patrick.net

"Your assumptions are off. Wikileaks and Trump's team have consistently called the MSM Russia hacks story fake news.

Trump can accept the facts while still rejecting the conjecture. Fact: Russia probably hacked DC and Hillary emails. Conjecture: Trump and Russia colluded to strategically release evidence of team Hillary's crimes. Conjecture on steroids: trump colluding to release evidence of deep corruption equals treason."

Of course--Trump says the leaks are real but the news based on those leaks is fake. He calls anything and everything fake news. That is meaningless.

I agree it is conjecture at this point that there was collusion between Trump and Russia. It is not conjecture that Russia hacked the DNC and released those emails in an effort to get Trump elected.

"I know nothing about hacking laws. I do know about trade secrets in business. In trade secrets you have to show clear and reasonable effort to protect your trade secrets to establish a crime in accessing the trade secrets. Hillary and DNC digital info was completely naked to the world. You can't criminalize someone for reading information in front of them.

Please enlighten me though."

wtf are you talking about? It was completely naked to the world? How do you figure?

Please enlighten me.

It is absolute conjecture that Russia released the emails. Your assumed motive is conjecture on steroids.

joeyjojojunior says

Please enlighten me.

Hillary was known to use unsecure mobile devices while in China, etc. From a hackers perspective you may as well be watching porn in a coffee shop. That's completely naked to the world.

"It is absolute conjecture that Russia released the emails. Your assumed motive is conjecture on steroids."

Trump agrees that Russia released them.

"Hillary was known to use unsecure mobile devices while in China, etc. From a hackers perspective you may as well be watching porn in a coffee shop. That's completely naked to the world."

Source?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3614589/E-fail-Hillary-Clinton-didn-t-use-password-protect-PC-used-unsecure-personal-BlackBerry-send-private-emails-s-clueless-computers.html

Amongst hundreds of others. Hillary did not use secure methods. This is not a controversial fact.

Please provide actual sources for 1) Russia is the guaranteed source of Wikileaks hacks (zero non circumstantial evidence, this is called confirmation bias), 2) that trump colluded we Russia (literally zero evidence), 3) or that they colluded together in a treasonous way.

You can't.

"Amongst hundreds of others. Hillary did not use secure methods. This is not a controversial fact."

Nothing in that article shows that her information was wide open to anyone trying to hack it. Unless you are saying a Russian spy had access to her ultra secure Sec. State suite personal computer. Otherwise, you have no point.

"Please provide actual sources for 1) Russia is the guaranteed source of Wikileaks hacks (zero non circumstantial evidence, this is called confirmation bias), 2) that trump colluded we Russia (literally zero evidence), 3) or that they colluded together in a treasonous way."

Guaranteed? Give me a break. Anyone and everyone including Trump, Priebus, all Congressmen, who have heard the intelligence agencies evidence agree it was Russia.

And I just said that there is no conclusive evidence yet that Russia and Trump colluded. Why would you ask again?

joeyjojojunior says

Anyone and everyone including Trump, Priebus, all Congressmen, who have heard the intelligence agencies evidence agree it was Russia.

sigh. yet again, no source. noted.

joeyjojojunior says

Unless you are saying a Russian spy had access to her ultra secure Sec. State suite personal computer

You must be refusing to read the part about her unsecured personal blackberry. There are videos of 9 year old girls accessing that level of security in a few minutes.

Stick your head in the sand if you like.

I swear CNN destroys peoples' brains. Blind to facts you dont like, imagining facts to support your fever dreams about Trump. I've never seen mass delusion this bad in the US.

Still waiting on a source.

Prove your thesis please.

joeyjojojunior says

It is not conjecture that Russia...released...emails in an effort to get Trump elected.

You can't. This is a lie you allow CNN to tell you cause it makes you feel better.

Still waiting on a source. Just one.

"You can't. This is a lie you allow CNN to tell you cause it makes you feel better. Still waiting on a source. Just one."

I provided one. The quote from Priebus saying Trump agrees with the intelligence community assessment.

CBOEtrader says

You can't. This is a lie you allow CNN to tell you cause it makes you feel better.

Still waiting on a source. Just one.

When everything you disagree with is a lie then there are no sources.

http://digg.com/2016/russian-hack-cia-trump-electoral-college
http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2017/01/11/trump-press-conference-blasts-press/#19c52c8f3317
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/01/12/pompeo-agrees-russia-hacked-the-dnc.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/16/fbi-agrees-cia-russia-hacked-help-trump/95528318/
http://nypost.com/2017/01/11/trump-acknowledges-russia-was-behind-dnc-hack/
https://www.grahamcluley.com/donald-trump-finally-believes-russia-hacked-dnc/

Graybox says

I think gold is a short term buy for the pop......

Does that mean you expect a pullback on the market soon?

joeyjojojunior says

"You can't. This is a lie you allow CNN to tell you cause it makes you feel better. Still waiting on a source. Just one."

I provided one. The quote from Priebus saying Trump agrees with the intelligence community assessment.

There is no community assessment. There is only individual conjecture. The president has been very clear he disagrees w the CNN "russia hacked our election" conjecture.

Read your quote again. It doesnt say what you think it says. You have made this mistake at least 3 times now.

From your own sources: "The CIA’s conclusion...was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments." Yup. Confirmation bias and individual conjecture.

Some suspect, assume, theorize. THEY. DONT. KNOW.

"Read your quote again. It doesnt say what you think it says. You have made this mistake at least 3 times now."

It says exactly what I think it says. Trump agrees with the intelligence community assessment. The intelligence community thinks Russia hacked the DNC and released the emails to hurt Clinton's chances in the election.

http://fortune.com/2017/01/08/trump-intelligence-russia-hack/

Specifically what part of that statement do you disagree with?

"There is no community assessment."

Of course there is. It has been reported many, many, many times that all intelligence agencies are in agreement. I could provide another 50 sources showing this, but I don't think it matters how many sources I provide--you seem to be immune to facts.

My quote was from your first source. "The evidence does not support firm judgments." Undeniable proof of difference of opinions in the intelligence community.

You either cant or wont differentiate between facts and theories. You are perpetuating fake news.

Russia hacked dnc is the accepted fact. Everything else is a theory. Everything else is fake news based on conjecture.

"Russia hacked dnc is the accepted fact. Everything else is a theory. Everything else is fake news based on conjecture."

Wrong. The same people who have examined the evidence and accepted that Russia hacked the DNC is a fact also believe that the motive behind the attack was to harm Clinton in the election. That is a fact. There is human intelligence that verifies it.

You incorrectly represent this conjecture as a community assessment.

You further incorrectly put trust in intelligence community assessments. Weapons of mass destruction were an accepted intelligence community assessment.

Wikileaks is the only source w a perfect record. Disagreeing w their statement that this was not a Russian source is just your delusion feeding itself.

There's more evidence to suggest Seth Rich than Russia as the source. To suggest you know either to be true is pure fake news.

OK so now we're back to you not even believing Russia is the source? Like I said--it's no point discussing this with you as you are not interested in the truth.

Graybox says

Neither are no more than a trade and don't have odds of moving more than a few %.

SubOink says

Does that mean you expect a pullback on the market soon?

We may have a bit of a pullback in this general area 2350-2375 however It's nothing I'm counting on and doubt if
it will be much and will be looking for confirmation where price is now for either direction. 2425 looks good before
any pullback with strength. If price does walk back I'll be watching 2325 as strong support and have doubt investors will
see much if any pricing below 2300..
.

Russia is the source is a matter of ODDS not BELIEF. Attributing odds to a belief, either for or against, is proof that your logic is wrong. Not just flawed, wrong.

No one knows Russia is the source. Some suspect Russia. Others suspect Seth Rich.

They don't know, neither do you.

At least think about it logically and leave beliefs out of it.

"No one knows Russia is the source. Some suspect Russia. Others suspect Seth Rich."

That's ridiculous. Nobody who has seen all the evidence suspects Seth Rich. The only people who even mention Seth Rich are nutjobs reading Breitbart.

What I DO know is that EVERYONE, including Trump, who has seen all the evidence believes it was Russia. That is the logic.

joeyjojojunior says

What I DO know is that EVERYONE, including Trump, who has seen all the evidence believes it was Russia.

Why do you keep lying? The only possible answer is you do not understand the difference between facts and conjecture. Russia is the source = conjecture. You also willfully put words into "everyone"'s mouths w amazing ease. Pure delusion. Trump, his team, the intelligence communities... none of them have said what you represent them as having said.

"Everyone, including TRUMP," does NOT think Russia was the source. FACT. Wikileaks specifically said Russia was not the source. FACT. So far they have not lied. FACT.

They agree that some specifically identified DNC hacks can be traced to a russian source(s). Everything else is fake news. Trump also mentioned other hacks traced to other sources. The emails revealed in the wikileaks show team hillary discussing known hacks coming from Russia, Iran, and China.

As Trump put in your posted video. This was normal.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/11/trump-acknowledges-russia-was-behind-dnc-hack/?ref=patrick.net

This is the video you are referring to wherein Trump supposedly acknowledges Russia hacking. I suggest you watch your own source. Then go back and rewatch the Priebus response.

Then go back and rethink your logic -Or- keep sticking your head in the sand. Up to you

rando says

Actually with a silver/gold ratio of 69/1, Silver is the better bet right now.

What has the historical ratio been?

Regardless of historical ratio, silver will be going up faster than gold in the next move. The ratio has been between 67 and 73 forever(last two years approx). It will go down to somewhere in the area of 30/1, and that's when you buy gold, or swap for it. I've been doing this for years, and have significantly increased my investment by trading/buying at the top and bottom of the ratio.

CL says

most of the public debt is held by American citizens and corporations, right?

Do you mean debtors, or purchasers? If purchasers, then it's banks... Actually it doesn't matter, it's banks either way. And what do banks deal in..?

hanera says

Treasuries

- Index fund

- Housing

- Stocks

Values almost entirely tied to fiat currency
fiat currency
fiat currency...

I assume you're aware of diversification.

rando says

Wow, that was really coin porn!

Only on Patnet!

"Everyone, including TRUMP," does NOT think Russia was the source. FACT"

Why don't you quote me correctly instead of trying to twist my words. That's pathetic.

"This is the video you are referring to wherein Trump supposedly acknowledges Russia hacking"

Supposedly? The source to which I refer is Priebus saying that Trump accepts the intelligence community findings.

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/313214-priebus-says-he-thinks-trump-accepts-the-findings-of-the-intelligence

There's another source for you. Notice, even Priebus calls it the "intelligence community findings" because everyone is in agreement. Priebus goes on to say that Trump is not denying that Russia was behind the hacks of the DNC.

I'm tired of this nonsense. You're as bad as TLL Lips.

joeyjojojunior says

I'm tired of this nonsense. You're as bad as TLL Lips.

That's not possible.

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” - John Adams

joeyjojojunior says

The source to which I refer is Priebus saying that Trump accepts the intelligence community findings.

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/313214-priebus-says-he-thinks-trump-accepts-the-findings-of-the-intelligence

"“I think he accepts the finding,” Priebus said. “He’s not denying entities in Russia are behind these particular hackings.” And here we are again. They agree entities in Russia are involved in these hacks. This doesnt mean Russia worked with wikileaks. It also doesnt mean this was DNC's only hack. The wikileaks discussed 3 acknowledged hacks from supposedly russia, iran, and china.

So Wikileaks could have been sourced via any hacker w a server in russia, iran, or china, OR any insider with access. The Russia theory is all confirmation bias. Its neither proven nor universally agreed to be the best current theory.

"The Russia theory is all confirmation bias. Its neither proven nor universally agreed to be the best current theory."

wtf? All intelligence services in the US AGREE it was Russia. How is that not universally agreed?

In any event. You win. I'm done.

The video is the OP is so racist. Why does it have to be a white woman? Patriarchy beauty standards. </sarcasm>

Can't they rename her to Markie 1? I don't want to tell my parents I'm dating someone named Mark.

This thread is also for Rin.

Realize, when sex robots go mainstream, I'll be the among the early adopters, since I'd stopped dating, nearly 6 years ago, to only poke hoes.

Also, the female 'Mark' is Marcie. So Dan, you introduce her as Marcie.

It's like Samuel vs Samantha, James vs Jane, Michael vs Michelle, Jesse vs Jessica, Steven vs Stephanie, and so on.

WARNING!!!!!

Watch out for those teeth.