no actual wolf.

Just like in The Boy Who Cried Wolf, if something ever does show up, the townspeople will just ignore it because they have no reason to believe you anymore.

Many people, including myself, are already there. Hence our silence when a new Anti-Administration thread is posted in the Forum which becomes an echo-chamber for the wolf-criers. :coffeepap:

I think you're totally missing the message of the story regarding crying wolf. Having been raised on many of those old tales, the point was that when an individual "cries wolf" many times when there is no wolf present, finally when the wolf IS present, nobody believes the liar.

Poor analogy IMO, as you apply it as you do.

Individuals who clearly demonstrate their mendacity are not believed. Liars ought not be trusted, and men in power ought to be mistrusted.

 

[itsforthekids]

You failed to answer my question. Again... If you are invoking monetary value in the campaign - could you please tell us how much money the free coverage of Trump invoking the wikileaks & Russian information over 160 times in the closing weeks of the campaign was worth to his campaign?

There are experts that can answer that. You have to admit that she was the worst candidate of all time.