Yeah - I was talking about actual crimes the whole time. I don't know why you responded abd started talking about fake news.
1) Russians commited actual crimes relating to the election...
2) A criminal investigation was begun...
3) Some of the targets of the investigation turned out to have awkward connections to the president-elect's campaign; potential conflicts of interest were raised...
4) The special counsel was appointed for the express purpose of being able to investigate crimes by Russians, in a way that protects the investigation from any conflicts of interest...
5) WarChiefZeke sees a conspiracy.
6) My question is: where is the conspiracy?
Still haven't heard an answer...
Number 4 is demonstrably false. No, it wasn't to investigate crimes by Russians, it was to investigate crimes by the Donald Trump campaign in relation to the crimes allegedly committed by Russians. This is expressly stated in their appointment. In that vein, we have a wealth of evidence to choose from of top left wing media outlets and top Democrats spreading this exact same view, so let's not retcon it and pretend this entire past couple of years was about an entirely different subject.
So where is the evidence of this often repeated accusation? Why have zero Americans, let alone anyone in the Trump campaign been indicted for crimes related to this. If there is none at this point after such a long period of breathless fearmongering and connecting dots that really weren't there, I think conspiracy is a perfectly fine word for it. At a certain point you have to let go of what you are convinced is true in light of the overwhelming evidence, or in this case, lack of it, no matter what "awkwardness" there may be.
Like top Democrats were directly implying Putin was blackmailing the President and we're sitting here with zero evidence, how is this even a question? This is the kind of thing the phrase "conspiracy theory" was made for, if words have any meaning at all.
Yeah - I was talking about actual crimes the whole time. I don't know why you responded abd started talking about fake news.
1) Russians commited actual crimes relating to the election...
2) A criminal investigation was begun...
3) Some of the targets of the investigation turned out to have awkward connections to the president-elect's campaign; potential conflicts of interest were raised...
4) The special counsel was appointed for the express purpose of being able to investigate crimes by Russians, in a way that protects the investigation from any conflicts of interest...
5) WarChiefZeke sees a conspiracy.
6) My question is: where is the conspiracy?
Still haven't heard an answer...
Number 4 is demonstrably false. No, it wasn't to investigate crimes by Russians, it was to investigate crimes by the Donald Trump campaign in relation to the crimes allegedly committed by Russians. This is expressly stated in their appointment. In that vein, we have a wealth of evidence to choose from of top left wing media outlets and top Democrats spreading this exact same view, so let's not retcon it and pretend this entire past couple of years was about an entirely different subject.
So where is the evidence of this often repeated accusation? Why have zero Americans, let alone anyone in the Trump campaign been indicted for crimes related to this. If there is none at this point after such a long period of breathless fearmongering and connecting dots that really weren't there, I think conspiracy is a perfectly fine word for it. At a certain point you have to let go of what you are convinced is true in light of the overwhelming evidence, or in this case, lack of it, no matter what "awkwardness" there may be.
Like top Democrats were directly implying Putin was blackmailing the President and we're sitting here with zero evidence, how is this even a question? This is the kind of thing the phrase "conspiracy theory" was made for, if words have any meaning at all.
I posted the actual appointment letter yesterday. As I said the appointment was for an intelligence investigation "to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election". The letter does goes on to clarify that "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" should be covered by the investigation, but that does not change the fact that it was set up as:
a) an investigation of Russian interference; and
b) an intelligence and not a criminal investigation.
As for zero evidence, there has already been evidence made public about links between the campaign and the Russians. That covers things like information about leaks being passed to the campaign before the leaks are made public, meetings between Russians and campaign members, lies told by Trump about his financial relations with Russia and demographic information passed by the campaign to the Russians. Whether or not those links approached the level required for a criminal conspiracy was not the main thrust of the investigation - that was the implications for national security of a foreign power influencing a US election.
Personally I think it's much too early to say that the report exonerates Trump and his campaign. If it's published and that's what it says then I'll happily admit here that I'm wrong. However, my expectation is that the report will demonstrate plenty of cause for concern about the actions of the Trump campaign as well as the actions of the Russians.
Black lives matter and antifa should definitely be speaking on campuses now.
We all know the only reason Trump did this was to allow conspiracy right wing hate speech like Richard Spencer and Milo Yonapollus on college campuses.
If he was actually for free speech he wouldn't literally try to get the government to investigate SNL because it hurt his feelings. He also would support Kapernick and his free speech. Kapernicks non violent expression is free speech, yet the Snowflake in Chief is against it. He doesn't support free speech. He's lying. Again.
I believe this was done to make sure everyone has a voice on campus, no one can be silenced by mob rule. Anyone else can take it as they see fit.
Do I think Trump lies, with every breath he takes, just like every talking head at CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CBS, Alex Jones....
Youtube has broken their search filters for a week now claiming it is helping them cope with the uploads of the Christchurch shootings. They say it's a measure that has to be taken to combat violent videos on their site. At the same time you can find a video of people killing each other or violent deaths of other Humans via cars or suicide.
Censorship or the snuffing out of speech that someone finds offensive on college/university campuses should never ever be allowed. Hitler and Stalin did it. That is the beginning of the end for Democracy.
I’ll tell liberals to give up on Trump collusion when conservatives let go of Benghazi, Hillary emails, birtherism, pizzagate, the Deep State, 100% rapist thug migrant caravans, etc, etc.
Lots of people love conspiracy theories so that’s what news media will push because media wants ratings/clicks/views. The positive feedback loop created by the hype machine is not healthy for democracy.
Populism and right wing economic politics are necessarily contradictory (i.e. the more right wing the policies are, the worse off regular people are and the better off the rich are). Because of that, the only way right wing populists can appeal to the masses is by using social issues.
You see a right wing populist like Trump who claims he's anti-elitist and wants to drain the swamp, but then he goes around and gives massive tax cuts to the rich, cuts healthcare that results in 10 million Americans losing healthcare, and sells out to Goldman Sachs. So he's forced to drum up racial tensions, the religious right vote, and white supremacists because he has nothing else to offer in terms of his populism.
Now on the other hand, left wing economic politics are inherently populist. Because left wing economic policies address the needs of ordinary people (which is what populism is) rather than making it as easy as possible for people who are already extremely wealthy to make more money. That's why when you see left wing populists like, say, Bernie Sanders, they never scapegoat brown people or Muslims or any other minority groups because they don't need to. They don't need a scapegoat to blame for why regular people are being screwed economically when they actually have the real solution to the problem facing regular people - left wing economic policies.
If you're right wing (in the american context at least), you are inherently opposed to passing policies that benefit ordinary people because you are convinced that uncompromising individualism is best (right wing politicians more realistically view this as their right to corruption/legalized bribery in the US). You can't call yourself a populist unless you go for the other thing that's popular among the masses - bigotry.
As President LBJ once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
If you're right wing (in the american context at least), you are inherently opposed to passing policies that benefit ordinary people because you are convinced that uncompromising individualism is best (right wing politicians more realistically view this as their right to corruption/legalized bribery in the US). You can't call yourself a populist unless you go for the other thing that's popular among the masses - bigotry.
You mean "uncompromising individualism for the poor is best". The rich get bailed out.
As Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "This country has socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor."
As President LBJ once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
LBJ is a weird guy. Though I studied history, I never directly studied him. From what I can see, he was on the forefront of civil rights with his "Great Society", and yet appeared to be unabashedly racist himself.
As President LBJ once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
LBJ is a weird guy. Though I studied history, I never directly studied him. From what I can see, he was on the forefront of civil rights with his "Great Society", and yet appeared to be unabashedly racist himself.
He was. You can chalk it up to both knowing that the country could not continue on it's current trajectory and that he wanted to accomplish what Kennedy couldn't.
As President LBJ once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
LBJ is a weird guy. Though I studied history, I never directly studied him. From what I can see, he was on the forefront of civil rights with his "Great Society", and yet appeared to be unabashedly racist himself.
He was. You can chalk it up to both knowing that the country could not continue on it's current trajectory and that he wanted to accomplish what Kennedy couldn't.
He was also the asshole that was most responsible for escalating the Vietnam War. Somehow Nixon and the Republicans take the blame foe that nowadays thanks to our 'impartial' media...
LBJ is one of those politicians that's clearly wrong about one thing and clearly right about the other. It's hard to argue in favor of his support for the Vietnam War; it's hard to argue against his support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Based on his habit of bullying his subordinates and his escalation of the war, LBJ in general seems like an egotistical guy who put on a tough-guy persona. I never got the impression that he was a particularly good guy who took the presidency with a sense of solemn responsibility. But I am pleased that he managed to get the Civil Rights Acts passed. Without effective presidential support, we could easily have gone many more years before that happened.
As President LBJ once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
LBJ is a weird guy. Though I studied history, I never directly studied him. From what I can see, he was on the forefront of civil rights with his "Great Society", and yet appeared to be unabashedly racist himself.
He was. You can chalk it up to both knowing that the country could not continue on it's current trajectory and that he wanted to accomplish what Kennedy couldn't.
He was also the asshole that was most responsible for escalating the Vietnam War. Somehow Nixon and the Republicans take the blame foe that nowadays thanks to our 'impartial' media...
Probably has something to do with his secret bombing of Cambodia that led directly to the rise of the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot.
As President LBJ once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
LBJ is a weird guy. Though I studied history, I never directly studied him. From what I can see, he was on the forefront of civil rights with his "Great Society", and yet appeared to be unabashedly racist himself.
He was. You can chalk it up to both knowing that the country could not continue on it's current trajectory and that he wanted to accomplish what Kennedy couldn't.
He was also the asshole that was most responsible for escalating the Vietnam War. Somehow Nixon and the Republicans take the blame foe that nowadays thanks to our 'impartial' media...
Probably has something to do with his secret bombing of Cambodia that led directly to the rise of the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot.
So Nixon and the Republicans took something that was dicey to begin with and made things as bad as possible.
Left wing populists do tend to scapegoat Jews, Christians and the rich though. Different scapegoats, same old prejudice...
Right wingers are the anti-semites. Ilhan Omar saying maybe Israel is another country and American lawmakers should focus on America is not anti-semetic. Can you name anything else anti-semetic from the left? No, right. While look at the right and you'll see neo-nazis, and the alt-right who chanted "jews will not replace us" at Charlottesville, guys like Richard Spencer, and jewsa guys at trump rallies. Right wingers. There are zero gatherings where left wingers attack jews, but there are multiple right wing rallies where they do that. Don't spread Trump's lies on this one.
Ok the rich. The greed of the rich is a major source of the problems for the average joe. That is a fact. If Jeff Bezos spends $88k that's the equivalent of you and me spending $1. How can he have so much money when he barely pays his workforce minimum wage and doesn't pay taxes. Saying the system is weighted in his favor and needs to be changed is not scapegoating. That's not scapegoating. When the three richest people in the US own as much wealth as the bottom half of the nation’s population that's a real thing, that's not scapegoating.
Christians in and of themselves are fine what's problematic is views that try and infringe on others (such as the homophobic cakemakers). They are a huge influence on politics while not paying taxes. 95% of democrats don't have a problem there. They are not a scapegoat. Would I personally say they are a problem? Heck yeah I would because they support idiots like Trump who are ruining the country and are the opposite of what their beliefs say they should be.
Look, Republicans main thing is to scapegoat and fearmonger their whole platform consists of regulations that favor the rich, deregulation to help the rich and the rest of it is a mix of scapegoating others - immigrants, transphobia, homophobia, islamaphobia, "liberal values", Hillary's scary emails or whatever.
LBJ once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.".
As President LBJ once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
LBJ is a weird guy. Though I studied history, I never directly studied him. From what I can see, he was on the forefront of civil rights with his "Great Society", and yet appeared to be unabashedly racist himself.
He was. You can chalk it up to both knowing that the country could not continue on it's current trajectory and that he wanted to accomplish what Kennedy couldn't.
He was also the asshole that was most responsible for escalating the Vietnam War. Somehow Nixon and the Republicans take the blame foe that nowadays thanks to our 'impartial' media...
Probably has something to do with his secret bombing of Cambodia that led directly to the rise of the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot.
So Nixon and the Republicans took something that was dicey to begin with and made things as bad as possible.
Left wing populists do tend to scapegoat Jews, Christians and the rich though. Different scapegoats, same old prejudice...
Right wingers are the anti-semites. Ilhan Omar saying maybe Israel is another country and American lawmakers should focus on America is not anti-semetic. Can you name anything else anti-semetic from the left? No, right. While look at the right and you'll see neo-nazis, and the alt-right who chanted "jews will not replace us" at Charlottesville, guys like Richard Spencer, and jewsa guys at trump rallies. Right wingers. There are zero gatherings where left wingers attack jews, but there are multiple right wing rallies where they do that. Don't spread Trump's lies on this one.
Ok the rich. The greed of the rich is a major source of the problems for the average joe. That is a fact. If Jeff Bezos spends $88k that's the equivalent of you and me spending $1. How can he have so much money when he barely pays his workforce minimum wage and doesn't pay taxes. Saying the system is weighted in his favor and needs to be changed is not scapegoating. That's not scapegoating. When the three richest people in the US own as much wealth as the bottom half of the nation’s population that's a real thing, that's not scapegoating.
Christians in and of themselves are fine what's problematic is views that try and infringe on others (such as the homophobic cakemakers). They are a huge influence on politics while not paying taxes. 95% of democrats don't have a problem there. They are not a scapegoat. Would I personally say they are a problem? Heck yeah I would because they support idiots like Trump who are ruining the country and are the opposite of what their beliefs say they should be.
Look, Republicans main thing is to scapegoat and fearmonger their whole platform consists of regulations that favor the rich, deregulation to help the rich and the rest of it is a mix of scapegoating others - immigrants, transphobia, homophobia, islamaphobia, "liberal values", Hillary's scary emails or whatever.
LBJ once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.".
Yeah, because you'd behave so much better if you had the money. That's the logical fallacy. We blame others for behaving the same way we would if we were in their shoes. I know this will fall on deaf ears in this thread but you and I are no better than they are. We sure like to think we are though. Nothing like the appearance of righteousness...
We need people of means to counterbalance the people who have to scrape. There will always be people who scrape and people who don't have to, no matter how you divide everything up. It's the law of averages. Can we improve some things? Hell yes! But not by demonizing other human beings...
Whatever the report says, elected Democrats are united in a stance of full disclosure, before they can possibly know if it helps them or not politically. Meanwhile, this morning Devin Nunes literally called for the report to be "burned".
I posted the actual appointment letter yesterday. As I said the appointment was for an intelligence investigation "to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election". The letter does goes on to clarify that "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" should be covered by the investigation, but that does not change the fact that it was set up as:
a) an investigation of Russian interference; and
b) an intelligence and not a criminal investigation.
No, not really. We can look at the letter right here and easily determine what the scope and goal of the investigation was.
Relevant sections circled for emphasis.
It's pretty clear that
A ) It was an investigation of the Donald Trump campaign, and
B ) It was about prosecution.
Sure, he says that this will help ensure a more thorough investigation of the Russians, but let's not pretend that the directly stated scope of the investigation wasn't the directly stated scope of the investigation, which was to investigate the Trump campaign, not the Russians.
As for zero evidence, there has already been evidence made public about links between the campaign and the Russians. That covers things like information about leaks being passed to the campaign before the leaks are made public, meetings between Russians and campaign members, lies told by Trump about his financial relations with Russia and demographic information passed by the campaign to the Russians. Whether or not those links approached the level required for a criminal conspiracy was not the main thrust of the investigation - that was the implications for national security of a foreign power influencing a US election.
The fact that we're still rehashing tired old media headlines as though they have an ounce of credibility left even after a full investigation shows why we are in full blown conspiracy territory.
There is no falsifying it, there will never be an acceptance that maybe these dots we are just *so sure* are connected are just wrong, even after there isn't any denying it anymore.
If this is evidence of collusion as you say, where are the indictments?
Are you saying they ignored these obvious leads? Based on what?
If they didn't, and they investigated them only to conclude there is no evidence worthy of an indictment, that more or less settles it doesn't it.
But of course it won't, because conspiracies aren't settled by evidence or by investigations or by anything rational.
At this stage in the game, half assed circumstantial cases based on conjecture and assumption just don't cut it.
@WarChiefZeke I specifically referred in my earlier posts to the parts you circled (in addition to posting the entire letter). However, you are portraying those sub-paragraphs as the main purpose of the investigation. I am pointing out that they are clarifications of that purpose - which is to continue the intelligence investigation originally begun by the FBI.
As has been discussed many times, even if there was collusion that is not a crime in itself. However, collusion would clearly have implications for national security whether or not that met the threshold for criminal conspiracy.
I'm not rehashing any media headlines. I'm saying, as I've said many times before, we should wait to see what comes out of the investigation. In my last post I referred to links between the Trump campaign and Russia. I don't see any possibility any longer to argue that there were no such links, the question is what motivated those links. Did they, as you seem to believe, simply reflect the normal rough and tumble of politics, or go beyond that? Even if it is concluded that they did represent normal political behavior, I would still expect the report to discuss the concerns arising from that. If it is indeed normal to provide private demographic data to a foreign agency attempting to influence an election, then I suggest a 'new normal' is required and would expect the report to suggest the same ...
There is evidence of collusion and conspiracy against the United States by Trump, his campaign, his sons and Russia. Where are the indictments? Well there are sealed indictments that we don't know what's in them, could be there.
Or the investigation could be hobbled by obstruction of justice, Trump has been firing people involved in the investigation and leading a misinformation campaign against it so he's been involved in obstruction of justice. If there are no further indictments then he won his war against justice and broke America once and for all.
People that pretend there's nothing there did you miss where he fired Comey and Sessions because of the investigation and installed an unqualified loyalist against the Constitution in Whitaker when Rosenstein who was approved by Congress should have been next in charge? Did you miss where Barr wrote an unsolicited letter saying the Mueller investigation was a hoax and then Trump picked him? Did you miss where Trump jr and Kushner met with Russians to coordinate attacks on the government and ease sanctions on Russia? Did you miss Putin admitting he wanted Trump to be President? It's a conspiracy theory that he wasn't coordinating with Russians and the only question is where or not Republican criminals will aid more in the cover-up.
Yeah, because you'd behave so much better if you had the money. That's the logical fallacy. We blame others for behaving the same way we would if we were in their shoes. I know this will fall on deaf ears in this thread but you and I are no better than they are. We sure like to think we are though. Nothing like the appearance of righteousness...
We need people of means to counterbalance the people who have to scrape. There will always be people who scrape and people who don't have to, no matter how you divide everything up. It's the law of averages. Can we improve some things? Hell yes! But not by demonizing other human beings...
Your perception is that other people are inherently greedy to the point of hurting others on purpose to further their greed. This may be true for some people. I'd like to think I'm not like that and others are not like that - I'll agree some certainly are like that of course. That human impulse doesn't have to be allowed to go unchecked. Look at Norway, Sweden, and other countries that address that concern. AOC's proposal of a top marginal tax rate on incomes OVER $10 million (remember it doesn't affect at all the first $10 million in one year's INCOME) is a perfect example of a good policy to start reigning in the worst potential for unchecked greed and opportunity to take advantage of others.
We would all be better off if the world was a better place with opportunities for everyone not just a couple of rich families who put their their thumbs on the scale with each generation being born on third base pretending they hit a triple.
People of means to counterbalance the people who scrape? What's that even mean? The rich has to take out the poor? That doesn't make sense. The people who scrape need equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. The people of means with the means and opportunity to crush the people who scrape what good is that?
There is evidence of collusion and conspiracy against the United States by Trump, his campaign, his sons and Russia. Where are the indictments? Well there are sealed indictments that we don't know what's in them, could be there.
Or the investigation could be hobbled by obstruction of justice, Trump has been firing people involved in the investigation and leading a misinformation campaign against it so he's been involved in obstruction of justice. If there are no further indictments then he won his war against justice and broke America once and for all.
People that pretend there's nothing there did you miss where he fired Comey and Sessions because of the investigation and installed an unqualified loyalist against the Constitution in Whitaker when Rosenstein who was approved by Congress should have been next in charge? Did you miss where Barr wrote an unsolicited letter saying the Mueller investigation was a hoax and then Trump picked him? Did you miss where Trump jr and Kushner met with Russians to coordinate attacks on the government and ease sanctions on Russia? Did you miss Putin admitting he wanted Trump to be President? It's a conspiracy theory that he wasn't coordinating with Russians and the only question is where or not Republican criminals will aid more in the cover-up.
Or, Trump himself didn't collude. I would've used Wikileaks if it was available to me no matter who leaked it. Truth is truth when it comes to leaks. Does it matter if it was Russians? Not to me.
If you want to argue that deluding gullible people is 'interference' then I say let's make people less gullible. Russians deluded people? Those people deluded themselves...
Not one vote cast was stolen. Period! If your argument is that people are too stupid to not believe a hoax, then let's fix that. I'll argue that Democrats and Republicans both try to persuade the gullible in order to take power. Gullible people are ripe pickings for vultures.
I posted the actual appointment letter yesterday. As I said the appointment was for an intelligence investigation "to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election". The letter does goes on to clarify that "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" should be covered by the investigation, but that does not change the fact that it was set up as:
a) an investigation of Russian interference; and
b) an intelligence and not a criminal investigation.
No, not really. We can look at the letter right here and easily determine what the scope and goal of the investigation was.
Relevant sections circled for emphasis.
It's pretty clear that
A ) It was an investigation of the Donald Trump campaign, and
B ) It was about prosecution.
Sure, he says that this will help ensure a more thorough investigation of the Russians, but let's not pretend that the directly stated scope of the investigation wasn't the directly stated scope of the investigation, which was to investigate the Trump campaign, not the Russians.
As for zero evidence, there has already been evidence made public about links between the campaign and the Russians. That covers things like information about leaks being passed to the campaign before the leaks are made public, meetings between Russians and campaign members, lies told by Trump about his financial relations with Russia and demographic information passed by the campaign to the Russians. Whether or not those links approached the level required for a criminal conspiracy was not the main thrust of the investigation - that was the implications for national security of a foreign power influencing a US election.
The fact that we're still rehashing tired old media headlines as though they have an ounce of credibility left even after a full investigation shows why we are in full blown conspiracy territory.
There is no falsifying it, there will never be an acceptance that maybe these dots we are just *so sure* are connected are just wrong, even after there isn't any denying it anymore.
If this is evidence of collusion as you say, where are the indictments?
Are you saying they ignored these obvious leads? Based on what?
If they didn't, and they investigated them only to conclude there is no evidence worthy of an indictment, that more or less settles it doesn't it.
But of course it won't, because conspiracies aren't settled by evidence or by investigations or by anything rational.
At this stage in the game, half assed circumstantial cases based on conjecture and assumption just don't cut it.
People, including the media, are allowed to question the actions of individuals and that does not make it a conspiracy theory:
Don Jr, what was discussed at the hotel meeting that was brought up through these unearthed emails?
President Trump, a few days before this meeting you referenced that you were about to get dirt on your opponent Clinton, what were you specificly referencing when you made those comments?
Mr Manafort, it has come to the public’s attention that you handed polling data on the American election over to the Russians. For what purpose was this done?
President Trump, why when meeting with Russian officials, you do not have any other staff present with you including translators?
President Trump, why do you confiscate notes regarding these meetings from your staff if they do attend?
These questions, even if the generic response is “WITCH-HUNT” does not equate a conspiracy theory. They are answers that the public should know and speculating on the reasons, after an answer is not given or that person is caught in a lie does not make a person less credible.
Who questions the Democrats' motives in the media? Who questioned when Hillary was given a Senate seat despite never having lived in New York? Anybody? Oh I'm sure the Democrats have totally pure motives. That's why they turn tail and run every time they run into opposition. It can't be that they want their cake and eat it too. Oh no, it's because they're too 'honorable' to fight dirty. Give me a break. They're just as rich as the Republicans...
Or, Trump himself didn't collude. I would've used Wikileaks if it was available to me no matter who leaked it. Truth is truth when it comes to leaks. Does it matter if it was Russians? Not to me.
So you are pro-leaks then? It's all good when Trump coordinates with a guy who got stolen intel from Russian spies for the express purpose of furthering Russian interests and installing a Russian puppet? Could the leaks have been altered? But anyway yes we all see how Trump is pro-leaking right, he loves leaks.
If you want to argue that deluding gullible people is 'interference' then I say let's make people less gullible. Russians deluded people? Those people deluded themselves... If your argument is that people are too stupid to not believe a hoax, then let's fix that. I'll argue that Democrats and Republicans both try to persuade the gullible in order to take power. Gullible people are ripe pickings for vultures
What do you recommend to win this disinformation warfare? What's the solution to Fox News, Republican party propaganda network? What's your solution to a massive troll farm of Russians sowing disinformation and chaos online? People should be smarter? That sounds naive, this is war, information war.
Yes, I'm pro leaks. So should everybody else be. The Mueller Report should be disclosed in its entirety. Period. .
The solution to the problem is to train people to think for themselves. Neither party really wants that because their power is sustained by our ignorance!
Comments
Number 4 is demonstrably false. No, it wasn't to investigate crimes by Russians, it was to investigate crimes by the Donald Trump campaign in relation to the crimes allegedly committed by Russians. This is expressly stated in their appointment. In that vein, we have a wealth of evidence to choose from of top left wing media outlets and top Democrats spreading this exact same view, so let's not retcon it and pretend this entire past couple of years was about an entirely different subject.
So where is the evidence of this often repeated accusation? Why have zero Americans, let alone anyone in the Trump campaign been indicted for crimes related to this. If there is none at this point after such a long period of breathless fearmongering and connecting dots that really weren't there, I think conspiracy is a perfectly fine word for it. At a certain point you have to let go of what you are convinced is true in light of the overwhelming evidence, or in this case, lack of it, no matter what "awkwardness" there may be.
Like top Democrats were directly implying Putin was blackmailing the President and we're sitting here with zero evidence, how is this even a question? This is the kind of thing the phrase "conspiracy theory" was made for, if words have any meaning at all.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-new-executive-order-protecting-free-speech-college-campuses-ncna986556
I posted the actual appointment letter yesterday. As I said the appointment was for an intelligence investigation "to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election". The letter does goes on to clarify that "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" should be covered by the investigation, but that does not change the fact that it was set up as:
a) an investigation of Russian interference; and
b) an intelligence and not a criminal investigation.
As for zero evidence, there has already been evidence made public about links between the campaign and the Russians. That covers things like information about leaks being passed to the campaign before the leaks are made public, meetings between Russians and campaign members, lies told by Trump about his financial relations with Russia and demographic information passed by the campaign to the Russians. Whether or not those links approached the level required for a criminal conspiracy was not the main thrust of the investigation - that was the implications for national security of a foreign power influencing a US election.
Personally I think it's much too early to say that the report exonerates Trump and his campaign. If it's published and that's what it says then I'll happily admit here that I'm wrong. However, my expectation is that the report will demonstrate plenty of cause for concern about the actions of the Trump campaign as well as the actions of the Russians.
Black lives matter and antifa should definitely be speaking on campuses now.
We all know the only reason Trump did this was to allow conspiracy right wing hate speech like Richard Spencer and Milo Yonapollus on college campuses.
If he was actually for free speech he wouldn't literally try to get the government to investigate SNL because it hurt his feelings. He also would support Kapernick and his free speech. Kapernicks non violent expression is free speech, yet the Snowflake in Chief is against it. He doesn't support free speech. He's lying. Again.
I believe this was done to make sure everyone has a voice on campus, no one can be silenced by mob rule. Anyone else can take it as they see fit.
Do I think Trump lies, with every breath he takes, just like every talking head at CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CBS, Alex Jones....
Youtube has broken their search filters for a week now claiming it is helping them cope with the uploads of the Christchurch shootings. They say it's a measure that has to be taken to combat violent videos on their site. At the same time you can find a video of people killing each other or violent deaths of other Humans via cars or suicide.
Censorship or the snuffing out of speech that someone finds offensive on college/university campuses should never ever be allowed. Hitler and Stalin did it. That is the beginning of the end for Democracy.
This shit is still happening in Democratic Nations.
https://www.thenationalherald.com/235569/greek-metal-band-rotting-christ-barred-from-performing/
It's eerily similar to what is going on in American college campuses.
Hellenes have a saying that has also been put into songs, I will give it to you in english...
"If you think what I'm saying is not good or you don't like it, you demon, get the hell away from me you're blocking my way to my god."
Lots of people love conspiracy theories so that’s what news media will push because media wants ratings/clicks/views. The positive feedback loop created by the hype machine is not healthy for democracy.
You see a right wing populist like Trump who claims he's anti-elitist and wants to drain the swamp, but then he goes around and gives massive tax cuts to the rich, cuts healthcare that results in 10 million Americans losing healthcare, and sells out to Goldman Sachs. So he's forced to drum up racial tensions, the religious right vote, and white supremacists because he has nothing else to offer in terms of his populism.
Now on the other hand, left wing economic politics are inherently populist. Because left wing economic policies address the needs of ordinary people (which is what populism is) rather than making it as easy as possible for people who are already extremely wealthy to make more money. That's why when you see left wing populists like, say, Bernie Sanders, they never scapegoat brown people or Muslims or any other minority groups because they don't need to. They don't need a scapegoat to blame for why regular people are being screwed economically when they actually have the real solution to the problem facing regular people - left wing economic policies.
If you're right wing (in the american context at least), you are inherently opposed to passing policies that benefit ordinary people because you are convinced that uncompromising individualism is best (right wing politicians more realistically view this as their right to corruption/legalized bribery in the US). You can't call yourself a populist unless you go for the other thing that's popular among the masses - bigotry.
As President LBJ once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
You mean "uncompromising individualism for the poor is best". The rich get bailed out.
As Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "This country has socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor."
LBJ is a weird guy. Though I studied history, I never directly studied him. From what I can see, he was on the forefront of civil rights with his "Great Society", and yet appeared to be unabashedly racist himself.
He was. You can chalk it up to both knowing that the country could not continue on it's current trajectory and that he wanted to accomplish what Kennedy couldn't.
He was also the asshole that was most responsible for escalating the Vietnam War. Somehow Nixon and the Republicans take the blame foe that nowadays thanks to our 'impartial' media...
Based on his habit of bullying his subordinates and his escalation of the war, LBJ in general seems like an egotistical guy who put on a tough-guy persona. I never got the impression that he was a particularly good guy who took the presidency with a sense of solemn responsibility. But I am pleased that he managed to get the Civil Rights Acts passed. Without effective presidential support, we could easily have gone many more years before that happened.
Probably has something to do with his secret bombing of Cambodia that led directly to the rise of the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot.
So Nixon and the Republicans took something that was dicey to begin with and made things as bad as possible.
Right wingers are the anti-semites. Ilhan Omar saying maybe Israel is another country and American lawmakers should focus on America is not anti-semetic. Can you name anything else anti-semetic from the left? No, right. While look at the right and you'll see neo-nazis, and the alt-right who chanted "jews will not replace us" at Charlottesville, guys like Richard Spencer, and jewsa guys at trump rallies. Right wingers. There are zero gatherings where left wingers attack jews, but there are multiple right wing rallies where they do that. Don't spread Trump's lies on this one.
Ok the rich. The greed of the rich is a major source of the problems for the average joe. That is a fact. If Jeff Bezos spends $88k that's the equivalent of you and me spending $1. How can he have so much money when he barely pays his workforce minimum wage and doesn't pay taxes. Saying the system is weighted in his favor and needs to be changed is not scapegoating. That's not scapegoating. When the three richest people in the US own as much wealth as the bottom half of the nation’s population that's a real thing, that's not scapegoating.
Christians in and of themselves are fine what's problematic is views that try and infringe on others (such as the homophobic cakemakers). They are a huge influence on politics while not paying taxes. 95% of democrats don't have a problem there. They are not a scapegoat. Would I personally say they are a problem? Heck yeah I would because they support idiots like Trump who are ruining the country and are the opposite of what their beliefs say they should be.
Look, Republicans main thing is to scapegoat and fearmonger their whole platform consists of regulations that favor the rich, deregulation to help the rich and the rest of it is a mix of scapegoating others - immigrants, transphobia, homophobia, islamaphobia, "liberal values", Hillary's scary emails or whatever.
Yeah, because you'd behave so much better if you had the money. That's the logical fallacy. We blame others for behaving the same way we would if we were in their shoes. I know this will fall on deaf ears in this thread but you and I are no better than they are. We sure like to think we are though. Nothing like the appearance of righteousness...
We need people of means to counterbalance the people who have to scrape. There will always be people who scrape and people who don't have to, no matter how you divide everything up. It's the law of averages. Can we improve some things? Hell yes! But not by demonizing other human beings...
No, not really. We can look at the letter right here and easily determine what the scope and goal of the investigation was.
Relevant sections circled for emphasis.
It's pretty clear that
A ) It was an investigation of the Donald Trump campaign, and
B ) It was about prosecution.
Sure, he says that this will help ensure a more thorough investigation of the Russians, but let's not pretend that the directly stated scope of the investigation wasn't the directly stated scope of the investigation, which was to investigate the Trump campaign, not the Russians.
The fact that we're still rehashing tired old media headlines as though they have an ounce of credibility left even after a full investigation shows why we are in full blown conspiracy territory.
There is no falsifying it, there will never be an acceptance that maybe these dots we are just *so sure* are connected are just wrong, even after there isn't any denying it anymore.
If this is evidence of collusion as you say, where are the indictments?
Are you saying they ignored these obvious leads? Based on what?
If they didn't, and they investigated them only to conclude there is no evidence worthy of an indictment, that more or less settles it doesn't it.
But of course it won't, because conspiracies aren't settled by evidence or by investigations or by anything rational.
At this stage in the game, half assed circumstantial cases based on conjecture and assumption just don't cut it.
As has been discussed many times, even if there was collusion that is not a crime in itself. However, collusion would clearly have implications for national security whether or not that met the threshold for criminal conspiracy.
I'm not rehashing any media headlines. I'm saying, as I've said many times before, we should wait to see what comes out of the investigation. In my last post I referred to links between the Trump campaign and Russia. I don't see any possibility any longer to argue that there were no such links, the question is what motivated those links. Did they, as you seem to believe, simply reflect the normal rough and tumble of politics, or go beyond that? Even if it is concluded that they did represent normal political behavior, I would still expect the report to discuss the concerns arising from that. If it is indeed normal to provide private demographic data to a foreign agency attempting to influence an election, then I suggest a 'new normal' is required and would expect the report to suggest the same ...
Or the investigation could be hobbled by obstruction of justice, Trump has been firing people involved in the investigation and leading a misinformation campaign against it so he's been involved in obstruction of justice. If there are no further indictments then he won his war against justice and broke America once and for all.
People that pretend there's nothing there did you miss where he fired Comey and Sessions because of the investigation and installed an unqualified loyalist against the Constitution in Whitaker when Rosenstein who was approved by Congress should have been next in charge? Did you miss where Barr wrote an unsolicited letter saying the Mueller investigation was a hoax and then Trump picked him? Did you miss where Trump jr and Kushner met with Russians to coordinate attacks on the government and ease sanctions on Russia? Did you miss Putin admitting he wanted Trump to be President? It's a conspiracy theory that he wasn't coordinating with Russians and the only question is where or not Republican criminals will aid more in the cover-up.
Your perception is that other people are inherently greedy to the point of hurting others on purpose to further their greed. This may be true for some people. I'd like to think I'm not like that and others are not like that - I'll agree some certainly are like that of course. That human impulse doesn't have to be allowed to go unchecked. Look at Norway, Sweden, and other countries that address that concern. AOC's proposal of a top marginal tax rate on incomes OVER $10 million (remember it doesn't affect at all the first $10 million in one year's INCOME) is a perfect example of a good policy to start reigning in the worst potential for unchecked greed and opportunity to take advantage of others.
We would all be better off if the world was a better place with opportunities for everyone not just a couple of rich families who put their their thumbs on the scale with each generation being born on third base pretending they hit a triple.
People of means to counterbalance the people who scrape? What's that even mean? The rich has to take out the poor? That doesn't make sense. The people who scrape need equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. The people of means with the means and opportunity to crush the people who scrape what good is that?
Or, Trump himself didn't collude. I would've used Wikileaks if it was available to me no matter who leaked it. Truth is truth when it comes to leaks. Does it matter if it was Russians? Not to me.
If you want to argue that deluding gullible people is 'interference' then I say let's make people less gullible. Russians deluded people? Those people deluded themselves...
Not one vote cast was stolen. Period! If your argument is that people are too stupid to not believe a hoax, then let's fix that. I'll argue that Democrats and Republicans both try to persuade the gullible in order to take power. Gullible people are ripe pickings for vultures.
People, including the media, are allowed to question the actions of individuals and that does not make it a conspiracy theory:
Don Jr, what was discussed at the hotel meeting that was brought up through these unearthed emails?
President Trump, a few days before this meeting you referenced that you were about to get dirt on your opponent Clinton, what were you specificly referencing when you made those comments?
Mr Manafort, it has come to the public’s attention that you handed polling data on the American election over to the Russians. For what purpose was this done?
President Trump, why when meeting with Russian officials, you do not have any other staff present with you including translators?
President Trump, why do you confiscate notes regarding these meetings from your staff if they do attend?
These questions, even if the generic response is “WITCH-HUNT” does not equate a conspiracy theory. They are answers that the public should know and speculating on the reasons, after an answer is not given or that person is caught in a lie does not make a person less credible.
What do you recommend to win this disinformation warfare? What's the solution to Fox News, Republican party propaganda network? What's your solution to a massive troll farm of Russians sowing disinformation and chaos online? People should be smarter? That sounds naive, this is war, information war.
We don't know that, how would we period, since a lot of states use easily hackable election equipment and refuse to keep a paper trail afterwards.
SCREW.....THIS. Release the report to the American people. Now.
The solution to the problem is to train people to think for themselves. Neither party really wants that because their power is sustained by our ignorance!