Russian Interference 2020. It's back. (1 Viewer)

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
622
Reaction score
408
Age
43
Location
Madisonville
Offline
So typical, cannot really discuss the content, so must smear the person.

it’s totally pathetic.
Trump literally ran on better relations with nuclear armed Russia and less wars. Those are two things that the military industrial complex doesn't like because they will make less money.

McFaul complained about Trump not criticizing Putin publicly and not wanting to implement sanctions. Since Trump ran on better relations with Russia, do you think those 2 things would help or hurt relations with Russia? He still finds a way to criticize Trump for the Javelins that the Obama administration refused to send. Yawn. See the tweet above about his compaints about Trump withdrawing from Syria.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
1,404
Location
Midwest
Offline
He gave credit to Trump for sending the javelins, for crying out loud. 🤦‍♀️
 
OP
OP
coldseat

coldseat

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
461
Reaction score
616
Age
44
Location
San Antonio
Offline
Have you read anything about this story since the initial reports?


Nothing there changes my opinion. Not sure what you expected form those two tweets. As a reporter, she's very much plugged in to the Republican/Trump argument. Not the first reporter I'd follow or believe. I would very much have to compare her reporting to less administration loyal reporters to really gleam in insight from it aside from just carrying water for this administration.

I'm glad you've gotten over your disdain for the MSM and "sources" though. I guess it's easier when they say what you want them too.
 

Lapaz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
213
Reaction score
158
Age
57
Location
Alabama
Online
He gave credit to Trump for sending the javelins, for crying out loud. 🤦‍♀️
Trump doesn’t deserve much credit, because congress authorized the Javelins. They did not authorized Javelins during the Obama’s administration. Trump tried to withhold the weapons until he was caught. Obama sent plenty of military aid, but it wasn’t totally clear in 2014 whether the Javelins would help or exacerbate Ukraine’s problems. Obama wanted to give them defensive weapons until near the end of his tenure. Congress finally authorized weapons at the end of Obama’s administration, and it still didn’t include Javelins until Trump took office. Trump tried to defy congress’ wishes, so I don’t give him credit.
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
622
Reaction score
408
Age
43
Location
Madisonville
Offline
Nothing there changes my opinion. Not sure what you expected form those two tweets. As a reporter, she's very much plugged in to the Republican/Trump argument. Not the first reporter I'd follow or believe. I would very much have to compare her reporting to less administration loyal reporters to really gleam in insight from it aside from just carrying water for this administration.

I'm glad you've gotten over your disdain for the MSM and "sources" though. I guess it's easier when they say what you want them too.
You obviously have no idea who she is if you are claiming she's carrying water for the Trump administration.

Did you miss this article that someone posted earlier in this thread?

 
OP
OP
coldseat

coldseat

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
461
Reaction score
616
Age
44
Location
San Antonio
Offline
You obviously have no idea who she is if you are claiming she's carrying water for the Trump administration.

Did you miss this article that someone posted earlier in this thread?

I obviously didn't know who she was. That's the reason I'm not taking it at face value. And yes, I read the other article.
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
622
Reaction score
408
Age
43
Location
Madisonville
Offline
He gave credit to Trump for sending the javelins, for crying out loud. 🤦‍♀️
Backhanded credit?


Trump’s claim about supplying far more critical military aid to Ukraine than Obama is hyperbolic at best in other ways. The Obama administration did draw criticism for its refusal to approve lethal assistance to Ukraine, including the Javelin missile sale Trump cited. But it did commit to Kyiv more than $600 million in security assistance and equipment, including armored Humvee vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles, countermortar radars, night vision equipment, and medical supplies.

The military industrial complex absolutely loves the underlined part of his article. The military industrial complex also loves Schiff.

 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
622
Reaction score
408
Age
43
Location
Madisonville
Offline
Taibbi dives into Russiagate and how it drives the Democrat's political messaging.


Russiagate from the start smelled funny, like bad food. Multiple developments worsened the odor. Stories kept coming up wrong. There were too many unnamed sources, too frequently contradicting each other and/or overstating facts. Every hoofprint was a zebra’s. Outlets stopped worrying about relaying unconfirmed rumors, which is how terms like “blackmail,” “Trump,” “Russia” and even “Golden Showers” kept appearing in headlines, without proof there ever had been blackmail.

...But the biggest red flag of all was the way in which “Russia” over the last few years became shorthand to describe any brand of political deviance. I wrote this two years ago:

“Since Trump’s election, we’ve been told Putin was all or partly behind the lot of it: the Catalan independence movement, the Sanders campaign, Brexit, Jill Stein’s Green Party run, Black Lives Matter, the resignations of intra-party Trump critics Bob Corker and Jeff Flake…”

Unnamed “officials” have since added the Corbyn movement in England, the gilets jaunes, protesters in Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Colombia, militias in Africa, pro-government disinformation campaigns in Hong Kong, the presidential campaign of Tulsi Gabbard, and countless other undesirables to what has amounted to an ongoing, cumulative blacklist.

...As a result, we get situations like last week, where there was an assertion about an unknown level of Russian support — presumably, social media boosting — that could not possibly equal the impact of a single news story leaked to the Post on the eve of the Nevada primary. Every news consumer in America heard that story last week. Russians could only dream of such saturation.

The logic of Russiagate is now beyond absurd. Vladimir Putin, somehow in perfect sync with American voting trends, seeks to elevate both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, apparently to compete against himself in the general election, in a desperate effort to suppress the terrifying political might of, say, Joe Biden. I doubt even Neera Tanden in the depths of a wine coma could believe this plot now.

That this is a dumb story is characteristic. The people pushing it don’t have any smart arguments left for remaining in power. Through decades of corporate giveaways, trickle-up economics, pointless wars, and authoritarianism, they’ve failed the entire population. They are the ones directly threatened by any hint that the population is awakening to its decades-long disenfranchisement.

They are also the ones who benefit most from “disinformation.” Who’s trying to divide us? Our own leaders, and as results like the Nevada primary show, the public now knows it.


 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
1,404
Location
Midwest
Offline
So we‘re supposed to take seriously an article that starts out with a rotten food reference? From someone who has been just as slanted as you say others are, but just in promotion of his own narrative? He twists things like a pretzel to fit his own story. Why do you give him such credence?

I’d rather hear why you think that the cnn article is obviously correct and the last word on the subject of the preference of Russia? Why do you trash cnn generally, until it says something you like, and now you cite it?

What has occurred to me is that the original testimony was possibly the unvarnished view of intelligence analysts, and the backtrack is the result of pressure applied by Trump. You do realize how truth means nothing to him, and controlling the message is all he cares about? How he summarily dismissed the head of DNI because he didn’t like the message that was given to Congress and installed a political ally with no intelligence experience? And then, magically, we get a “revised” message that the original testimony “overstated”.

And you just completely suspend disbelief because it supports your own narrative. Or rather the narrative you have chosen to follow on Twitter.
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
622
Reaction score
408
Age
43
Location
Madisonville
Offline
So we‘re supposed to take seriously an article that starts out with a rotten food reference? From someone who has been just as slanted as you say others are, but just in promotion of his own narrative? He twists things like a pretzel to fit his own story. Why do you give him such credence?
Can you point out exactly what things he twisted or do you prefer to be purposely vague? Are you really hung up on his rotten food reference or is that just your way of avoiding addressing his points? He was one of the few journalists that was skeptical of Russiagate from the beginning. You can continue to listen to all the people who got Russiagate wrong over and over again. I'll stick with the guys who got it right.

I’d rather hear why you think that the cnn article is obviously correct and the last word on the subject of the preference of Russia? Why do you trash cnn generally, until it says something you like, and now you cite it?
CNN, along with MSNBC, were the leaders of perpetuating the Russiagate conspiracy theory so you can guarantee they would have spun the story to harm Trump if at all possible.

What has occurred to me is that the original testimony was possibly the unvarnished view of intelligence analysts, and the backtrack is the result of pressure applied by Trump. You do realize how truth means nothing to him, and controlling the message is all he cares about? How he summarily dismissed the head of DNI because he didn’t like the message that was given to Congress and installed a political ally with no intelligence experience? And then, magically, we get a “revised” message that the original testimony “overstated”.

And you just completely suspend disbelief because it supports your own narrative. Or rather the narrative you have chosen to follow on Twitter.
What are you basing your questionable theory on?

Last week, a bombshell report in The New York Times said Pierson and other briefers in the meeting had told lawmakers "that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected."

Intelligence officials say that was an overstatement, fueled, they believe, by a misinterpretation by some Democratic lawmakers on the committee.

Two intelligence officials told NBC News this week that Pierson did not tell lawmakers that intelligence showed Russia was actively working to help the president's re-election campaign.




Well, well, well. Are the Democrats and Schiff even aware that their playbook is transparent and isn't fooling anyone except people on the left? It's almost like they aren't even trying anymore to conceal their real agendas.
 

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,143
Reaction score
713
Location
Nashville
Offline
Can you point out exactly what things he twisted or do you prefer to be purposely vague? Are you really hung up on his rotten food reference or is that just your way of avoiding addressing his points? He was one of the few journalists that was skeptical of Russiagate from the beginning. You can continue to listen to all the people who got Russiagate wrong over and over again. I'll stick with the guys who got it right.

CNN, along with MSNBC, were the leaders of perpetuating the Russiagate conspiracy theory so you can guarantee they would have spun the story to harm Trump if at all possible.


What are you basing your questionable theory on?

Last week, a bombshell report in The New York Times said Pierson and other briefers in the meeting had told lawmakers "that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected."

Intelligence officials say that was an overstatement, fueled, they believe, by a misinterpretation by some Democratic lawmakers on the committee.

Two intelligence officials told NBC News this week that Pierson did not tell lawmakers that intelligence showed Russia was actively working to help the president's re-election campaign.




Well, well, well. Are the Democrats and Schiff even aware that their playbook is transparent and isn't fooling anyone except people on the left? It's almost like they aren't even trying anymore to conceal their real agendas.
What is that proverbial definition of insanity again?
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
1,404
Location
Midwest
Offline
I’m not going to go over his entire opinion piece, sorry. But the excerpt you posted offers nothing in the way of proof about anything. He obviously overstates his talking points, just like JimE did the other day. He is purposefully portraying the story in a certain light to make himself look good. It’s clear as day. He has an axe to grind, and you should take that into account, but you don’t.

I am not “listening“ to anyone in particular. I have followed the facts of the case and applied reason and logic. I question things that don’t make sense. My hunch that the follow up to the original story is based on WH pressure makes as much sense as anything else. It’s based on past Trump public behavior and the behavior of people trying to stay out of the line of fire from him. He fired the head of the agency, that will get people’s attention.

The fact that you just swallow the narrative you have chosen without questioning it doesn’t surprise me in the least. Didn’t you quote John Solomon quite a bit? I might have you mixed up with someone else on that. He’s an example that counters your narrative, though.

You all can pat yourselves on your backs all you want, but you and JimE are just indulging yourselves in something that in the vernacular includes the word “circle”.

And then I get called “insane“. Lovely. You all are exactly like Trump now. Congrats, the conversion is complete.
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
622
Reaction score
408
Age
43
Location
Madisonville
Offline
I’m not going to go over his entire opinion piece, sorry. But the excerpt you posted offers nothing in the way of proof about anything. He obviously overstates his talking points, just like JimE did the other day. He is purposefully portraying the story in a certain light to make himself look good. It’s clear as day. He has an axe to grind, and you should take that into account, but you don’t.

I am not “listening“ to anyone in particular. I have followed the facts of the case and applied reason and logic. I question things that don’t make sense. My hunch that the follow up to the original story is based on WH pressure makes as much sense as anything else. It’s based on past Trump public behavior and the behavior of people trying to stay out of the line of fire from him. He fired the head of the agency, that will get people’s attention.

The fact that you just swallow the narrative you have chosen without questioning it doesn’t surprise me in the least. Didn’t you quote John Solomon quite a bit? I might have you mixed up with someone else on that. He’s an example that counters your narrative, though.

You all can pat yourselves on your backs all you want, but you and JimE are just indulging yourselves in something that in the vernacular includes the word “circle”.

And then I get called “insane“. Lovely. You all are exactly like Trump now. Congrats, the conversion is complete.
I'm not going to go over his entire opinion piece = I won't(or can't) address a single point in the article or any of the excerpts I posted.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
1,404
Location
Midwest
Offline
You know I and other people have addressed and refuted articles with you before. Specific items. You never respond, never, with anything substantive. You just go to twitter and call up 18 more tweets from the same crew over and over. it’s a total waste of time.

Right now I have written several posts to you that I put some thought into. Some effort to communicate. And you just completely ignore them and instead post your lists of tweets. It’s not worth it to try to communicate with you. You’re lost in your echo chamber.
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
622
Reaction score
408
Age
43
Location
Madisonville
Offline
You know I and other people have addressed and refuted articles with you before. Specific items. You never respond, never, with anything substantive. You just go to twitter and call up 18 more tweets from the same crew over and over. it’s a total waste of time.

Right now I have written several posts to you that I put some thought into. Some effort to communicate. And you just completely ignore them and instead post your lists of tweets. It’s not worth it to try to communicate with you. You’re lost in your echo chamber.
Oh please. Go back and look at my posts. I have plenty of posts where i respond to multiple points. I post things from Twitter in my responses that also include articles, court documents, Mueller report sections etc. I would probably avoid getting specifc too if I fell for the biggest conspiracy theory of all time like you and many others. Maybe one day the Democrats will get lucky and find something that sticks.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
1,404
Location
Midwest
Offline
All of your tweets come from one perspective. They tell only one side. You know that, yet you choose to immerse yourself in the whole subset. You kid yourself that you get balance, but you don’t. Every document is picked over for statements that can be used to advance a single narrative. Herridge isn’t balanced. She has one note, one perspective. Just read her stuff, she highlights, literally, only one side of everything she covers. You never see a single criticism of anything Trump says. She never points out his lies.

She posts his lies without question. She has a definite POV and pushes it always.

I'm absolutely right about this. You ignore everything that doesn’t fit your narrative that Democrats are just all depraved evil monsters. You believe this, you push this narrative relentlessly. Trump is just an innocent victim. He has no responsibility for anything that has happened to him. It defies reason.
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
622
Reaction score
408
Age
43
Location
Madisonville
Offline
All of your tweets come from one perspective. They tell only one side. You know that, yet you choose to immerse yourself in the whole subset. You kid yourself that you get balance, but you don’t. Every document is picked over for statements that can be used to advance a single narrative.
It's now becoming more obvious what your schtick is. You speak in generalities when you dispute what someone says so then it's easier for you to claim something is the case without any proof or evidence. I'm open to changing my mind on something if there is evidence or proof that shows something differently.

Once again, be specific with your claims so I can actually respond to them. Please point of some examples where you claim the documents I'm posting don't say what I'm claiming they do.

Herridge isn’t balanced. She has one note, one perspective. Just read her stuff, she highlights, literally, only one side of everything she covers. You never see a single criticism of anything Trump says. She never points out his lies.

She posts his lies without question. She has a definite POV and pushes it always.
95% of reporters report negatively on Trump, but one of the few who don't isn't credible according to you. She's a straight new reporter and very credible despite you claims. She's investigating specific things. Straight news reporters aren't supposed to inject their opinions in their reporting. I know that doesn't happen much anymore.

Once again, can you be specific and point out anything that contradicts her reporting?

I'm absolutely right about this. You ignore everything that doesn’t fit your narrative that Democrats are just all depraved evil monsters. You believe this, you push this narrative relentlessly. Trump is just an innocent victim. He has no responsibility for anything that has happened to him. It defies reason.
Here you go again with one of your favorite things to do. You throw out these strawman arguments. If someone criticizes Democrats then you go to the extreme and claim we say Democrats are all depraved monsters. Or if we call out the contradictions, BS, or dishonest reporting on things like Russiagate or Ukrainegate then you once again go to the extreme that we say Trump is never wrong and that we support everything Trump does or says.

Since you seem to think you are right on this subject and you criticize the people I reference, can you point out a few reporters who were right about Russiagate from the beginning?
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
1,404
Location
Midwest
Offline
I’m at work on lunch so I cannot “respond specifically” and that ship has sailed anyway. I have responded specifically in the past, only to be ignored, and then a day later you trot out the same points that were refuted. It’s old and tiresome and not worth my time.

Herridge does report facts, I presume, but she’s certainly not agenda free. She is a staunch conservative and her POV comes out from what she chooses to report and what she chooses to ignore.

IMO, she is a bit like the rights version of Rachel Maddow, without being on tv. If the dems do something stupid, she’s all over it. But when “her side” does something stupid, she will never mention it. Same as Rachel only reversed. A “straight” reporter would be balanced in her criticism of both sides when warranted.

If you can show me balance, fine. I haven’t seen it, though.

Same with everyone else you quote, they have a POV, and it shows. You’re very quick to recognize slant in others, but seem to be under the illusion that you are consuming unbiased facts, while quoting opinions and one sided reports.

There’s a lot more nuance to everything than you seem to want to acknowledge. It’s far more likely than not that there were some improprieties during the Trump investigation but that it didn’t rise to the grand deep state conspiracy that you seem to favor.

It’s absolutely true that the Trump campaign committed some improprieties themselves, and that they lied and obstructed the investigation many times. Nearly every chance they got, in fact. So much so that the Mueller report, a Republican investigation by a Republican DOJ, said the obstruction hampered their ability to discern what really happened.

Trump is extremely likely, IMO, to be guilty of some criminal acts concerning Russia that just haven’t been uncovered as yet. It takes a really special sort of person to believe that all the lies and obstruction were for no good reason. That they’re not hiding something.

That seems to be your position, though. I just don’t see it.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Fact Checkers News Feed

Top Bottom