B-Man Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 ANDREW MCCARTHY: Mueller’s Investigation Must Be Limited and Accountable. I predict it will be neither. I think that Mueller should resign, or alternatively be replaced by a second independent counsel to look at any obstruction issues, while Mueller is limited to the Russia issue, which appears to be a nonstarter. Related: Is Mueller Too Conflicted To Investigate Trump Fairly?
row_33 Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 When there's no real evidence at the start and there's none as you go on, you can pack it in or continue milking this bogus assertion because you have nothing else in your case file.
Tiberius Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 Hillary should go to prison for treason, lying to congress, taking bribes and money laundering. I wonder if they have cankle bracelets that are large enough? Not for witchcraft?
Deranged Rhino Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 Witchcraft, occultism, sacrificing things to Moloch. Nothing odd at all. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/14333 "With fingers crossed, the old rabbit's foot out of the box in the attic, I will be sacrificing a chicken in the backyard to Moloch . . ."
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 Did I read where Donny said don't look to hard?
K-9 Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 Unless Russia changes votes again. ...Oh wait, they didn't change a single vote in 2016... but details. Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. While votes weren't changed at the electronic level at polling places, is it possible votes were swayed due to targeted propaganda campaigns conducted in certain voting areas via fake news stories carried in various social media streams and other outlets and other means? Not saying that happened, just asking for your opinion.
aristocrat Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 Unless Russia changes votes again. ...Oh wait, they didn't change a single vote in 2016... but details. Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. While votes weren't changed at the electronic level at polling places, is it possible votes were swayed due to targeted propaganda campaigns conducted in certain voting areas via fake news stories carried in various social media streams and other outlets and other means? Not saying that happened, just asking for your opinion. What about the fake story of Donald like golden showers? Hillarys people meeting with a foreign government for info on Donald? Or our media running constant poll numbers showing Donald was historically behind her when he wasn't? Everyone seemed lined up against trump. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
K-9 Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 What about the fake story of Donald like golden showers? Hillarys people meeting with a foreign government for info on Donald? Or our media running constant poll numbers showing Donald was historically behind her when he wasn't? Everyone seemed lined up against trump. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk If you have an opinion on the question I asked Gregg, fine. But I have no interest in going down the the rabbit hole you presented. None at all. As for the polls, the national polls were within the margins predicted on average but the state polls were an entirely different story, but not exactly unprecedented, either.
boyst Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 If you have an opinion on the question I asked Gregg, fine. But I have no interest in going down the the rabbit hole you presented. None at all. As for the polls, the national polls were within the margins predicted on average but the state polls were an entirely different story, but not exactly unprecedented, either. no, what you said was so absurdly stupid and hardly devils advocate that it actually was ridiculous. Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. While votes weren't changed at the electronic level at polling places, is it possible votes were swayed due to targeted propaganda campaigns conducted in certain voting areas via fake news stories carried in various social media streams and other outlets and other means? Not saying that happened, just asking for your opinion. this country interferes with elections around the world the same way the world interferes with our elections. why would russia want war monger hillary as president when she comes out against them strongly? honestly, she would have done nothing against them because she's captain checkdown of politicians but would have started a war for her rich cis-gendered white male buddies. either way, your butthurt over people being swayed by foreign influence is astounding. your argument that the social media was used inappropriately to sway the election while the mainstream media has always done this in plain daylight is hypocrisy. you are frustrated that fake news stories circulated all over the place and for both sides of the spectrum. your understanding of the political process is clearly uneducated and unqualified to voice an opinion. please, remain quiet and take a seat in back.
Doc Brown Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 Witchcraft, occultism, sacrificing things to Moloch. Nothing odd at all. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/14333 "With fingers crossed, the old rabbit's foot out of the box in the attic, I will be sacrificing a chicken in the backyard to Moloch . . ." The funniest part of that e-mail was the "great political instincts shown by Secretary Clinton."
DC Tom Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 If you have an opinion on the question I asked Gregg, fine. But I have no interest in going down the the rabbit hole you presented. None at all. As for the polls, the national polls were within the margins predicted on average but the state polls were an entirely different story, but not exactly unprecedented, either. It's a valid rabbit hole, though, and within a much broader context. Targeted propaganda - in the false/inaccurate news sense - has always been a feature of elections (ask Dan Rather how that works, for starters). The real complaint this time around wasn't that false propaganda was spread...it's that it was apparently generated overseas. It's more of a "Hey, you can't muckrake like that! That's our job!" complaint.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. While votes weren't changed at the electronic level at polling places, is it possible votes were swayed due to targeted propaganda campaigns conducted in certain voting areas via fake news stories carried in various social media streams and other outlets and other means? Not saying that happened, just asking for your opinion. It's a totally fair question - and for clarity there is zero doubt in my mind that the Russians waged such a propaganda campaign. There's zero doubt because those sorts of campaigns have been waged as long as there have been newspapers. That Russia uses information warfare isn't news, and that story alone shouldn't be particularly alarming to anyone familiar with history (as I know you are). And that's exactly why the hysteria over this story has always smacked of something deeper than just this election or this president. Because you're right, there were probably lots of people swayed by such propaganda during this election cycle. I personally doubt whether that amount of people were statistically significant enough to sway the election one way or the other, but for argument's sake let's say it was enough. How was this feat accomplished? By using the powers our own system, our own freedoms of thought, speech, and the press against us. This is the part of the story that isn't being discussed - and it's arguably the most important element. If you're accusing them of writing dubious news stories and putting them out on the web for Americans to read, then in reality they committed no crime other than playing on our own stupidity as a nation and using our own system against us. That, to me, is more of an "us" problem than a Russian problem. Getting back to your point, this is something that was clearly done. So, what's the solution? The one immediately floated out by the Washington Post several months ago now was to label these stories "fake news" - which then allowed search engines and social media companies to begin vetting which articles and stories can get traction on their sites. In other words, the first solution proposed was censorship. The solution to protecting our country's sacred institution was to fundamentally undercut our first amendment protection. Think about that and let it sink in. In the name of protecting our freedoms, the first solution offered (and the solution that's ultimately at the root of all the others I've heard so far) is to limit our citizen's ability to read, say, or write what they wish. And this time it's not coming from the right. It's coming from the left. Which, as someone who believes in liberalism in the actual definition of the word, is astonishing to hear. The War on Terror demanded a sacrifice of our right to privacy. "That's the only way to protect our nation," is what was said at the time. A short while later the right to due process went out the window in the name of stopping lone wolf actors. Now, in 2017, we're honestly discussing giving up our first amendment rights in order to protect our nation from Russian aggression. Here's my question: If we no longer have the basic fundamental rights that make us American and made this country the beacon of freedom it is - what are we actually protecting with these sorts of overreactions? My answer: an empire that has nothing to do with the people of this country. The real problem with this whole narrative is that Russia, even though they are most certainly guilty of what you're describing, isn't really the enemy. An adversary? Sure. But they are not a hostile enemy as they're being painted as being in this story. That's not defending Russia, that's just an honest threat assessment. So if Russia isn't really a hostile actor, what's the point of this hysteria? If you take the politics out of it (which is darned near impossible, I grant you), this is a story designed to pump up the budgets of the MiC and defense contractors. The War on Terror is fading, a new boogeyman is needed to justify the budgets of various departments, agencies, and contractors. The real enemy isn't Russia. The real enemy is within. It's the system that educated - or failed to educate - those people who were swayed by the Russian propaganda on basic critical thinking skills. We don't teach that anymore, we teach our kids how to pass tests not how to think. Our education system is in tatters in part because we spend billions a year on defense instead of investing that into our people and future. That's not to say I think we should spend nothing on defense - not at all - just that we're currently out of whack with our priorities in the spending department. And this narrative will only further put us out of whack because it's shifting the blame and focus to more empire building rather than focusing on the issues on the home front. imo of course.
gatorbait Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. While votes weren't changed at the electronic level at polling places, is it possible votes were swayed due to targeted propaganda campaigns conducted in certain voting areas via fake news stories carried in various social media streams and other outlets and other means? Not saying that happened, just asking for your opinion. +1. I think this every time someone on here says no votes were changed.
row_33 Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 Targeted propaganda effort is really basic campaigning. You lost and you can't take it.
K-9 Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 no, what you said was so absurdly stupid and hardly devils advocate that it actually was ridiculous. this country interferes with elections around the world the same way the world interferes with our elections. why would russia want war monger hillary as president when she comes out against them strongly? honestly, she would have done nothing against them because she's captain checkdown of politicians but would have started a war for her rich cis-gendered white male buddies. either way, your butthurt over people being swayed by foreign influence is astounding. your argument that the social media was used inappropriately to sway the election while the mainstream media has always done this in plain daylight is hypocrisy. you are frustrated that fake news stories circulated all over the place and for both sides of the spectrum. your understanding of the political process is clearly uneducated and unqualified to voice an opinion. please, remain quiet and take a seat in back. You really need to go phuck yourself. I used to have much respect for you as a contributor to the community, but I'm not sure when you turned into one of the biggest a$$holes here. Grow the phuck up. It's a totally fair question - and for clarity there is zero doubt in my mind that the Russians waged such a propaganda campaign. There's zero doubt because those sorts of campaigns have been waged as long as there have been newspapers. That Russia uses information warfare isn't news, and that story alone shouldn't be particularly alarming to anyone familiar with history (as I know you are). And that's exactly why the hysteria over this story has always smacked of something deeper than just this election or this president. Because you're right, there were probably lots of people swayed by such propaganda during this election cycle. I personally doubt whether that amount of people were statistically significant enough to sway the election one way or the other, but for argument's sake let's say it was enough. How was this feat accomplished? By using the powers our own system, our own freedoms of thought, speech, and the press against us. This is the part of the story that isn't being discussed - and it's arguably the most important element. If you're accusing them of writing dubious news stories and putting them out on the web for Americans to read, then in reality they committed no crime other than playing on our own stupidity as a nation and using our own system against us. That, to me, is more of an "us" problem than a Russian problem. Getting back to your point, this is something that was clearly done. So, what's the solution? The one immediately floated out by the Washington Post several months ago now was to label these stories "fake news" - which then allowed search engines and social media companies to begin vetting which articles and stories can get traction on their sites. In other words, the first solution proposed was censorship. The solution to protecting our country's sacred institution was to fundamentally undercut our first amendment protection. Think about that and let it sink in. In the name of protecting our freedoms, the first solution offered (and the solution that's ultimately at the root of all the others I've heard so far) is to limit our citizen's ability to read, say, or write what they wish. And this time it's not coming from the right. It's coming from the left. Which, as someone who believes in liberalism in the actual definition of the word, is astonishing to hear. The War on Terror demanded a sacrifice of our right to privacy. "That's the only way to protect our nation," is what was said at the time. A short while later the right to due process went out the window in the name of stopping lone wolf actors. Now, in 2017, we're honestly discussing giving up our first amendment rights in order to protect our nation from Russian aggression. Here's my question: If we no longer have the basic fundamental rights that make us American and made this country the beacon of freedom it is - what are we actually protecting with these sorts of overreactions? My answer: an empire that has nothing to do with the people of this country. The real problem with this whole narrative is that Russia, even though they are most certainly guilty of what you're describing, isn't really the enemy. An adversary? Sure. But they are not a hostile enemy as they're being painted as being in this story. That's not defending Russia, that's just an honest threat assessment. So if Russia isn't really a hostile actor, what's the point of this hysteria? If you take the politics out of it (which is darned near impossible, I grant you), this is a story designed to pump up the budgets of the MiC and defense contractors. The War on Terror is fading, a new boogeyman is needed to justify the budgets of various departments, agencies, and contractors. The real enemy isn't Russia. The real enemy is within. It's the system that educated - or failed to educate - those people who were swayed by the Russian propaganda on basic critical thinking skills. We don't teach that anymore, we teach our kids how to pass tests not how to think. Our education system is in tatters in part because we spend billions a year on defense instead of investing that into our people and future. That's not to say I think we should spend nothing on defense - not at all - just that we're currently out of whack with our priorities in the spending department. And this narrative will only further put us out of whack because it's shifting the blame and focus to more empire building rather than focusing on the issues on the home front. imo of course. Thanks for the thoughtful and well put response. I'm not surprised to see myself in agreement with you as usual. My question really was about the propaganda phenomenon in general, not necessarily the Russian contribution. It's a subject that's long fascinated me since studying the impact that it played in ancient Roman and Greek politics, not to mention Germany and other parts of Europe in the 30s. Im currently involved in reasearching how media deregulation in the 80s and the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine have contributed to the issue. Thanks again.
boyst Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 (edited) You really need to go phuck yourself. I used to have much respect for you as a contributor to the community, but I'm not sure when you turned into one of the biggest a$$holes here. Grow the phuck up. Thanks for the thoughtful and well put response. I'm not surprised to see myself in agreement with you as usual. My question really was about the propaganda phenomenon in general, not necessarily the Russian contribution. It's a subject that's long fascinated me since studying the impact that it played in ancient Roman and Greek politics, not to mention Germany and other parts of Europe in the 30s. Im currently involved in reasearching how media deregulation in the 80s and the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine have contributed to the issue. Thanks again. you can still respect me, son. but you don't have to agree with me or think much of me. we are openly talking about politics. if you can't separate that from ordinary than i don't know what to tell you. step off your high horse and realize this is a football message board about political bull ****. if we were face to face would we have any of these conversations? no. we'd talk about how charles clay is injured every week. we'd talk about how sahlens are good. we'd talk about dark beer vs light beer. we'd talk about asian women and steaks. so, while you're conversing deal with !@#$s like me who don't care. toughen up, don't take it so seriously and don't pretend to take some high road of enlightenment about a rabbit hole argument that proves to be bull ****. what aristo replied with was 100% on point. hate me all you want, have no respect for me at all. it won't change that i still have respect for you and evreyone else here except take you to tasker because he is a girl and golf is not a sport. edit: now that i have read transgreg's response i have to laugh at you a little more. you see, that is because you thank him for replying thoughtfully when you were rude to aristo and greg took the time to take your argument and tear it apart with basic history, intellect and what most of us commonly posses. and he gets thanks? screw that. transgreg, you're terrible. Edited July 21, 2017 by Boyst62
K-9 Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 It's a valid rabbit hole, though, and within a much broader context. Targeted propaganda - in the false/inaccurate news sense - has always been a feature of elections (ask Dan Rather how that works, for starters). The real complaint this time around wasn't that false propaganda was spread...it's that it was apparently generated overseas. It's more of a "Hey, you can't muckrake like that! That's our job!" complaint. I don't question the validity of the rabbit hole. My question for Gregg was made in an academic vein. Period.
Spurna Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 Trump hears footsteps... https://twitter.com/GlennKesslerWP/status/888205353183313920 Trump has asked his lawyers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself
GG Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. While votes weren't changed at the electronic level at polling places, is it possible votes were swayed due to targeted propaganda campaigns conducted in certain voting areas via fake news stories carried in various social media streams and other outlets and other means? Not saying that happened, just asking for your opinion. Why are people up in arms about it in 2016, when Russia's/USSR's meddling in US politics since the 1950's has caused far greater damage?
Recommended Posts