BeginnersMind Posted April 19, 2019 Posted April 19, 2019 Volume I supports the Intelligence Community’s conclusion from 2.5 years ago that Russians attempted to interfere. Took a long time for people to buy that, and here they were right all along.
DC Tom Posted April 19, 2019 Posted April 19, 2019 2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: For those who missed Seth Abramson's meltdown yesterday... it's worth the laugh. He lost his mind years ago - but now is desperate to stay relevant after gaslighting his readers for two years. This is not a well man. He's sick in the head and should be thoroughly shamed for his actions the past two years. Today he's taken to retweeting sections of yesterday's meltdown as if they're somehow profound. My personal favorite is where he argues that the Fifth Amendment is obstruction of justice. 1
Doc Posted April 19, 2019 Posted April 19, 2019 1 hour ago, BeginnersMind said: Volume I supports the Intelligence Community’s conclusion from 2.5 years ago that Russians attempted to interfere. Took a long time for people to buy that, and here they were right all along. I don't think a single person didn't buy that Russia tried to interfere in the election. The problem for the Dems is they knew about it well before the election and did nothing. 1
row_33 Posted April 19, 2019 Posted April 19, 2019 25 minutes ago, Doc said: I don't think a single person didn't buy that Russia tried to interfere in the election. The problem for the Dems is they knew about it well before the election and did nothing. why do you keep wasting your time with this person? are you really a mult of Beg-Mind, just arguing to keep things going?
Doc Posted April 19, 2019 Posted April 19, 2019 12 minutes ago, row_33 said: why do you keep wasting your time with this person? are you really a mult of Beg-Mind, just arguing to keep things going? Because I can. And yeah, I'm a mult because I've responded to him a couple times. ?
Deranged Rhino Posted April 19, 2019 Posted April 19, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Doc said: I don't think a single person didn't buy that Russia tried to interfere in the election. The problem for the Dems is they knew about it well before the election and did nothing. BM is wrong or intentionally being dishonest per usual. No no one doubted meddling. There were boxes of evidence that supported that. They rejected that said meddling had an impact on votes AND/OR that there was active collusion w Russians and Trump to meddle. From day one this was presented as truth. But when you're a dishonest asshat who refuses to read the material, then all you can do is what BM does: ***** it up. (And we were right. Ben Franklin / BM was wrong. But he won't admit it because he changed screen names so he could hide from his errors.) Edited April 19, 2019 by Deranged Rhino
BeginnersMind Posted April 19, 2019 Posted April 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Doc said: I don't think a single person didn't buy that Russia tried to interfere in the election. The problem for the Dems is they knew about it well before the election and did nothing. Lots of people here didn’t believe the intelligence community conclusion. Maybe not you—bravo! 7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: BM is wrong or intentionally being dishonest per usual. No no one doubted meddling. There were boxes of evidence that supported that. They rejected that said meddling had an impact on votes AND/OR that there was active collusion w Russians and Trump to meddle. From day one this was presented as truth. But when you're a dishonest asshat who refuses to read the material, then all you can do is what BM does: ***** it up. (And we were right. Ben Franklin / BM was wrong. But he won't admit it because he changed screen names so he could hide from his errors.) Your obsession is showing!
Deranged Rhino Posted April 19, 2019 Posted April 19, 2019 My obsession is with finding the truth and exposing the bad actors wherever and whenever possible. Your analysis has always been paltry and thin. You have brought nothing to this discussion - and now you're trying to retcon it to show people were wrong by pushing false information. Why? Because you're a liar and full of Schiff.
BeginnersMind Posted April 19, 2019 Posted April 19, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: My obsession is with finding the truth and exposing the bad actors wherever and whenever possible. Your analysis has always been paltry and thin. You have brought nothing to this discussion - and now you're trying to retcon it to show people were wrong by pushing false information. Why? Because you're a liar and full of Schiff. Sorry friend “retcon” must be a term of art in your Q community. English translation please. Edited April 19, 2019 by BeginnersMind
Doc Posted April 19, 2019 Posted April 19, 2019 49 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: Lots of people here didn’t believe the intelligence community conclusion. Maybe not you—bravo! You have evidence of that?
Deranged Rhino Posted April 19, 2019 Posted April 19, 2019 3 minutes ago, Doc said: You have evidence of that? Of course he doesn't. He doesn't even have the proper frame of reference to have a substantive conversation about what people were saying/thinking in January of 2017. (because he's too lazy to read)
DC Tom Posted April 19, 2019 Posted April 19, 2019 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: BM is wrong or intentionally being dishonest per usual. No no one doubted meddling. There were boxes of evidence that supported that. They rejected that said meddling had an impact on votes AND/OR that there was active collusion w Russians and Trump to meddle. From day one this was presented as truth. But when you're a dishonest asshat who refuses to read the material, then all you can do is what BM does: ***** it up. (And we were right. Ben Franklin / BM was wrong. But he won't admit it because he changed screen names so he could hide from his errors.) There's two things the left has managed to do in the past two years, in such a subtle fashion that few people have noticed: 1) Make "Russian meddling in the election" equivalent to "Trump colluding with Russia." They've - once again - eliminated the middle ground: if you don't think Trump colluded, then you think the Russians are innocent. 2) far more insidiously,, in pushing the idea that Russia successfully manipulated the election with nothing more than Facebook memes, they've managed to portray Facebook as some sort of critical national infrastructure that has to be regulated to the detriment of constitutional protections. Can't have freedom of expression or assembly when you have to protect the people against Russian advertising. 12 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Of course he doesn't. He doesn't even have the proper frame of reference to have a substantive conversation about what people were saying/thinking in January of 2017. (because he's too lazy to read) Odds are he doesn't even know the IC's conclusion himself. 2
Deranged Rhino Posted April 19, 2019 Posted April 19, 2019 4 minutes ago, DC Tom said: There's two things the left has managed to do in the past two years, in such a subtle fashion that few people have noticed: 1) Make "Russian meddling in the election" equivalent to "Trump colluding with Russia." They've - once again - eliminated the middle ground: if you don't think Trump colluded, then you think the Russians are innocent. 100% But to pat my own back - Note this section: (page 2) This is an important distinction which, over the course of twenty-four plus months has been purposefully obscured. The corporate/establishment media has worked diligently to conflate these two very distinct actions as being one and the same: Russian meddling was slowly made to become synonymous with Russian collusion/conspiracy for many millions of Americans. Ask yourself why. What purpose would it serve to purposefully conflate the two? We will return to this question in short order… The move to conflate meddling with collusion was more than simple semantics on the part of journalists and editors across the country, it was an intentional distorting of reality to fit a specific narrative. There are stone cold facts we can point to which prove Russian meddling happened in the 2016 election, such as Facebook ads purchased by Kremlin cut-outs which targeted US voters.[1] While we can rationally debate the effectiveness of such meddling techniques, we cannot deny that they occurred. The evidence is abundant, public, and overwhelming. And although this kind of information warfare is alarming, Russians purchasing politically divisive Facebook ads during a contentious election is nowhere near the threat presented by a victorious presidential candidate working with Russian intelligence services to tilt the election in their favor. Conflating these two very different threats as being equal is like attempting to paint the common cold as being equal to pancreatic cancer. It’s more than semantics, it’s dishonest to the point of absurdity. https://www.scribd.com/document/401394773/Building-a-Monster-Partial-introduction (written over a year ago now) 7 minutes ago, DC Tom said: 2) far more insidiously,, in pushing the idea that Russia successfully manipulated the election with nothing more than Facebook memes, they've managed to portray Facebook as some sort of critical national infrastructure that has to be regulated to the detriment of constitutional protections. Can't have freedom of expression or assembly when you have to protect the people against Russian advertising. This is an excellent point.
Tiberius Posted April 21, 2019 Posted April 21, 2019 Just getting through first part of the Mueller report and its pretty obvious that Trump could not have won the election without the support he received from Russia. Just amazing the breath and scope of the Russians direct help to Trump. No wonder he loves Putin so much and keeps his meetings (2020 strategy meetings) totally top secret.
Tiberius Posted April 21, 2019 Posted April 21, 2019 Giuliani: 'There's nothing wrong with taking information from Russians' Oh, from "No Collusion, to Collusion is cool."
RochesterRob Posted April 21, 2019 Posted April 21, 2019 19 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Just getting through first part of the Mueller report and its pretty obvious that Trump could not have won the election without the support he received from Russia. Just amazing the breath and scope of the Russians direct help to Trump. No wonder he loves Putin so much and keeps his meetings (2020 strategy meetings) totally top secret. I know I will be sorry for asking but how do you know that Trump would have lost? Is there a poll taken from 2016 that says so? Can you mind meld with 100's of millions of Americans to know their intent?
Doc Posted April 21, 2019 Posted April 21, 2019 18 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Giuliani: 'There's nothing wrong with taking information from Russians' Oh, from "No Collusion, to Collusion is cool." It's only OK when a British spy does it for the Dems. 3
Tiberius Posted April 21, 2019 Posted April 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, RochesterRob said: I know I will be sorry for asking but how do you know that Trump would have lost? Is there a poll taken from 2016 that says so? Can you mind meld with 100's of millions of Americans to know their intent? If Trump and Russia didn't have complete access to Hillarys and the Democrats operation they could not have strategized against them effectively and weaponized the material the stole to suppress voters. The Russians broke the law for a reason. It's just common sense, one side could--and still is!--keeping secrets about all this and the other side--The Dems--were violated and illegally exposed. its that simple. The Russian propaganda point on this is that information in an election is unimportant. And no, there is no polling that would be able to prove this 1 minute ago, Doc said: It's only OK when a British spy does it for the Dems. Russia helped Trump win the election and Rudy is admitting that.
Recommended Posts