ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Here's another very good article that sort of gets to the core of how cult45 was cultivated and why they're so fully hypnotized. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/trump-lies-kavanaugh-khashoggi.html

Here was my favorite paragraph.

"

Steve Bannon explained a broader administration strategy for dispensing with facts. “The real opposition is the media,” he has said. “And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.” Yale professor Timothy Snyder, in his groundbreaking book The Road to Unfreedom, explains in detail how leaders like Vladimir Putin and Trump undermine factuality by flooding the zone in this way. Putin dominates Russia by propagating grand lies that take the entire society off balance. For example, when Ukrainians protested against Putin’s puppet ruler, Viktor Yanukovych, Putin’s press reported that the protesters were organized by an LGBTQ group attempting a “homodictatorship.” Enough people believe the lie—or pretend to believe the lie—that a shared reality becomes impossible.

Well over 10,000 false and misleading statements have been publicly spewed by our President since taking office. In 2018 he was "flooding us with 15 shits" per day on average. Trump supporters are finding it difficult to share reality is basically what the article is arguing. It seems to be an article about this thread! :-)

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

More than wanting Trump to win, Putin wanted Clinton to lose. That's why during the primaries, there was a massive Kremlin effort to hurt Clinton and help Sanders. Once Clinton prevailed, the effort switched to exclusively helping Trump.

For Putin, ANYTHING was going to be better than being slapped around by Clinton.

I disagree.

The social media campaign of the Internet Research Agency turned on Trump the instant it seemed he would be the President-Elect. Michael Moore physically attended an anti-Trump rally in NYC on Nov 9, 2016 promoted by the IRA on social media. The IRA didn't even wait until election day was over; they turned out a dime.

The one constant in Russian meddling has been to undermine whomever seemed likely to be the future (or current) President of the United States of America. The IRA is looking at the Democrats' constant attempts to undermine Trump's authority and smiling in approval.

What you said does not disagree with what The_Impeacher said.

No, it does. There is a crucial difference between attempting to undermine the future POTUS and having a bias for a candidate. I am saying that if Trump had been leading the polls by a significant margin in the summer of 2016, the IRA would have put out anti-Trump, pro-Clinton messaging.

But more importantly, the IRA's efforts focused on sowing chaos, not taking sides in the election. It's very important to remember that only a small minority of the IRA's messaging mentioned specific candidates at all: usually, the ads were about racial politics. It constitutes a gross misrepresentation to act as if the ads were of the primary purpose of hurting Clinton and helping Trump. Their primary purpose had nothing to do with either candidate.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

More than wanting Trump to win, Putin wanted Clinton to lose. That's why during the primaries, there was a massive Kremlin effort to hurt Clinton and help Sanders. Once Clinton prevailed, the effort switched to exclusively helping Trump.

For Putin, ANYTHING was going to be better than being slapped around by Clinton.

I disagree.

The social media campaign of the Internet Research Agency turned on Trump the instant it seemed he would be the President-Elect. Michael Moore physically attended an anti-Trump rally in NYC on Nov 9, 2016 promoted by the IRA on social media. The IRA didn't even wait until election day was over; they turned out a dime.

The one constant in Russian meddling has been to undermine whomever seemed likely to be the future (or current) President of the United States of America. The IRA is looking at the Democrats' constant attempts to undermine Trump's authority and smiling in approval.

What you said does not disagree with what The_Impeacher said. I think that you're both correct. Although it is apparently true that Putin had a special dislike of Clinton and blamed her for some unrest in Russia when she was Secretary of state.

The fact is that Russia helped Trump to win in 2016. I thought it was not really debatable that Putin was behind that but I guess I was wrong about that. I hope that it is not debatable that Putin wants to destabilize our country as well as our allies.

Why would Putin like Trump he's 100x harder on Russia than Obama ever was . Javelin missles to Ukraine to fuck up Russia tanks - kicking out like 100 "diplomats" aka spies, bombing his ally assad 3x not to mention appointing hard core cold warrior Bolton as NSA.

Naw man you dont see forests for trees. Rooskies fund left and right wing grouping (fringe) do whatever causes disorganization/discontent to make us doubt this great experiment called USA. Not that that we need help at division but they help it along is all.

Perhaps now would be a good time to summarize my views on RussiaGate.

1. The media claims to have access to all 3000+ social media advertisements bought by the Russian Internet Research Agency, and has released a sample. Since that sample has no bombshell, outrageous examples of clear pro-Trump bias, and the media surely would use one if it existed, none exists.
2. The primary purpose of the IRA's activity was to make Democrats hate Republicans, to make Republicans hate Democrats, and to erode the center. Whether this helped Trump more than Clinton or not is on the borderline between splitting hairs and raw speculation.
3. Although the level of involvement the Russian government had with the IRA is unclear, as President of the Russian Federation Putin should be held accountable for assisting US efforts to investigate and prosecute those involved.
4. The consistent misrepresentation of IRA activity as having strong bias for Trump and against Clinton is a Deep State* hoax repeated by allies in the corporatist media.
5. Whoever hacked the DNC emails did nothing wrong.
6. Whoever hacked Podesta's emails did nothing wrong.
7. In publishing the DNC and Podesta emails, WikiLeaks did nothing wrong.
8. As long as they aren't punished for their whistleblowing, I don't particularly care who hacked the DNC or Podesta's email. (Mueller says it was the GRU. Sure, whatever.)
9. Trump won and Clinton lost on the merits of their campaigns.
10. The Trump campaign did not conspire with Russians to influence the 2016 election.
11. The narrative that the Trump campaign conspired with Russians to influence the 2016 election was a Deep State hoax, perpetrated on clearly false pretenses to justify surveillance on a presidential campaign, and later repeated by allies in the corporatist media.
12. Given the clear incentive of the military-industrial-lobbyist complex to generate a false russophobic narrative in order to perpetrate NATO, a possible link between them and the aforementioned hoaxes should be thoroughly investigated.
13. According to the letter of the law and the Mueller Report, Trump is legally liable for multiple counts of obstruction of justice.
14. The statute defining obstruction of justice should be stricken down on grounds that it violates the right to free speech, specifically in regards to reminding others of their Miranda right to silence and that whatever they say can be used against them in a court of law.
15. The FBI, CIA, NSA, corporatist media and the law itself are deeply corrupted and in need of investigation, prosecution, and judicial challenge to cleanse it so that the abuses perpetrated on candidate, President-Elect, and President Trump cannot recur in the future.

* By "Deep State" I mean government officials who are not subject to reelection and can wield significant power and influence over the elected officials who have the power to remove them or otherwise limit their power. For instance, the heads of all US intelligence agencies, including the FBI, are de facto Deep State.

It is wonderful that you all know more than the FBI and the CIA. We must be very lucky that you are here to correct their bad conclusions!

I don't think Mueller is a bad guy.

My top two criticisms of Mueller are, in order of importance:
1. He perpetrated the misrepresentation of IRA activity as strongly pro-Trump and anti-Clinton — but that could be attributed to merely accepting the Intelligence Community Assessment uncritically, which would make him more naive than disingenuous.
2. He didn't mention the OSC's inability to independently investigate the DCCC/DNC hack, but this could be attributed to merely accepting the CrowdStrike accounting of events, which would make him more naive than disingenuous.

After some time, I've come to accept that I don't really have any criticism of Volume II of the Report. Per the letter of the law, the details regarding obstruction are relevant, and I accept that Mueller's job is to go by the letter of the law rather than playing at being a Supreme Court Justice and argue the constitutionality of existing law. Given that situation, his argument regarding Presidential immunity from indictment and fairness make sense to me now.

I don't see Mueller as a dishonest actor. Perhaps a bit overtrusting of the intelligence agencies, but what else could one expect from a former head of an intelligence agency? He'd have to be extremely cynical of his own legacy to behave otherwise.

------

Trump can do plenty wrong. Deploying 1500 more troops to the Iranian border? If he starts a war to get reelection sympathy (as is the depressingly predictable move for the past few administrations), I'm off the Trump train.

I think its about time to round that one up,
so Trump is Putins puppet, Putin is a Merkels puppet, Merkel is Trumps puppet, there´s a country in Africa somewhere, the Chinese trade with Germany, the Germans have a meat embargo with Russia, the Russians trade with Chinese, so do the Americans, but Germany shouldn´t be allowed to do anymore trading,
but who will end up with our goods then ?

I think i found proof that Earth is a circlejerk.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

So, you take Putin's word over the combined investigation efforts and conclusions of the world's combined intelligence agencies.

I'm not taking Putin's word on anything. Not one thing.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Trump isn't going to start a war.

I hope you are correct on that point. It's a total red line for me. I'll be god-damned if Trump gets reelection after completing the 2007 regime-change wishlist Dore was talking about.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Putin denies it. So do you. You're taking his word.

First off, I'm not denying. My position on whether Putin ordered the IRA around is "it's unclear." That isn't a "no."

Second, that's not how taking someone's word works. If you refuse to trust someone, you can still investigate the situation and end up agreeing with them.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Trump won't go to war. But even if he did, you'd find a way to remove your red line. :)

Hopefully it won't be necessary to prove you wrong.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Putin denies it. So do you. You're taking his word.

First off, I'm not denying. My position on whether Putin ordered the IRA around is "it's unclear." That isn't a "no."

Second, that's not how taking someone's word works. If you refuse to trust someone, you can still investigate the situation and end up agreeing with them.

The situation has already been investigated by professionals from all over the world. You feel that you have the skill and resources to out-investigate the pros that Putin denies so that you can prove Putin correct?

First, I'm not trying to say I can out-investigate the pros. The pros reported on the actual ads the IRA bought. Pros published the stolen emails, and other pros wrote about how DKIM encryption works. I didn't dig any of this stuff up myself. I just do this weird thing called critical thinking.

Second, I'm not trying to prove Putin correct. As I previously explained, it doesn't much matter if he is or isn't telling the truth, because it doesn't change the appropriate US response either way. Heads, Putin should be held accountable; tails, Putin should be held accountable.