What should be the epithet for the new conspiracy kooks?

[whichphilosophy]

For the last 8 years we've had the "birthers", those who were convinced that Obama wasn't born in the US. They generally fell for other conspiracy theories about him as well, such as him being an atheist muslim or some such. One person in this forum (some sort of seer) even thinks Obama had a secret weather machine. Go figure. Those who followed the other conspiracy theories also followed the birth certificate conspiracy, so it was safe to lump them all under the birther label.

Now for the next four years we're going to have people who think the Russians hacked the US election. They are following the lead of the birthers and falling for other crazy stories, such as the Russian prostitute urination hoax, but the main kooky conspiracy theory they're falling for is Russian Hackers.

So you don't believe the Russians hacked into the DNC despite numerous reports from intelligence agencies?

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

It's possible the Russians hacked into a lot of places as so do the US government agencies.
Numerous unsubstantiated statements from the intelligence agencies that the Russians intended to or actually altered the course of the election don't stand up under scrutiny.
The US public have changed since the Vietnam war where many need to see evidence based allegations.
To support its offensive the CIA would need to clearly demonstrate who did it and how this was done. It hasn't.

 

[whichphilosophy]

There seems to be some doubt. Do you think your intelligence agencies get things wrong a bit?

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7t5zbKnvQk[/YOUTUBE]

You realize McAfee went nutcase some time ago?

The only thing that seems to be insane are the unsubstantiated conspiracy theories surrounding the election. I don't know if McAfee is insane but his antivirus seems logical plus what is saying seems possible to me in most instances. I'm not sure as to the extent to the eves dropping by the agencies but I am sure it is very extensive.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Why? Does an intelligence agency reporting on unsubstantiated rumors substantiate them?

No. One would think it is obvious that it is news that these allegations are being made and circulated about official circles. Did you even bother to notice that Derec included the reports "should include the caveat that they could not corroborate the contents independently, but to report that there are allegations being made is not fake news."?

Goebbles If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.

Since the CIA has not backed up a single statement where it follows that the next statement would move for investigations to see if anyone did lie regarding this.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

No. One would think it is obvious that it is news that these allegations are being made and circulated about official circles. Did you even bother to notice that Derec included the reports "should include the caveat that they could not corroborate the contents independently, but to report that there are allegations being made is not fake news."?

Goebbles If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.

Since the CIA has not backed up a single statement where it follows that the next statement would move for investigations to see if anyone did lie regarding this.

Why would the CIA back up something they have not made public?

 

[blastula]

For the last 8 years we've had the "birthers", those who were convinced that Obama wasn't born in the US. They generally fell for other conspiracy theories about him as well, such as him being an atheist muslim or some such. One person in this forum (some sort of seer) even thinks Obama had a secret weather machine. Go figure. Those who followed the other conspiracy theories also followed the birth certificate conspiracy, so it was safe to lump them all under the birther label.

Now for the next four years we're going to have people who think the Russians hacked the US election. They are following the lead of the birthers and falling for other crazy stories, such as the Russian prostitute urination hoax, but the main kooky conspiracy theory they're falling for is Russian Hackers.

So what label shall we use for the next four years for the Russian Hacker conspiracy theorists?

We need a label for the deluded propagandists who try to pretend if Russia was not solely responsible for the election outcome, then Russia did not try to influence the election.

Maybe Trumpsuckers? Putinistas? Conservolibertarians?

 

[Will Wiley]

You realize McAfee went nutcase some time ago?

As usual you can't refute what he says so you launch a personal attack on him.

 

[blastula]

You realize McAfee went nutcase some time ago?

As usual you can't refute what he says so you launch a personal attack on him.

You can't verify what he says, which you should have done before posting.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You realize McAfee went nutcase some time ago?

As usual you can't refute what he says so you launch a personal attack on him.

Yes, and the Russian Times is objective. Trust me, you do not want this world that is about to open on upon us.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Goebbles If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.

Since the CIA has not backed up a single statement where it follows that the next statement would move for investigations to see if anyone did lie regarding this.

Why would the CIA back up something they have not made public?

Of course there is no need to back up anything not made public unless it is an allegation not made public for which conclusions are being made and there is a likely impact on the individual.

It's reasonable to propose that there is a burden of proof to support allegations made to the public especially when this is given to the press and or such can affect the individual or organisation.

Research scientists tend to look for facts and issue findings showing clearly how they have researched. Spending time on unsubstantiated allegations or claims don't rest well in the scientific community and rarely get more consideration than false information.

 

[Will Wiley]

As usual you can't refute what he says so you launch a personal attack on him.

Yes, and the Russian Times is objective.

Fist you guys attack Mcafee because you can't refute what he says. Next you refute the news organisation that reported it because you can't refute what he says.

Trust me, you do not want this world that is about to open on upon us.

How can it get worse for the people you have been bombing?
Oh...you mean your world?......

 

[whichphilosophy]

For the last 8 years we've had the "birthers", those who were convinced that Obama wasn't born in the US. They generally fell for other conspiracy theories about him as well, such as him being an atheist muslim or some such. One person in this forum (some sort of seer) even thinks Obama had a secret weather machine. Go figure. Those who followed the other conspiracy theories also followed the birth certificate conspiracy, so it was safe to lump them all under the birther label.

Now for the next four years we're going to have people who think the Russians hacked the US election. They are following the lead of the birthers and falling for other crazy stories, such as the Russian prostitute urination hoax, but the main kooky conspiracy theory they're falling for is Russian Hackers.

So what label shall we use for the next four years for the Russian Hacker conspiracy theorists?

We need a label for the deluded propagandists who try to pretend if Russia was not solely responsible for the election outcome, then Russia did not try to influence the election.

Maybe Trumpsuckers? Putinistas? Conservolibertarians?

It's a logical fallacy to suggests someone pretends something does not exist when there is no proof that it does exist

 

[whichphilosophy]

For the last 8 years we've had the "birthers", those who were convinced that Obama wasn't born in the US. They generally fell for other conspiracy theories about him as well, such as him being an atheist muslim or some such. One person in this forum (some sort of seer) even thinks Obama had a secret weather machine. Go figure. Those who followed the other conspiracy theories also followed the birth certificate conspiracy, so it was safe to lump them all under the birther label.

Now for the next four years we're going to have people who think the Russians hacked the US election. They are following the lead of the birthers and falling for other crazy stories, such as the Russian prostitute urination hoax, but the main kooky conspiracy theory they're falling for is Russian Hackers.

So what label shall we use for the next four years for the Russian Hacker conspiracy theorists?

We need a label for the deluded propagandists who try to pretend if Russia was not solely responsible for the election outcome, then Russia did not try to influence the election.

Maybe Trumpsuckers? Putinistas? Conservolibertarians?

Skeptics.

 

[blastula]

It's a logical fallacy to suggests someone pretends something does not exist when there is no proof that it does exist

That's not what I argued.

We need a label for the deluded propagandists who try to pretend if Russia was not solely responsible for the election outcome, then Russia did not try to influence the election.

Maybe Trumpsuckers? Putinistas? Conservolibertarians?

Skeptics.

Propagandists.

 

[KeepTalking]

You realize McAfee went nutcase some time ago?

As usual you can't refute what he says so you launch a personal attack on him.

No, seriously, Google his name, McAfee did way too many drugs and became a paranoid whacko, eventually getting so involved in drugs and possibly murder, that he is a wanted man in Belize and Guatemala. His most recent claim to fame is getting busted for DUI in Texas.

 

[whichphilosophy]

That's not what I argued.

We need a label for the deluded propagandists who try to pretend if Russia was not solely responsible for the election outcome, then Russia did not try to influence the election.

Maybe Trumpsuckers? Putinistas? Conservolibertarians?

Skeptics.

Propagandists.

Analysers.

 

[whichphilosophy]

As usual you can't refute what he says so you launch a personal attack on him.

No, seriously, Google his name, McAfee did way too many drugs and became a paranoid whacko, eventually getting so involved in drugs and possibly murder, that he is a wanted man in Belize and Guatemala. His most recent claim to fame is getting busted for DUI in Texas.

He's not wanted in Guatamala since 2013 when he left after the issues were resolved after some difficulty. He may be affected by drugs but he produced the first anti virus in the 1980s so he certainly has some credibility He also worked in the past for NASA The Computer Sciences Corporation and Univac some years ago

 

[Elixir]

That's not what I argued.

We need a label for the deluded propagandists who try to pretend if Russia was not solely responsible for the election outcome, then Russia did not try to influence the election.

Maybe Trumpsuckers? Putinistas? Conservolibertarians?

Skeptics.

Propagandists.

Analysers.

I prefer actual analysts... analysers are often machines.

 

[whichphilosophy]

That's not what I argued.

We need a label for the deluded propagandists who try to pretend if Russia was not solely responsible for the election outcome, then Russia did not try to influence the election.

Maybe Trumpsuckers? Putinistas? Conservolibertarians?

Skeptics.

Propagandists.

Analysers.

I prefer actual analysts... analysers are often machines.

We can use either but analyser (person or device) but as you said often for machines is descriptive of the function. It's not in all dictionaries but given as a person or device that examines in detail the structure of the given data and tries to find patterns and relationships between parts of the data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analyser

 

[laughing dog]

To return to the op question how about Trumpspastics or Trumpsnitfitters?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You realize McAfee went nutcase some time ago?

As usual you can't refute what he says so you launch a personal attack on him.

Pay attention to the world!