The Thread of Democrats

Post Reply
User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 38484
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Animavore » Tue May 14, 2019 6:03 pm

I don't understand why Trump supporters put so much energy in defending him by spreading his lies for him. They're not getting paid to do it. I see no benefit to the Trump supporter and lots of negatives including a loss of self-respect and an increasing lack of trustworthiness.
"[Donald Trump] a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose".
- New Zealand mosque shooter.

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Joe » Tue May 14, 2019 6:28 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 4:42 pm
It depends what you mean by mean.
Yeah, but who is this you? :shifty:
"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: 2026
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Joe » Wed May 15, 2019 1:57 am

Forty Two wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 10:05 am
Joe wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:49 pm

Nice try at moving the goalposts,
I moved no goalpost. You haven't presented evidence mentioned in the Mueller report of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russians to interfere with the the 2016 election, which is what I've been asking for the whole time.
Joe wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:49 pm
kid, but I've provided three examples from the Mueller report that refute your claim. Since you're trying to scale it back to just the Trump campaign, let me show what you claimed again .
The report found zero evidence of coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia (or any American and Russia).
You didn't limit to the Trump campaign, but included "any American," as do my examples. You didn't qualify the coordination to include only knowing coordination either.
Sure, but I included the Trump campaign, and the "or any American" was an add on - because of the Mueller reports own reference to "no US person" which I so haphazardly referred to as "American" (as you pointed out -- a "US Person" and "American" obviously have a significant difference in meaning...)

I don't honestly care if some other American coordinated with Russians regarding the campaign. Frankly, Russians are allowed to hold rallies and carry signs in the United States, and there is nothing wrong with "US persons" rallying with them or "coordinating" with them. The same is true of Mexicans, for example, or Japanese or Chinese or Kenyans or Egyptians or Syrians or Israelis - they are allowed to rally and carry signs. Americans can support them and rally with them, even if they are in favor of candidates.

The "coordination" - and you know this so stop pretending this discussion is about something else - that we're talking about and that we've always been talking about is between the Trump campaign and Russia to interfere with the election.
Joe wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:49 pm


So I gave you three examples that meet the conditions of your claim,
Only I provided no "conditions." And your examples were not examples of ANYONE coordinating with Russia to interfere with the election. The guy who was convicted of selling bank information wasn't convicted of anything relating to Russia. You've expanded your suggestion of what constitutes evidence of coordination with Russia to "evidence that somebody did something wrong." Nobody denies that people did wrong things. This discussion is about coordination or conspiracy with Russia to interfere with the election. The core allegation that has been the focus of national attention for the last 2-3 years.
Joe wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:49 pm



and once again, three is not equal to zero,
You can't seriously think that any of the examples you provided are examples of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to interfere with the election.
Joe wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:49 pm

and your claim is not true. Coordination with U.S. persons counts, even though you are trying to evade that.
Oh fuck off - coordination with US persons to do what? Interfere with the election? You haven't provided one example of that. And, you're diverting - the issue isn't what some US person unrelated to the Trump campaign did. I've been quite clear what we're talking about. You know you have zero. You're just trying to grasp at straws. https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/rob ... ated-them/
THE TWO-PRONGED CONSPIRACY THEORY that has dominated U.S. political discourse for almost three years – that (1) Trump, his family and his campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election, and (2) Trump is beholden to Russian President Vladimir Putin — was not merely rejected today by the final report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. It was obliterated: in an undeniable and definitive manner.

The key fact is this: Mueller – contrary to weeks of false media claims – did not merely issue a narrow, cramped, legalistic finding that there was insufficient evidence to indict Trump associates for conspiring with Russia and then proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That would have been devastating enough to those who spent the last two years or more misleading people to believe that conspiracy convictions of Trump’s closest aides and family members were inevitable. But his mandate was much broader than that: to state what did or did not happen.

That’s precisely what he did: Mueller, in addition to concluding that evidence was insufficient to charge any American with crimes relating to Russian election interference, also stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was no evidence – not merely that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction – that key prongs of this three-year-old conspiracy theory actually happened.
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/rob ... ated-them/

And, see Matt Taibbi - another politically left commentator and a writer cited by folks here often:
It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD
The Iraq war faceplant damaged the reputation of the press. Russiagate just destroyed it
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagat ... -a-million

Joe wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:49 pm
Speaking of evasion, I note that you failed to meet my challenge to cite some source that backs your claim that I've misstated what Mueller found,
The Mueller report doesn't provide any examples of the Trump campaign or any US person coordinating with Russia to interfere with the election. And, I have cited sources above - see, for example, the very detailed article by Glenn Greenwald (politically on the left), and more from Matt Taibbi -
There will be people protesting: the Mueller report doesn’t prove anything! What about the 37 indictments? The convictions? The Trump tower revelations? The lies! The meeting with Don, Jr.? The financial matters! There’s an ongoing grand jury investigation, and possible sealed indictments, and the House will still investigate, and…

Stop. Just stop. Any journalist who goes there is making it worse.

For years, every pundit and Democratic pol in Washington hyped every new Russia headline like the Watergate break-in. Now, even Nancy Pelosi has said impeachment is out, unless something “so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan” against Trump is uncovered it would be worth their political trouble to prosecute.

The biggest thing this affair has uncovered so far is Donald Trump paying off a porn star. That’s a hell of a long way from what this business was supposedly about at the beginning, and shame on any reporter who tries to pretend this isn’t so.

The story hyped from the start was espionage: a secret relationship between the Trump campaign and Russian spooks who’d helped him win the election.

The betrayal narrative was not reported as metaphor. It was not “Trump likes the Russians so much, he might as well be a spy for them.” It was literal spying, treason, and election-fixing – crimes so severe, former NSA employee John Schindler told reporters, Trump “will die in jail.”

In the early months of this scandal, the New York Times said Trump’s campaign had “repeated contacts” with Russian intelligence; the Wall Street Journal told us our spy agencies were withholding intelligence from the new President out of fear he was compromised; news leaked out our spy chiefs had even told other countries like Israel not to share their intel with us, because the Russians might have “leverages of pressure” on Trump.

CNN told us Trump officials had been in “constant contact” with “Russians known to U.S. intelligence,” and the former director of the CIA, who’d helped kick-start the investigation that led to Mueller’s probe, said the President was guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” committing acts “nothing short of treasonous.”

Hillary Clinton insisted Russians “could not have known how to weaponize” political ads unless they’d been “guided” by Americans. Asked if she meant Trump, she said, “It’s pretty hard not to.” Harry Reid similarly said he had “no doubt” that the Trump campaign was “in on the deal” to help Russians with the leak.

None of this has been walked back. To be clear, if Trump were being blackmailed by Russian agencies like the FSB or the GRU, if he had any kind of relationship with Russian intelligence, that would soar over the “overwhelming and bipartisan” standard, and Nancy Pelosi would be damning torpedoes for impeachment right now.

There was never real gray area here. Either Trump is a compromised foreign agent, or he isn’t. If he isn’t, news outlets once again swallowed a massive disinformation campaign, only this error is many orders of magnitude more stupid than any in the recent past, WMD included. Honest reporters like ABC’s Terry Moran understand: Mueller coming back empty-handed on collusion means a “reckoning for the media.”

Of course, there won’t be such a reckoning. (There never is). But there should be. We broke every written and unwritten rule in pursuit of this story, starting with the prohibition on reporting things we can’t confirm.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagat ... -a-million
Joe wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:49 pm

or that unwittingly coordinating with the IRA was somehow not coordination, or that coordinating logistics (by definition coordination) is somehow not coordination. You're welcome to your opinion, but I dismiss it as your usual empty posturing, so why do I need more than one example?

So where's your supporting citations Kid? Cat got your tongue?
Nobody alleged that anyone "unwittingly" coordinated with Russia to interfere with the election. Nobody said that the Trump campaign coordinated logistics either. The Mueller report said Russians made "requests" for signs and to coordinate logistics. Nobody said anything about the Trump campaign actually coordinating logistics. And, reminder, anyone can call a campaign office - our Australian and British brethren here can do so tomorrow or in 2020 and request signs and to coordinate logistics of a rally - that's not coordination between the Trump campaign and foreign nationals to interfere with an election.

And, if you are presenting that as Exhibit A of your "Mueller reported evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia," then you are making my case - because only a True Believer in The Resistance or a Trump-Deranged person could possibly consider that evidence of anything of the kind.

Cat got my tongue? Fuck off - I've refuted every dopey blurb you've tried to twist into "evidence" - you're effectively countering the assertion that the sky is blue by pointing to the blue sky and saying "see, it's grey!"

You mad, kid? I see by your telling me to "fuck off," name calling, and gish gallop of incoherent fisking that you're losing your composure.

I guess you're a little sore that you had to divulge your sources, the Greenwald opinion piece, and Matt Taibbi's media critique, and I can see why you didn't want to. Neither of them address the examples I gave, and neither references that part of the Mueller report. It's particularly sad that you have to cite the guy that helped Ed Snowden escape to Russia, when it doesn't refute anything I've written.

Is that the best you can do?
Forty Two wrote:Sure, but I included the Trump campaign, and the "or any American" was an add on - because of the Mueller reports own reference to "no US person" which I so haphazardly referred to as "American" (as you pointed out -- a "US Person" and "American" obviously have a significant difference in meaning...)

I don't honestly care if some other American coordinated with Russians regarding the campaign. Frankly, Russians are allowed to hold rallies and carry signs in the United States, and there is nothing wrong with "US persons" rallying with them or "coordinating" with them. The same is true of Mexicans, for example, or Japanese or Chinese or Kenyans or Egyptians or Syrians or Israelis - they are allowed to rally and carry signs. Americans can support them and rally with them, even if they are in favor of candidates.
Well, I care that my fellow Americans/U.S. persons were suckered by Russians who were trying to interfere with the election, and so do a lot of us. Your indifference is noted, as is your ignorance of the situation. If, as you say, the Russians are allowed to do this, why were they indicted?
You can't seriously think that any of the examples you provided are examples of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to interfere with the election.
You bet I can, and I do. This example, and yes I'm gonna repeat it, because you need to actually read it,
Starting in June 2016, the IRA contacted different U.S. persons affiliated with the Trump Campaign in an effort to coordinate pro-Trump IRA-organized rallies inside the United States. In all cases, the IRA contacted the Campaign while claiming to be U.S. political activists working on behalf of a conservative grassroots organization. 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 Iogistics. While certain campaign volunteers agreed to provide the requested support (for example, agreeing to set aside a number of signs), the investigation has not identified evidence that any Trump Campaign official understood the requests were coming from foreign nationals.
is absolutely coordination between the Trump campaign and Russians to interfere with the election. 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. Mueller chose the word coordinate to describe it, and it makes sense in the context of the paragraph and my own experiences with political activities over the years, so I take him literally. The Russians asked for help from Trump campaign volunteers, they got it, and doing the job right required coordination. They must have done a good job, because their efforts were applauded.

Image

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.
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.”
Politico read it this way
5) The trolls had 'unwitting' insider help.
One of the biggest bombshells in the indictment is the detail that the IRA trolls allegedly communicated with the people tied to the Trump campaign.

“Some defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign,” the document says.

But the indictment adds that these people also communicated “with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.”
CNN found this example of coordination
Miller was not the only Trump supporter unwittingly co-opted by the Russians for the "Florida Goes Trump" flash mob that took place in multiple parts of the state.

Team Trump Broward County, a Facebook page run by real Trump supporters, publicized the flashmob in the days leading up to the event, and posted pictures and videos from the event after it took place.

Image

Florine Gruen Goldfarb runs the Team Trump Broward County Facebook page, which posted numerous times about events that were promoted and encouraged by the Russians. Speaking to CNN on Sunday, she said she didn't believe she was influenced by the Russians and said she thought that Friday's indictment was a ploy to distract from the FBI's mishandling of tip-offs it had received about the Parkland, Florida school shooter.
Of course, Buzzfeed was all over it
The demonstrations—at least one of which was promoted online by local pro-Trump activists— brought dozens of supporters together in real life. They appear to be the first case of Russian provocateurs successfully mobilizing Americans over Facebook in direct support of Donald Trump.

The Aug. 20, 2016, events were collectively called “Florida Goes Trump!” and they were billed as a “patriotic state-wide flash mob,” unfolding simultaneously in 17 different cities and towns in the battleground state. It’s difficult to determine how many of those locations actually witnessed any turnout, in part because Facebook’s recent deletion of hundreds of Russian accounts hid much of the evidence. But videos and photos from two of the locations—Fort Lauderdale and Coral Springs—were reposted to a Facebook page run by the local Trump campaign chair, where they remain to this day.
Even one of Trump's people described it as coordination
Susie Wiles, one of Trump’s top Florida advisers, said staff and volunteers did their due diligence when planning events and coordinating with grass-roots supporters — but detecting Russian impostors wasn't on anyone's radar.

"We looked out for things when people came to rallies," Wiles said in a phone interview. "We weren't looking for fake Americans that were really Russians. The world seems different now."

Wiles said she does not remember encountering any groups planning rallies or working in coordination with the campaign that seemed outside the norm of traditional political organizations.

“I don’t think anyone had any idea,” Wiles said. “There are always ways someone can manipulate the system, but this was not something we saw.”
My take isn't even controversial, in spite of your disingenuous theatrics trying to make it seem otherwise. I've backed it with actual citations. Can you cite even one source that backs your cuckoo assertions?

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.

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.

It seems we outnumber you. Try not to flip your wig kid. :tut:
"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
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 25305
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 » Wed May 15, 2019 10:11 am

For Trump, the investigation and report have always and only ever been about him, and specifically about whether he personally worked with, or knowingly accepted the help of, the Russian leadership. It seems to me that Trump supporters, particularly in the media, have also been fixated on the personal innocence of Trump to the exclusion of everything else, and to such an extent that even the plain fact that campaign personnel were mischievously and malevolently manipulated, were played, cannot be acknowledged. Accepting that fact, of course, does rather cast the campaign and its figurehead in the role of unwitting Russian puppets - having their strings plucked by virtuoso political puppeteers - and so we're seeing a lot of fervent equivocation, obfuscation, and misinterpretation of the kind which 42 has gone in for over the word 'coordination' - as if this term and its meaning is of primary or ultimate significance. To me it looks like 42 is unlikely to acknowledge that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russians because in his own mind he's still defending the 'collusion' charge, where accepting that there was coordination, even unwitting coordination, weakens not only the defence of the 'collusion' charge but also throws up the unwelcome prospect that the Russians had, and have, more influence over the electoral process, Trump, and the American people than an otherwise reasonable person would be comfortable with. Trump projects and trades on his personal brand as a intelligent man with an over-abundance of skills and an almost super-human insight into the heart of situations, and people, which is not afforded to us regular folks. To accept that there was coordination between the campaign and Russian means that either Trump didn't have knowledge of, and therefore control over, his campaign - he didn't have his finger on the pulse, or even anywhere near it - or that if he did he was personally unconcerned by what he saw. Neither of these things cast Trump in a good light, and as Trumpism is essentially a cargo cult certain beliefs have to be maintained at all costs, and the primary moral imperative of course is to defend the honour of The Glorious Leader, even over an acknowledgement of the Truth. If one isn't defending the figurehead, even when one has personal doubts, then one isn't a true 'true believer' - in which case one is literally no better than the great mass of morally inferior, unsanctified, a-cultists.
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 » Wed May 15, 2019 11:47 am

Joe wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 1:57 am
Forty Two wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 10:05 am
Joe wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:49 pm

Nice try at moving the goalposts,
I moved no goalpost. You haven't presented evidence mentioned in the Mueller report of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russians to interfere with the the 2016 election, which is what I've been asking for the whole time.
Joe wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:49 pm
kid, but I've provided three examples from the Mueller report that refute your claim. Since you're trying to scale it back to just the Trump campaign, let me show what you claimed again .
The report found zero evidence of coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia (or any American and Russia).
You didn't limit to the Trump campaign, but included "any American," as do my examples. You didn't qualify the coordination to include only knowing coordination either.
Sure, but I included the Trump campaign, and the "or any American" was an add on - because of the Mueller reports own reference to "no US person" which I so haphazardly referred to as "American" (as you pointed out -- a "US Person" and "American" obviously have a significant difference in meaning...)

I don't honestly care if some other American coordinated with Russians regarding the campaign. Frankly, Russians are allowed to hold rallies and carry signs in the United States, and there is nothing wrong with "US persons" rallying with them or "coordinating" with them. The same is true of Mexicans, for example, or Japanese or Chinese or Kenyans or Egyptians or Syrians or Israelis - they are allowed to rally and carry signs. Americans can support them and rally with them, even if they are in favor of candidates.

The "coordination" - and you know this so stop pretending this discussion is about something else - that we're talking about and that we've always been talking about is between the Trump campaign and Russia to interfere with the election.
Joe wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:49 pm


So I gave you three examples that meet the conditions of your claim,
Only I provided no "conditions." And your examples were not examples of ANYONE coordinating with Russia to interfere with the election. The guy who was convicted of selling bank information wasn't convicted of anything relating to Russia. You've expanded your suggestion of what constitutes evidence of coordination with Russia to "evidence that somebody did something wrong." Nobody denies that people did wrong things. This discussion is about coordination or conspiracy with Russia to interfere with the election. The core allegation that has been the focus of national attention for the last 2-3 years.
Joe wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:49 pm



and once again, three is not equal to zero,
You can't seriously think that any of the examples you provided are examples of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to interfere with the election.
Joe wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:49 pm

and your claim is not true. Coordination with U.S. persons counts, even though you are trying to evade that.
Oh fuck off - coordination with US persons to do what? Interfere with the election? You haven't provided one example of that. And, you're diverting - the issue isn't what some US person unrelated to the Trump campaign did. I've been quite clear what we're talking about. You know you have zero. You're just trying to grasp at straws. https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/rob ... ated-them/
THE TWO-PRONGED CONSPIRACY THEORY that has dominated U.S. political discourse for almost three years – that (1) Trump, his family and his campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election, and (2) Trump is beholden to Russian President Vladimir Putin — was not merely rejected today by the final report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. It was obliterated: in an undeniable and definitive manner.

The key fact is this: Mueller – contrary to weeks of false media claims – did not merely issue a narrow, cramped, legalistic finding that there was insufficient evidence to indict Trump associates for conspiring with Russia and then proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That would have been devastating enough to those who spent the last two years or more misleading people to believe that conspiracy convictions of Trump’s closest aides and family members were inevitable. But his mandate was much broader than that: to state what did or did not happen.

That’s precisely what he did: Mueller, in addition to concluding that evidence was insufficient to charge any American with crimes relating to Russian election interference, also stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was no evidence – not merely that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction – that key prongs of this three-year-old conspiracy theory actually happened.
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/rob ... ated-them/

And, see Matt Taibbi - another politically left commentator and a writer cited by folks here often:
It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD
The Iraq war faceplant damaged the reputation of the press. Russiagate just destroyed it
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagat ... -a-million

Joe wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:49 pm
Speaking of evasion, I note that you failed to meet my challenge to cite some source that backs your claim that I've misstated what Mueller found,
The Mueller report doesn't provide any examples of the Trump campaign or any US person coordinating with Russia to interfere with the election. And, I have cited sources above - see, for example, the very detailed article by Glenn Greenwald (politically on the left), and more from Matt Taibbi -
There will be people protesting: the Mueller report doesn’t prove anything! What about the 37 indictments? The convictions? The Trump tower revelations? The lies! The meeting with Don, Jr.? The financial matters! There’s an ongoing grand jury investigation, and possible sealed indictments, and the House will still investigate, and…

Stop. Just stop. Any journalist who goes there is making it worse.

For years, every pundit and Democratic pol in Washington hyped every new Russia headline like the Watergate break-in. Now, even Nancy Pelosi has said impeachment is out, unless something “so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan” against Trump is uncovered it would be worth their political trouble to prosecute.

The biggest thing this affair has uncovered so far is Donald Trump paying off a porn star. That’s a hell of a long way from what this business was supposedly about at the beginning, and shame on any reporter who tries to pretend this isn’t so.

The story hyped from the start was espionage: a secret relationship between the Trump campaign and Russian spooks who’d helped him win the election.

The betrayal narrative was not reported as metaphor. It was not “Trump likes the Russians so much, he might as well be a spy for them.” It was literal spying, treason, and election-fixing – crimes so severe, former NSA employee John Schindler told reporters, Trump “will die in jail.”

In the early months of this scandal, the New York Times said Trump’s campaign had “repeated contacts” with Russian intelligence; the Wall Street Journal told us our spy agencies were withholding intelligence from the new President out of fear he was compromised; news leaked out our spy chiefs had even told other countries like Israel not to share their intel with us, because the Russians might have “leverages of pressure” on Trump.

CNN told us Trump officials had been in “constant contact” with “Russians known to U.S. intelligence,” and the former director of the CIA, who’d helped kick-start the investigation that led to Mueller’s probe, said the President was guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” committing acts “nothing short of treasonous.”

Hillary Clinton insisted Russians “could not have known how to weaponize” political ads unless they’d been “guided” by Americans. Asked if she meant Trump, she said, “It’s pretty hard not to.” Harry Reid similarly said he had “no doubt” that the Trump campaign was “in on the deal” to help Russians with the leak.

None of this has been walked back. To be clear, if Trump were being blackmailed by Russian agencies like the FSB or the GRU, if he had any kind of relationship with Russian intelligence, that would soar over the “overwhelming and bipartisan” standard, and Nancy Pelosi would be damning torpedoes for impeachment right now.

There was never real gray area here. Either Trump is a compromised foreign agent, or he isn’t. If he isn’t, news outlets once again swallowed a massive disinformation campaign, only this error is many orders of magnitude more stupid than any in the recent past, WMD included. Honest reporters like ABC’s Terry Moran understand: Mueller coming back empty-handed on collusion means a “reckoning for the media.”

Of course, there won’t be such a reckoning. (There never is). But there should be. We broke every written and unwritten rule in pursuit of this story, starting with the prohibition on reporting things we can’t confirm.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagat ... -a-million
Joe wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:49 pm

or that unwittingly coordinating with the IRA was somehow not coordination, or that coordinating logistics (by definition coordination) is somehow not coordination. You're welcome to your opinion, but I dismiss it as your usual empty posturing, so why do I need more than one example?

So where's your supporting citations Kid? Cat got your tongue?
Nobody alleged that anyone "unwittingly" coordinated with Russia to interfere with the election. Nobody said that the Trump campaign coordinated logistics either. The Mueller report said Russians made "requests" for signs and to coordinate logistics. Nobody said anything about the Trump campaign actually coordinating logistics. And, reminder, anyone can call a campaign office - our Australian and British brethren here can do so tomorrow or in 2020 and request signs and to coordinate logistics of a rally - that's not coordination between the Trump campaign and foreign nationals to interfere with an election.

And, if you are presenting that as Exhibit A of your "Mueller reported evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia," then you are making my case - because only a True Believer in The Resistance or a Trump-Deranged person could possibly consider that evidence of anything of the kind.

Cat got my tongue? Fuck off - I've refuted every dopey blurb you've tried to twist into "evidence" - you're effectively countering the assertion that the sky is blue by pointing to the blue sky and saying "see, it's grey!"

You mad, kid? I see by your telling me to "fuck off," name calling, and gish gallop of incoherent fisking that you're losing your composure.
No, I'm responding to your commentary "in kind." If you want to be snarky, you can't expect politeness in return.
Joe wrote:
I guess you're a little sore that you had to divulge your sources, the Greenwald opinion piece, and Matt Taibbi's media critique, and I can see why you didn't want to. Neither of them address the examples I gave, and neither references that part of the Mueller report. It's particularly sad that you have to cite the guy that helped Ed Snowden escape to Russia, when it doesn't refute anything I've written.
See, now you're just making things up. I cited the Greenwald piece, and others multiple times before. I've not had any issue describing my sources. I just read the Matt Taibbi piece yesterday. But, you have to act as you do...

Doesn't refute anything you've written? Your posts -- in plain English - don't support your assertions. That's the bottom line. The Mueller report plainly and simply does not provide evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated, colluded or conspired with Russia to interfere with the election. You keep claiming that the blurb from the report that says Russians called a campaign office asking for signs and requesting to coordinate rally logistics is an example. It isn't. It's the opposite of an example. If that's your Exhibit A, it's laughable, because it is an example of the trump campaign NOT coordinating with Russia to interfere with the election. It's an example of a person who calls a campaign office, and the campaign office being unaware of who the person is or where they're from.

I don't need some other source to "refute" that - taken at the plain English face value and assumed to be true, that "example" refutes YOUR assertion that there is evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating with Russia to interfere with the election. That example you gave is NOT an example of that. No matter how much you want to scream that it uses the word "coordinate" - you're just embarrassing yourself.
Joe wrote:
Is that the best you can do?
In an argument, proving your opponent wrong is the best one can do, yes. I proved you to be completely wrong, and grasping at thin air, not even straws. If the examples you gave is the "best you can do" - you have exonerated Trump of collusion, conspiracy and coordination with Russia to interfere with the election, by a complete lack of citation to any evidence of that kind of conduct.
Joe wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Sure, but I included the Trump campaign, and the "or any American" was an add on - because of the Mueller reports own reference to "no US person" which I so haphazardly referred to as "American" (as you pointed out -- a "US Person" and "American" obviously have a significant difference in meaning...)

I don't honestly care if some other American coordinated with Russians regarding the campaign. Frankly, Russians are allowed to hold rallies and carry signs in the United States, and there is nothing wrong with "US persons" rallying with them or "coordinating" with them. The same is true of Mexicans, for example, or Japanese or Chinese or Kenyans or Egyptians or Syrians or Israelis - they are allowed to rally and carry signs. Americans can support them and rally with them, even if they are in favor of candidates.
Well, I care that my fellow Americans/U.S. persons were suckered by Russians who were trying to interfere with the election, and so do a lot of us.
Who was suckered? How? Who does the Mueller report say was suckered by Russians to help the Russians interfere with the election? You're imagining things again, Joe. Your example of a Russian calling a trump campaign office asking for signs is not that. Your example of some hispanic guy selling illegal bank account information is not that. What is? Come on now. You are just making claims without evidence.

What is your concern, by the way, with Russians participating in rallies or calling campaign offices asking for signs? Should campaigns refuse to provide signs to people with accents? If a campaign person knows a caller is not an American citizen, are you saying that the law should prohibit the provision of signs to the person with an accent? Do all callers asking for signs, bumper stickers, t-shirts and such have to prove their US citizen bona fides? Are undocumented immigrants allowed to rally and carry signs during election cycles supporting candidates they feel might support them? What if those undocumented immigrants are from Russia or China or Israel or Egypt? What if they call campaign offices and ask for signs? Is that "coordination with a foreign person to interfere with an election?
“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 » Wed May 15, 2019 12:10 pm

Joe wrote: Your indifference is noted, as is your ignorance of the situation.
Enlighten me with quotes from the Mueller reports of Americans being suckered to coordinate with Russia to interfere with an election. Are you going to repeat the blurb about someone calling a campaign office and the campaign worker who answers the phone having no idea that the caller was a foreign person? If so, how is that in any way someone being 'suckered?" How is that in any way an "interference in an election?"

I definitely am not indifferent to Russians illegally interfering in elections or otherwise doing something wrong - I'm not indifferent to Mexicans, Canadians and Frenchmen doing those things too. However, I AM indifferent to non-Americans calling campaign offices and asking for signs and help coordinating rallies. You know why? Because it's not just Americans that have freedom of speech and the right to publicly state their political views. Mexicans, Canadians and French people -- all can come here on a plane, land in New York on a visa, and go straight to a political rally and chant "Trump sucks ass!" over and over again - and carry signs and such. They can call candidate campaign offices and ask for signs and help with a rally too. And, you know why I'm indifferent to that? Because that's not "interfering" with an election!

The day your view of it here - that speaking one's mind, singin' songs and carryin' signs, mostly sayin' hoo-ray for our side - is "interference with an election" is the day freedom completely dies in this country.

The xenophobia you express here is amazing, and it is only intellectual dishonesty that appears to allow you to express this view of it. You are saying that people from outside the US - foreign persons - are committing some sort of offense - somehow "coordinating to interfere with an election" if they call a campaign office, don't disclose they are foreign persons, and ask for signs and request assistance with attending or holding a rally.

Feel free to clarify that you are not saying that, of course. However, you can't have it both ways. There isn't a different rule for Mexicans, Canadians and Frenchmen, than there is for Russians.


Joe wrote: If, as you say, the Russians are allowed to do this, why were they indicted?
They weren't indicted for calling a campaign office and asking for signs, were they? Are you aware of the specific conduct for which they were indicted? Their crimes?

Joe wrote:
You can't seriously think that any of the examples you provided are examples of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to interfere with the election.
You bet I can, and I do. This example, and yes I'm gonna repeat it, because you need to actually read it,
Starting in June 2016, the IRA contacted different U.S. persons affiliated with the Trump Campaign in an effort to coordinate pro-Trump IRA-organized rallies inside the United States. In all cases, the IRA contacted the Campaign while claiming to be U.S. political activists working on behalf of a conservative grassroots organization. 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 Iogistics. While certain campaign volunteers agreed to provide the requested support (for example, agreeing to set aside a number of signs), the investigation has not identified evidence that any Trump Campaign official understood the requests were coming from foreign nationals.
is absolutely coordination between the Trump campaign and Russians to interfere with the election.
It absolutely is not. It's the opposite of the Trump campaign coordinating with Russians, because they didn't even know the people were foreign, much less Russian. It's a call to a campaign office that anyone is allowed to make, talking about constitutionally protected First amendment activities.
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.

Also, is it illegal to sow discord in the US political system? What law is broken there?
Joe wrote: Mueller chose the word coordinate to describe it,
Read it in English, dude - he only says the Russians requested to coordinate logistics of a rally. What's the crime there? What's the offense? What's the wrong? What's the questionable act? What should a campaign worker do when someone calls up the office and asks for signs and help with a rally? Check voter registration and ID?

Come on now, Joe. Imagine you're a campaign worker. Someone calls and you pick up the phone as you do every day. The person calling pretends to be a US person (as the indictment of the IRA says), and you are a "real US person" (as the indictment says), and you don't know they are a foreign person. They ask for signs and help coordinating a rally. What is it you're supposed to do in order to not be "coordinating with them to interfere with the election?" Must you confirm they are "real US persons" before providing signs? Must you ask for ID? Passports? What "papers" must someone provide in order to talk to you on the phone, and ask for signs and ask for help with logistics in a rally?

And, if you find out that they are not a US person - if you find out that you have agreed to provide signs and coordinate logistics of a rally in support of your candidate and the person you were talking to is god damned foreigner! What should you do? Call the FBI?
“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
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 38484
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Animavore » Wed May 15, 2019 12:18 pm

Just lies. Non-stop lies. I almost feel sorry for him having to constantly defend his failed prophet.

Almost. I could never feel sorry for people who promote and excuse bigotry, sexism, racism, homophobia, attacks on women's rights, sexual assault, rape, child kidnapping, child abuse, environmental vandalism, incompetence, apartheid, genocide, con-artistry, fraud, medical neglect, Nazis, white supremacists, inaction against mass shootings... Have I left anything out?
"[Donald Trump] a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose".
- New Zealand mosque shooter.

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 » Wed May 15, 2019 12:32 pm

Joe, let's look at an example of one of the rallies in the link you posted --
June 25, 2016: New York
A woman holds hats to get them autographed by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump during a rally in San Jose, California on June 2, 2016. Jae C. Hong/AP
The Russians used a Facebook group called "Being Patriotic," the Twitter account @March_for_Trump, and other social media accounts to organize a pro-Trump rally in New York called "March for Trump."

To promote the rally, the Russians purchased ads on Facebook and privately messaged people encouraging them to participate, even offering to reimburse some of their traveling expenses.

They also solicited support from a volunteer for the Trump campaign in New York, who agreed to supply the rallygoers with signs
.

O.k. this is the first example given by the article of 9 times we know that the Russians "orchestrated divisive protests."

First, isn't it correct that Mueller did not find that anyone in the Trump campaign knew that any Russians calling for signs and logistics in rallies was a foreign person?

Second, in the incident described, is there a crime committed? Is there something that was done here that should be prohibited by law? What would someone be convicted of here?

A woman holds hats to get them autographed? Crime?
Russians create a facebook group called "being patriotic" and a twitter account "march for trump" and other social media accounts to organize a pro-Trump rally in NY called "March for Trump."
They purchased ads on facebook
They private messaged people encouraging them to participate
The offered reimburse some travel expenses if they would participate
They asked for support from a VOLUNTEER at the Trump campaign in NY who agreed to supply rallygoers with signs.

Please, be specific, what of the above is even wrong? What law can or should be passed to stop foreign persons from:

Holding hats to get them autographed;
creating facebook groups about "being patriotic";
creating twitter accounts called "march for [candidate]";
using social media to organize pro-[candidate] rallies in new york;
Private messsaging people to encourage them to particiapte
offering to reimburse travel expenses if they participate
asking volunteers at Candidate's campaign offices for signs.

Is this a criminal offense? Indictable? To be frowned upon?

What's the rule here? And, does it apply to all foreign persons?

Pretty important question, don't you think?
“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 » Wed May 15, 2019 12:34 pm

And, Joe - what is the point of the post of the image "hispanics for Trump?"

If the hispanics are non-US persons, are they committing an offense?

If they are US persons, are they committing and offense?

What's the problem? And, what did Trump or his campaign do wrong in thanking Hispanics who support him, since many did?
“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
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 38484
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Animavore » Wed May 15, 2019 12:44 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 10:11 am
and the primary moral imperative of course is to defend the honour of The Glorious Leader,
And what a person to defend! A person who is almost certainly a rapist who befriends ruthless dictators even going as far as to veto sanctions against them while they commit genocide. A person who allows industry to pollute and poison water supplies and the air. One who snuggles up with Nazis and allows them have prominent positions in his party. Who has enacted policies which have traumatised children and families. Who has defrauded people, swindled money, and shafted others. A person who has inspired mass shooters and enlivened racists. Empowered a coordinated attack on women's reproductive rights. Is likely to cause an economic crash with failed tariffs. And is generally incompetent.


This is the hill, nay steaming pile of shit, they choose to die on?
"[Donald Trump] a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose".
- New Zealand mosque shooter.

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 11861
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: philobarbaros
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Sean Hayden » Wed May 15, 2019 12:47 pm

I gotta say I'm not seeing why I'm supposed to be upset at Trump and co because their campaign was contacted by Russians pretending to be Americans, who then went on to hold rallies for Trump.

I mean wtf? Tell me it gets better. Tell me you've got someone admitting they knew the Russians would be helping out but just didn't tell the staff, because hey, it's a need to know thing right? :sigh:
"The world is nonsense bro"

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 » Wed May 15, 2019 12:50 pm

Animavore wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 6:03 pm
I don't understand why Trump supporters put so much energy in defending him by spreading his lies for him. They're not getting paid to do it. I see no benefit to the Trump supporter and lots of negatives including a loss of self-respect and an increasing lack of trustworthiness.
You don't understand how other people can support candidates other than the ones you like, and you don't understand how anyone could have a different opinion than you?

You do realize, don't you, that those who support Trump are often just as bewildered by someone like you, as you are of them, don't you? You're not getting paid to do it, are you? They see no benefit to you, and lots of negatives, including a loss of self-respect and increasing lack of trustworthiness, too. They don't trust people like you, because you are indiscriminate in your criticisms of Trump, you swallow every theory and allegation uncritically, and you believe that even where he has done nothing wrong, he should still not be acknowledged as such, because he's just so bad.

They see someone like you putting so much energy into defending your preferred dishonest candidate, and spreading their lies -- they see you spreading disinformation as to alleged bigotry and racism, making up stories, embellishing them, hyperbole and conspiracy theory.

Perhaps if you and they took a bit more time honestly exchanging views and explaining where each other is coming from, perhaps then some understanding might be reached. But... you don't really even want to understand them, do you? You say you "don't understand..." -- but, do you really even want to understand where they're coming from?
“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
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 38484
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Animavore » Wed May 15, 2019 12:52 pm

Why is this all on the Democrats thread anyway?

The Democrats have nothing to do with the criminality and general scumbaggery of Trump and the Republicans.
"[Donald Trump] a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose".
- New Zealand mosque shooter.

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 » Wed May 15, 2019 1:24 pm

Sean Hayden wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 12:47 pm
I gotta say I'm not seeing why I'm supposed to be upset at Trump and co because their campaign was contacted by Russians pretending to be Americans, who then went on to hold rallies for Trump.

I mean wtf? Tell me it gets better. Tell me you've got someone admitting they knew the Russians would be helping out but just didn't tell the staff, because hey, it's a need to know thing right? :sigh:
And, not only that - in terms about being "upset" -- if the specific question is: Is there evidence that the Trump campaign conspired, colluded or coordinated with Russians to "interfere" with the 2016 election? -- isn't the answer based on the Mueller report: "No?"
“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 » Wed May 15, 2019 1:26 pm

Animavore wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 12:52 pm
Why is this all on the Democrats thread anyway?

The Democrats have nothing to do with the criminality and general scumbaggery of Trump and the Republicans.
And vice versa. I don't understand how people who support one set of liars and general scumbags think there is something not understandable about other people supporting a different set of liars and scumbags. Oh, wait, Democrats aren't scumbags or liars, right? Democrats are the civil servants, toiling away for substandard pay for the purest of motives, while Republicans are Nazis.
“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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 5 guests