The Thread of Democrats

Post Reply
User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 11322
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: philobarbaros
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Sean Hayden » Fri May 17, 2019 2:58 am

One of my favorite stories in that genre is the Venona project:
The Venona project was a United States counterintelligence program initiated during World War II by the United States Army's Signal Intelligence Service (it was later absorbed by the National Security Agency); it ran from February 1, 1943, until October 1, 1980.[1] It was intended to decrypt messages transmitted by the intelligence agencies of the Soviet Union (e.g. the NKVD, the KGB, and the GRU).[2] Initiated when the Soviet Union was an ally of the US, the program continued during the Cold War, when it was considered an enemy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project

I think I remember being most surprised by how successful Russia had been on this front and so early too.
shut up

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24205
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri May 17, 2019 10:58 am

The Russians are just using the techniques of advertising and marketing, ultimately to the same end - to make a dishonest buck. If capitalism has taught them anything it's that consumer culture and a modern approach to sales can make your dreams come true. Putin shakes Trump's hand vigorously while maintaining eye contact and smiling, he compliments Trump on his business acumen and political good fortune, on his tastes in clothes, his tastes in women, and guides him into the meeting room initiating every conversation. Trump says they have a warm working relationship and yet every night Russian TV devotes a portion of the national news to how shit America is, how decadent and superficial it's people are, how corrupt its politicians are, how violent a place it is, how dangerous rape gangs roam the streets, how children are kept in sex dungeons... this is what American freedom looks like in Russia. Now who's going to tell the man who said he believed Putin over his own security services just to save face in front of a friend that that particular friend is a conman and a charlatan - that he isn't actually a friend? If Trump accepted that he'd have to accept that he's been tricked, manipulated, played, conned - and he would never admit that, and so the farce continues...

Personally I think it's best to assume everyone knows all my business and that I'm being manipulated in every aspect of my life. Save a lot of disappointment later. :)
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Fri May 17, 2019 12:29 pm

Joe wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 5:15 am
Forty Two wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 11:47 am
No, I'm responding to your commentary "in kind." If you want to be snarky, you can't expect politeness in return.
Well, you better up your game, kid. If you're gonna respond in kind, you need a far more competent argument, and a lot less juvenile bluster.
LOL, funny.

Joe wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 5:15 am

You still mad? Seems like it. You posted four times in response to me. What's the matter, you couldn't control yourself long enough to write one good one? :funny:
See, you keep going with this bull. You can't just discuss.
Joe wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 5:15 am
Anyway, none of what you've written deserves a response other than to step over it like dog shit on the sidewalk. However, I'll throw you a bone and help you with something you overlooked.
LOL - that's because you know you're full of dog shit, and your argument is ridiculous. A guy calling a campaign office asking for signs and help with rallies is evidence of the Trump campaign "coordinating" with Russia. LOL. You're the one trying to sell that nonsense. Silly pup.
Joe wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 5:15 am

Forty Two wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 12:10 pm
Joe wrote: The Russians' goal was to "sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election," and the Trump volunteers unwittingly supported them.
The blurb you cite does not say any support was given to "sowing discord" or anything else.
It's funny you missed the quote. I put it at the end.
Joe wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 1:57 am
Oh yeah, before I go do other stuff, there's one other citation I should share. Remember when I mentioned the Russians' goals? Here's the full quote.
Defendant ORGANIZATION had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendants posted derogatory information about a number of candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants’ operations included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign”) and disparaging Hillary Clinton. Defendants made various xpenditures to carry out those activities, including buying political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities. Defendants also staged political rallies inside the United States, and while posing as U.S. grassroots entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and ORGANIZATION affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage candidates. Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.
That's from United States of America v A Pack of Russian Cunts.
Yes, and it's amazing that you can'd read English. Do you not understand that the Russians posting things, carrying signs, and calling a campaign office is not attributable to either the Trump campaign?

Defendants staged rallies????? Wow! That's evidence of Trump campaign coordination with the Russians, you think? They were posing as US grassroots entities and didn't reveal their identities???? My god! That's daming evidence! They posed as US persons?

And all this is "alleged" in an indictment? Geez... it's no wonder you say there was evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to interfere with the election.
Joe wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 5:15 am


See, even the USA agrees with me. Kind of makes me proud to be "a True Believer in The Resistance or a Trump-Deranged person," being in such good company.
You realize that that paragraph proves you wrong, not right. That paragraph says that Russians rallied, carried signs, and posed as US persons and entities, etc., without revealing their Russian identities to favor and oppose candidates and sow discord in our society. And, you are trying to suggest that evidences "the Trump campaign coordinating with Russia to interfere with the US election?"

You can't be that stupid. You know you're full of shit.
Joe wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 5:15 am


It seems we outnumber you. Try not to flip your wig kid. :tut:
I know the MSNBC crowd outnumbers me. LOL. But, the prosecutors in the indictment you quoted did not state or even suggest that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to interfere with the election. You're pretending that Russian actions to sing songs, carry signs, and post shit on social media, while posing as US persons, constitutes evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating with the Russians to interfere with the election. Only, it just isn't. And, that's a good reason why neither the Mueller report nor that indictment suggested that anyone in the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to interfere with the election.

Joe wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 5:15 am

Didn't read the whole thing, did you kid? I wonder where you left off.

From what you didn't address in your four posts, I'm guessing you stopped reading where I gave proof I read Mueller right, so I'll include it again.
I'm not alone calling it coordination. Here's what Business Insider had to say
Later that summer, the Russians extended their operations into Florida, a critical battleground state in US elections.

Using tactics similar to those they employed in New York, the Russians bought ads on Facebook and Instagram to promote a series of pro-Trump rallies they dubbed "Florida Goes Trump."

They coordinated with Trump campaign staff, who were unaware they were working with Russians, to organize the rallies, and paid real Americans to perform specific tasks during the protests.
Business insider makes the same mistake you do - failing to read Mueller's report exactly how it is written. The Mueller report says Russians - posing as US persons and unknown to Trump campaign volunteers - asked for signs and to coordinate logistics with rallies. It does nto at all say that Trump campaign staff "organized rallies" for them. It doesn't say that. It says the Russians REQUESTED it. Mueller's report does not go farther than that. Now, even if the volunteers gave out signs and also "helped coordinate LOGISTICS" of a rally, that's not evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating with Russia to interfere with the election. And, neither Mueller nor any other government source says it is. Anywhere. Anyhow.
Joe wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 5:15 am

CNBC reported it as coordination too
The report clarifies that in the cases in which a pro-Trump, IRA-organized rally also coordinated with Trump’s campaign, the campaign was not aware of the origins of the organizers. “The IRA’s contacts included requests for signs and other materials to use at rallies, as well as requests to promote the rallies and help coordinate logistics.”
Again - that's the best you got - someone calls a campaign office and asks for signs and help with logistics on a rally. Nobody knows they're Russian.

And, you call that "coordination with the Trump campaign to interfere with the election. Note, how none of the articles you cite go that far. they do not say it's evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating with the Russians to interfere with the election.


Here you also skipped these questions:

If a Russian calls a campaign office, any campaign office, and asks for signs and help with logistics on a rally. They have an accent, but nobody knows they are Russian. Nobody asks for ID. They just say "o.k. here are a bunch of signs" and here's some instructional material on how to stage a rally. What should the campaign office worker do? Background check on the caller? Ask for ID? Reject anyone with an accent? What? And if they provide the signs and help with logistics, are they coordinating with a Russian to interfere with the election?

Is that "unwitting coordination" or "unintentional conspiracy" to interfere with the election?

The answer, of course, is simple and obvious, and you won't address these kinds of questions, because you know your suggestion that asking for signs and help with logistics isn't even wrong, much less "interference in an election" and it's certainly not THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN coordinating with Russians to interfere with the election.

The FEC says it flat out - -"Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer "exemption" as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone." https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/ In other words ,a Russian, Canadian or Mexican, etc is perfectly free and legally entitled not only to call and ask campaigns for signs and such, but they may be and often are - THE VOLUNTEER at the campaign office! It's not only not wrong for Russians to OPENLY call campaign offices and ask for signs and help to organize rallies - Russians, Chinese, Canadians, Mexicans, Australians, Germans, Iranians, Saudis, Mexicans, Israelis Indians and Brazilians, by way of example - are perfectly free and entitled to take volunteer positions at any campaign and hand out the signs and help with the logistics. When such foreign persons do that, is that "evidence of coordination with [foreign persons] to interfere with the election?"

Here again - "An individual may volunteer personal services to a campaign without making a contribution as long as the individual is not compensated by anyone for the services. Volunteer activity is not reportable." That's not just Americans. Any individual. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and ... -activity/

How many foreign nationals (e.g. Mexicans, Cubans) do you think have called campaign offices asking for signs and help with rallies? How many do you think actually volunteered for political campaigns? Do you think that number is zero? Do you think there is anything wrong with doing so? If Mexican nationals volunteer for the Beto O'Rourke campaign in El Paso, and pass out signs to Mexicans, Hondurans and Guatemalans, and help with logistics with signs and slogans to tear down all barriers along the border and by the way vote for Beto! -- are they coordinating with foreign nationals to interfere with the election? https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and ... -activity/

The FEC ruled that foreign nationals (which include the scary Russians) may work for campaigns to produce intellectual property, and there is nothing violative of the law. Would you say that if a political campaign hires such a volunteer foreign national to do that, that they are "coordinating with a foreign national to interfere with the election? Why or why not? Under what circumstances would it be that?

Of course not - your argument is ridiculous and juvenile. it doesn't even make sense. It's you just farting into the wind.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Fri May 17, 2019 12:53 pm

Joe - here's an article you might be interested in, from The Nation. I know that's probably a right wing rag to you, but give it a read:

RIP, Russiagate
The implosion of the collusion theory is a humiliation for everyone who promoted it. https://www.thenation.com/article/rip-russiagate/

You should feel this same humiliation, particularly with your doubling down on it, even after any thinking person can see that it really was bullshit.
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings should finally put to rest the “collusion” theory that has consumed the mainstream media and the political class for more than two years. The central question of Mueller’s probe was whether there was any conspiracy between candidate Donald Trump and the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin to secure his election over Hillary Clinton in 2016. And after an exhaustive inquiry with sweeping investigative authority, Mueller has answered it: The special counsel’s office “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

The outcome is no surprise to those who scrutinized the facts as they emerged. Time and again, the available evidence undermined the case for such a conspiracy. None of the characters presented to us as Russian “agents” or Trump-Kremlin “intermediaries” were shown to be anything of the sort. None of the lies that Trump aides or allies were caught telling pointed us toward the collusion that members of the media and political figures insisted they were hiding. None of the various pillars of Russiagate—the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting; the fanciful assertions of the Steele dossier; the anonymously sourced media claims, such as Trump campaign members’ having “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials”—ever led us to damning evidence. And all of that is likely why Mueller never charged anyone with involvement in (or covering up) a Trump-Russia conspiracy.
A minimally responsible media and political class would have acknowledged this reality. Instead, leading voices from cable news, Congress, and other influential perches promoted Russiagate by ignoring the countervailing evidence and those who pointed it out. They filled in the evidentiary holes with supposition, innuendo, and outright falsehood. That helps to explain the sizable number of discredited or retracted media reports that advanced the notion of a Trump-Russia plot, culminating in the final collapse of that narrative.

The implosion of Russiagate is a humiliation for everyone who promoted it...
Prominent media outlets that spun an outlandish tale of a compromised or even treasonous president should be held to account for the most catastrophic failure since the days when the media promoted the fiction of Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” as a reason for the Iraq War. Leading Democrats should explain how it is that their promises of “more than circumstantial evidence of collusion,” as Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) put it, resulted in zero indictments on such charges when #MuellerTime ran out.
Top intelligence officials, both current and retired, also owe us an explanation: not just for their explosive statements—such as former CIA director John Brennan’s prediction earlier this month that a new round of conspiracy indictments was coming—but for their investigatory decisions from the start. That includes relying on the Steele dossier to seek a surveillance warrant against Trump’s former campaign adviser Carter Page, and to open a counterintelligence investigation on Trump himself, motivated in part by disagreement with his public embrace of Russia. Accountability on this front may well serve Trump’s self-promotional claims of a “witch hunt.” But it is vital that intelligence abuses be held to account as well, no matter the partisan consequences. A failure to do so could very well hurt progressives in the future, should overzealous intelligence officials put them in their sights.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24205
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri May 17, 2019 1:51 pm

It's all about #NOCOLLUSION now isn't it(?) - which is to say it's all about a strawman, because while there were some serious and legitimate questions to answer about the extent that the campaign and transition knowingly and wilfully coordinated with Russia -- which the Flynn and Manfort trials, and to some extent the Cohen trial, basically put beyond doubt -- the Republican Commenteratti would rather ignore that and focus their attention, and now it seems their OUTRAGE!!!, on the Witch Hunt Conspiracy Theory and on the apparent unfairness and hypocrisy in those questions being raised in the first place.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24205
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri May 17, 2019 1:56 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 12:29 pm
A guy calling a campaign office asking for signs and help with rallies is evidence of the Trump campaign "coordinating" with Russia. LOL. You're the one trying to sell that nonsense. Silly pup.
I think Joe was right - you haven't really been reading his posts. You surely wouldn't have mischaracetrise his point so woefully if you had?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Fri May 17, 2019 2:04 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:56 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 12:29 pm
A guy calling a campaign office asking for signs and help with rallies is evidence of the Trump campaign "coordinating" with Russia. LOL. You're the one trying to sell that nonsense. Silly pup.
I think Joe was right - you haven't really been reading his posts. You surely wouldn't have mischaracetrise his point so woefully if you had?
I've been reading them over and over again.

The question I've been asking is "is there evidence that the Trump campaign colluded, conspired or coordinated with Russia to interfere with the election of 2016?" He has answered that question in the affirmative, and cited over and over again the blurb where a Russian is said to have called a volunteer at a trump campaign office and asked for signs and asked to coordinate logistics for a rally (foreign person status unknown to the volunteer), and he has said that that incident constitutes such evidence.

If, however, I am wrong about that, and he is not saying that the blurb where a Russian calls a campaign office and asks for signs/rally help is NOT evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election, then I am more than willing to stand corrected.

Which do you think it is, Brian? Is Joe saying that the blurb is evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating with Russia to interfere in the election? Or is he in agreement with me that it is not evidence of that?

What do you think that blurb is evidence of?

What do you think a foreign person's call to a campaign office asking for signs and help with a rally is evidence of?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Fri May 17, 2019 2:12 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:51 pm
It's all about #NOCOLLUSION now isn't it(?) -
Not "all," no. But this exchange between me and Joe is. Because I have asked for the evidence he says Mueller identified that the Trump campaign colluded, conspired or coordinated with Russia to interfere with the election. I'm trying to get that discreet bit settled.

Now, caveat here, if I am just way off base about his view, and he is not actually saying that Mueller identified any such evidence (of the Trump campaign colluding, conspiring or coordinating with Russia to interfere with the election), then I am very happy to end the argument there and say that I'm sorry for interpreting Joe's post as saying there was such evidence.

If the example Joe gave of the Russian calling a volunteer at a trump campaign office is evidence of something OTHER than the Trump campaign colluding, conspiring or coordinating with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election, then I would very much appreciate knowing what he or you think that is.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:51 pm
which is to say it's all about a strawman, because while there were some serious and legitimate questions to answer about the extent that the campaign and transition knowingly and wilfully coordinated with Russia -- which the Flynn and Manfort trials, and to some extent the Cohen trial, basically put beyond doubt -- the Republican Commenteratti would rather ignore that and focus their attention, and now it seems their OUTRAGE!!!, on the Witch Hunt Conspiracy Theory and on the apparent unfairness and hypocrisy in those questions being raised in the first place.
A strawman? You mean to say that someone alleged that the Trump campaign coordinated, colluded or conspired with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election is a strawman? Am I strawmanning Joe? He hasn't suggested that to be the case? He hasn't suggested that there is evidence of it? Oh, my. If I did that, I am very sorry. Joe? Is that right? Did I strawman you by suggesting you claimed there was evidence in the Mueller report of Trump campaign coordinating with Russians to interfere with the election?

I want to clarify that right here and now - please let me know if that's not your argument, Joe. I don't want to strawman you.

And, you aren't being clear here either, Brian. Do you think there is evidence mentioned in the Mueller report of the Trump campaign coordinating, colluding or conspiring with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election? If so, what do you think that evidence is? Secondarily, do you, Brian, think Mueller failed to mention some evidence which does exist of the Trump campaign coordinating, conspiring or colluding with Russia to interfere with the 2016 campaign? If so, what did he leave out?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24205
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri May 17, 2019 9:19 pm

Your strawmanning of Joe is found in your characterising the portion of his post you quoted as the entirety of the matter, and dismissing it on that basis. My subsequent comment was made in that context - which you subsequently seem to have removed for convenience.

You don't dispute that there was secret contact between the campaign/transition and the Russian leadership, that, for example: Manafort, who was open to blackmail concerning his financial affairs, was sharing polling data for marginal states that were also targeted by Russia-backed interference projects, that Sessions had off-the-books contact with the Russians at the diplomatic level (before volunteering a lie to Congress about it), that Flynn had secret talks with Russian operatives when he was in a position to influence US foreign policy, that mini-me Trump eagerly met with a Russian operative who he thought was going to provide political/personal dirt on an opponent (or that subsequently the President wrote the denial of that meeting on mini-me Trump's behalf while on the way to play golf on Airforce I), or that mutual benefit was something to be assumed on both parties and to such an extent that it was necessarily baked into these and similar contacts. You don't seem to dispute any of that, you just dispute that this is called coordination because i) Mueller provided no evidence of criminal wrong-doing, and ii) any mutual benefit to Russia or the Trump campaign was merely incidental, and iii) an act of wrong doing which does not succeed is not actually wrong.

You'll correct me if I have misrepresented what you have said previously I'm sure. :tea:

Now you have charged me with proving a negative, and to your satisfaction: that your characterisation of the events and interpretations of the facts, and even the words used to describe them, are not the only reasonable characterisation and/or interpretations of same. I would simply ask: What kind of evidence are you looking for; what kind of evidence would you accept, and; what would it demonstrate if provided?

I have been clear about my own views for well over a year now - something I seem to have to remind you of every couple of months or so: I think the Trump campaign were manipulated and played by the Russians - and that in some cases (Manafort, Gates, Flynn, Sessions, and to some extent Cohen) that manipulation occurred more-or-less knowingly but was considered worth it in light of the prize on offer. Neither Trump nor the Republican Commenteratti will accept that Russia had its hands in the Republican's pie, or even acknowledge the possibility of it, in the same way that they won't acknowledge that the officiates, votaries, acolytes, and functionaries with which Trump has surrounded himself contain a considerable and disproportionate number of liars, crooks, cheats, and charlatans than in the general population.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 1845
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Joe » Fri May 17, 2019 10:48 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 12:29 pm
Joe wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 5:15 am
Forty Two wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 11:47 am
No, I'm responding to your commentary "in kind." If you want to be snarky, you can't expect politeness in return.
Well, you better up your game, kid. If you're gonna respond in kind, you need a far more competent argument, and a lot less juvenile bluster.
LOL, funny.

Joe wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 5:15 am

You still mad? Seems like it. You posted four times in response to me. What's the matter, you couldn't control yourself long enough to write one good one? :funny:
See, you keep going with this bull. You can't just discuss.
Joe wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 5:15 am
Anyway, none of what you've written deserves a response other than to step over it like dog shit on the sidewalk. However, I'll throw you a bone and help you with something you overlooked.
LOL - that's because you know you're full of dog shit, and your argument is ridiculous. A guy calling a campaign office asking for signs and help with rallies is evidence of the Trump campaign "coordinating" with Russia. LOL. You're the one trying to sell that nonsense. Silly pup.
Joe wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 5:15 am

Forty Two wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 12:10 pm
Joe wrote: The Russians' goal was to "sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election," and the Trump volunteers unwittingly supported them.
The blurb you cite does not say any support was given to "sowing discord" or anything else.
It's funny you missed the quote. I put it at the end.
Joe wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 1:57 am
Oh yeah, before I go do other stuff, there's one other citation I should share. Remember when I mentioned the Russians' goals? Here's the full quote.
Defendant ORGANIZATION had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendants posted derogatory information about a number of candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants’ operations included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign”) and disparaging Hillary Clinton. Defendants made various xpenditures to carry out those activities, including buying political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities. Defendants also staged political rallies inside the United States, and while posing as U.S. grassroots entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and ORGANIZATION affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage candidates. Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.
That's from United States of America v A Pack of Russian Cunts.
Yes, and it's amazing that you can'd read English. Do you not understand that the Russians posting things, carrying signs, and calling a campaign office is not attributable to either the Trump campaign?

Defendants staged rallies????? Wow! That's evidence of Trump campaign coordination with the Russians, you think? They were posing as US grassroots entities and didn't reveal their identities???? My god! That's daming evidence! They posed as US persons?

And all this is "alleged" in an indictment? Geez... it's no wonder you say there was evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to interfere with the election.
Joe wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 5:15 am


See, even the USA agrees with me. Kind of makes me proud to be "a True Believer in The Resistance or a Trump-Deranged person," being in such good company.
You realize that that paragraph proves you wrong, not right. That paragraph says that Russians rallied, carried signs, and posed as US persons and entities, etc., without revealing their Russian identities to favor and oppose candidates and sow discord in our society. And, you are trying to suggest that evidences "the Trump campaign coordinating with Russia to interfere with the US election?"

You can't be that stupid. You know you're full of shit.
Joe wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 5:15 am


It seems we outnumber you. Try not to flip your wig kid. :tut:
I know the MSNBC crowd outnumbers me. LOL. But, the prosecutors in the indictment you quoted did not state or even suggest that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to interfere with the election. You're pretending that Russian actions to sing songs, carry signs, and post shit on social media, while posing as US persons, constitutes evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating with the Russians to interfere with the election. Only, it just isn't. And, that's a good reason why neither the Mueller report nor that indictment suggested that anyone in the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to interfere with the election.

Joe wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 5:15 am

Didn't read the whole thing, did you kid? I wonder where you left off.

From what you didn't address in your four posts, I'm guessing you stopped reading where I gave proof I read Mueller right, so I'll include it again.
I'm not alone calling it coordination. Here's what Business Insider had to say
Later that summer, the Russians extended their operations into Florida, a critical battleground state in US elections.

Using tactics similar to those they employed in New York, the Russians bought ads on Facebook and Instagram to promote a series of pro-Trump rallies they dubbed "Florida Goes Trump."

They coordinated with Trump campaign staff, who were unaware they were working with Russians, to organize the rallies, and paid real Americans to perform specific tasks during the protests.
Business insider makes the same mistake you do - failing to read Mueller's report exactly how it is written. The Mueller report says Russians - posing as US persons and unknown to Trump campaign volunteers - asked for signs and to coordinate logistics with rallies. It does nto at all say that Trump campaign staff "organized rallies" for them. It doesn't say that. It says the Russians REQUESTED it. Mueller's report does not go farther than that. Now, even if the volunteers gave out signs and also "helped coordinate LOGISTICS" of a rally, that's not evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating with Russia to interfere with the election. And, neither Mueller nor any other government source says it is. Anywhere. Anyhow.
Joe wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 5:15 am

CNBC reported it as coordination too
The report clarifies that in the cases in which a pro-Trump, IRA-organized rally also coordinated with Trump’s campaign, the campaign was not aware of the origins of the organizers. “The IRA’s contacts included requests for signs and other materials to use at rallies, as well as requests to promote the rallies and help coordinate logistics.”
Again - that's the best you got - someone calls a campaign office and asks for signs and help with logistics on a rally. Nobody knows they're Russian.

And, you call that "coordination with the Trump campaign to interfere with the election. Note, how none of the articles you cite go that far. they do not say it's evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating with the Russians to interfere with the election.


Here you also skipped these questions:

If a Russian calls a campaign office, any campaign office, and asks for signs and help with logistics on a rally. They have an accent, but nobody knows they are Russian. Nobody asks for ID. They just say "o.k. here are a bunch of signs" and here's some instructional material on how to stage a rally. What should the campaign office worker do? Background check on the caller? Ask for ID? Reject anyone with an accent? What? And if they provide the signs and help with logistics, are they coordinating with a Russian to interfere with the election?

Is that "unwitting coordination" or "unintentional conspiracy" to interfere with the election?

The answer, of course, is simple and obvious, and you won't address these kinds of questions, because you know your suggestion that asking for signs and help with logistics isn't even wrong, much less "interference in an election" and it's certainly not THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN coordinating with Russians to interfere with the election.

The FEC says it flat out - -"Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer "exemption" as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone." https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/ In other words ,a Russian, Canadian or Mexican, etc is perfectly free and legally entitled not only to call and ask campaigns for signs and such, but they may be and often are - THE VOLUNTEER at the campaign office! It's not only not wrong for Russians to OPENLY call campaign offices and ask for signs and help to organize rallies - Russians, Chinese, Canadians, Mexicans, Australians, Germans, Iranians, Saudis, Mexicans, Israelis Indians and Brazilians, by way of example - are perfectly free and entitled to take volunteer positions at any campaign and hand out the signs and help with the logistics. When such foreign persons do that, is that "evidence of coordination with [foreign persons] to interfere with the election?"

Here again - "An individual may volunteer personal services to a campaign without making a contribution as long as the individual is not compensated by anyone for the services. Volunteer activity is not reportable." That's not just Americans. Any individual. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and ... -activity/

How many foreign nationals (e.g. Mexicans, Cubans) do you think have called campaign offices asking for signs and help with rallies? How many do you think actually volunteered for political campaigns? Do you think that number is zero? Do you think there is anything wrong with doing so? If Mexican nationals volunteer for the Beto O'Rourke campaign in El Paso, and pass out signs to Mexicans, Hondurans and Guatemalans, and help with logistics with signs and slogans to tear down all barriers along the border and by the way vote for Beto! -- are they coordinating with foreign nationals to interfere with the election? https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and ... -activity/

The FEC ruled that foreign nationals (which include the scary Russians) may work for campaigns to produce intellectual property, and there is nothing violative of the law. Would you say that if a political campaign hires such a volunteer foreign national to do that, that they are "coordinating with a foreign national to interfere with the election? Why or why not? Under what circumstances would it be that?

Of course not - your argument is ridiculous and juvenile. it doesn't even make sense. It's you just farting into the wind.
Now kid, play nice. Saying someone's "full of shit" is a personal attack, and doesn't address their argument. It seems to me you can do better than that, and yet most of your argument is that I "can'd read English," which is also a personal attack and just as useless for making a point. It seems you can't handle your snark.

Also, it's spelled "can't." :hehe:

Yeah, you're outnumbered, and haven't shown me any reason to think that the people I've cited are wrong. They, and I, are using the dictionary definition of coordination to read what Mueller wrote. The only citations you've given don't address the specific part of the report I cited, so they don't convince me that this is an incorrect way to read Mueller. BTW, Susie Wiles, the Trump adviser I quoted calling it coordination, would probably have some tart words for you calling her "the MSNBC crowd."

If my argument is ridiculous, why can I support it with citations, and all you can do is repeat your unsupported opinion over and over?

As for your FEC point, the Russians may have volunteered for campaign work, but weren't charged for that. If you'd read the indictment as you claim, you'd know that. Nice try at changing the subject, but no dice.

All you have is your opinion to back your assertion, and that's not good enough.

Is that why you're so bothered kid, that I won't take your word for it?
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"as far as strong, i am hard as a rock and tough as a nail. no one will bring me down. no one. i am the debonator. the tnt. and jesus has my back door pal!" - D. C. Bockemehl
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 1845
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Joe » Fri May 17, 2019 11:08 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 12:53 pm
Joe - here's an article you might be interested in, from The Nation. I know that's probably a right wing rag to you, but give it a read:

RIP, Russiagate
The implosion of the collusion theory is a humiliation for everyone who promoted it. https://www.thenation.com/article/rip-russiagate/

You should feel this same humiliation, particularly with your doubling down on it, even after any thinking person can see that it really was bullshit.
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings should finally put to rest the “collusion” theory that has consumed the mainstream media and the political class for more than two years. The central question of Mueller’s probe was whether there was any conspiracy between candidate Donald Trump and the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin to secure his election over Hillary Clinton in 2016. And after an exhaustive inquiry with sweeping investigative authority, Mueller has answered it: The special counsel’s office “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

The outcome is no surprise to those who scrutinized the facts as they emerged. Time and again, the available evidence undermined the case for such a conspiracy. None of the characters presented to us as Russian “agents” or Trump-Kremlin “intermediaries” were shown to be anything of the sort. None of the lies that Trump aides or allies were caught telling pointed us toward the collusion that members of the media and political figures insisted they were hiding. None of the various pillars of Russiagate—the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting; the fanciful assertions of the Steele dossier; the anonymously sourced media claims, such as Trump campaign members’ having “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials”—ever led us to damning evidence. And all of that is likely why Mueller never charged anyone with involvement in (or covering up) a Trump-Russia conspiracy.
A minimally responsible media and political class would have acknowledged this reality. Instead, leading voices from cable news, Congress, and other influential perches promoted Russiagate by ignoring the countervailing evidence and those who pointed it out. They filled in the evidentiary holes with supposition, innuendo, and outright falsehood. That helps to explain the sizable number of discredited or retracted media reports that advanced the notion of a Trump-Russia plot, culminating in the final collapse of that narrative.

The implosion of Russiagate is a humiliation for everyone who promoted it...
Prominent media outlets that spun an outlandish tale of a compromised or even treasonous president should be held to account for the most catastrophic failure since the days when the media promoted the fiction of Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” as a reason for the Iraq War. Leading Democrats should explain how it is that their promises of “more than circumstantial evidence of collusion,” as Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) put it, resulted in zero indictments on such charges when #MuellerTime ran out.
Top intelligence officials, both current and retired, also owe us an explanation: not just for their explosive statements—such as former CIA director John Brennan’s prediction earlier this month that a new round of conspiracy indictments was coming—but for their investigatory decisions from the start. That includes relying on the Steele dossier to seek a surveillance warrant against Trump’s former campaign adviser Carter Page, and to open a counterintelligence investigation on Trump himself, motivated in part by disagreement with his public embrace of Russia. Accountability on this front may well serve Trump’s self-promotional claims of a “witch hunt.” But it is vital that intelligence abuses be held to account as well, no matter the partisan consequences. A failure to do so could very well hurt progressives in the future, should overzealous intelligence officials put them in their sights.
Why would I care about this? It's about the collusion theories some people threw around, not the unwitting coordination Mueller described. And you disparage my understanding of English? :bored:
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"as far as strong, i am hard as a rock and tough as a nail. no one will bring me down. no one. i am the debonator. the tnt. and jesus has my back door pal!" - D. C. Bockemehl
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 28321
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Tero » Sat May 18, 2019 12:10 am

Lock him up! Trump looks guilty!
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 1845
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Joe » Sun May 19, 2019 12:08 am

Forty Two wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 2:12 pm
Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:51 pm
It's all about #NOCOLLUSION now isn't it(?) -
Not "all," no. But this exchange between me and Joe is. Because I have asked for the evidence he says Mueller identified that the Trump campaign colluded, conspired or coordinated with Russia to interfere with the election. I'm trying to get that discreet bit settled.

Now, caveat here, if I am just way off base about his view, and he is not actually saying that Mueller identified any such evidence (of the Trump campaign colluding, conspiring or coordinating with Russia to interfere with the election), then I am very happy to end the argument there and say that I'm sorry for interpreting Joe's post as saying there was such evidence.

If the example Joe gave of the Russian calling a volunteer at a trump campaign office is evidence of something OTHER than the Trump campaign colluding, conspiring or coordinating with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election, then I would very much appreciate knowing what he or you think that is.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:51 pm
which is to say it's all about a strawman, because while there were some serious and legitimate questions to answer about the extent that the campaign and transition knowingly and wilfully coordinated with Russia -- which the Flynn and Manfort trials, and to some extent the Cohen trial, basically put beyond doubt -- the Republican Commenteratti would rather ignore that and focus their attention, and now it seems their OUTRAGE!!!, on the Witch Hunt Conspiracy Theory and on the apparent unfairness and hypocrisy in those questions being raised in the first place.
A strawman? You mean to say that someone alleged that the Trump campaign coordinated, colluded or conspired with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election is a strawman? Am I strawmanning Joe? He hasn't suggested that to be the case? He hasn't suggested that there is evidence of it? Oh, my. If I did that, I am very sorry. Joe? Is that right? Did I strawman you by suggesting you claimed there was evidence in the Mueller report of Trump campaign coordinating with Russians to interfere with the election?

I want to clarify that right here and now - please let me know if that's not your argument, Joe. I don't want to strawman you.

And, you aren't being clear here either, Brian. Do you think there is evidence mentioned in the Mueller report of the Trump campaign coordinating, colluding or conspiring with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election? If so, what do you think that evidence is? Secondarily, do you, Brian, think Mueller failed to mention some evidence which does exist of the Trump campaign coordinating, conspiring or colluding with Russia to interfere with the 2016 campaign? If so, what did he leave out?
Well kid, as Brian points out, omitting the part of the post that backs up my interpretation of the Mueller quote is certainly misrepresenting my argument. That's a strawman, but you do it so much I've stopped pointing it out. It's clear you mean to do it, so why should I waste my time pointing it out. :bored:
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"as far as strong, i am hard as a rock and tough as a nail. no one will bring me down. no one. i am the debonator. the tnt. and jesus has my back door pal!" - D. C. Bockemehl
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 4516
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Natural instinct for science
Location: The Cleanest Climate in the World
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Seabass » Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:57 pm

As San Francisco DA, Kamala Harris's Office Stopped Cooperating With Victims of Clergy Abuse


more here:
AS SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT ATTORNEY, KAMALA HARRIS’S OFFICE STOPPED COOPERATING WITH VICTIMS OF CATHOLIC CHURCH CHILD ABUSE
https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/kam ... ild-abuse/
The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots. ―H.L. Mencken

Bad government is the natural product of rule by those who believe government is bad. —Thomas Frank

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. —Einstein
I’m a nationalist. —Trump

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. —Hermann Göring

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 38400
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Animavore » Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:31 pm

Crazy thought. Jon 2020. :ask:


"[Donald Trump] a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose".
- New Zealand mosque shooter.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests