Carlton Supporters Club

Once you get caught out peddling falsehoods, I'm afraid you have little credibility. 

eg. Bill and Hilary Clinton.

So how come you are prepared to take on board all the stuff about Russia influencing the US elections when, to my knowledge no serious proof or evidence has been tabled? Shouldn't that in your parlance be classified as conspiracy theory?

If Trump divests himself of all his Russian assets some of the problems might go away, but at the moment his organisation has $B dependant on the kindness of Putin.

Do you have faith that Trump will do the right thing when it comes down to a world view versus his bank accounts?

Further, some of his key appointments work in oil and has a vested interest in what goes down in the major pipelines servicing Europe from Turkey and the Ukraine. In everyday terms it's called a conflict of interest and it's becoming more common in politics by the day. Just because some have gotten away with it in the past doesn't make this occurrence acceptable, better or more benign.

When a decision has to be made about some events in that region, do you trust them to do the right thing by the people or the right thing by their accounts?

Do you know who they are? Are you familiar with details of the case they are making. Or is that your off the cuff opinion?

So how come you are prepared to take on board all the stuff about Russia influencing the US elections when, to my knowledge no serious proof or evidence has been tabled? Shouldn't that in your parlance be classified as conspiracy theory?

Previously unpublished analysis by SecureWorks gives some of the details. The groups took the day off on April 15th—which just happens to be the day Russia honours its military electronic-warfare service.

Like many folk, I sat up all night watching it happen and I have read many accounts including the "alternative truth" versions.  The latter are written by fruit loops and, in many cases, fruit loops pursuing evil agendas.

While you're googling it's probably a good idea to be aware of where the source is perceived to sit on the spectrum.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/?utm_term=.64de008fe2b0

Thanks but I pretty much aware of all of this.

That's the problem though with searching on the internet.
While mainstream sources have a pretty high profile in terms of their bias you really don't know where the majority of material is coming from.
That then requires a further search to determine bias...and our own bias comes into play because we favour material that supports our opinion.

Obscure links and sources can be found to counter most arguments.
Determining their legitimacy, independence or balance is often a difficult task.

That's the problem though with searching on the internet.
While mainstream sources have a pretty high profile in terms of their bias you really don't know where the majority of material is coming from.
That then requires a further search to determine bias...and our own bias comes into play because we favour material that supports our opinion.

Obscure links and sources can be found to counter most arguments.
Determining their legitimacy, independence or balance is often a difficult task.

I would concede that there are "fruit loops", some with evil intent, who have latched on the this and tried to make mileage out of it, although I don't really read the so-called alternative media. However there are other more credible sources backed up by expert input from such people as building demolition experts, structural engineers etc who have raised significant doubts as to the official version, enough doubts imo for me to reserve my judgement on it.