Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 3

[Trakar]

And which sources are those? Your FB friends? The Twitter regulars you are sent links to?

I don't do FB, or Twitter, I do have accounts (both FB and Twitter) because they are the easiest way I can post comments on articles in some of the mainstream newspapers and magazines without buying subscriptions to every one of them, but I do not communicate with family, friends, or others through these accounts. I don't really like either FB or Twitter and other than this message board, Skeptical Science, RealClimate, and a couple of private academic discussion boards and two professional listserv groups neither of which are open to public participation, I don't have much use or interest in "social media."

This is very telling and doesn't surprise me. You are echoing the Trump wagon, no evidence it affected the election.

Try reading what I actually wrote, and then contrast and compare it to your response. I said:

I am concerned about all foreign operations and interferences in elections around the world, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence indicating that the Russian impact on the 2016 primaries and election was near as important to the outcome as the decisions and actions of the US candidates and campaigns in 2016.

vs. your response:

This is very telling and doesn't surprise me. You are echoing the Trump wagon, no evidence it affected the election.

(bolding added to assist in comparison and contrast)

Of course you're not outraged. You just said you don't believe anything of consequence happened.

Again, not at all what I said or meant.

Your posts give you away, you have a made-up mind. Let me guess, the DNC anointed Clinton and that's why Sanders lost (despite evidence that is complete bull). And Clinton was so horrible (despite evidence that is complete bull), no wonder Trump won.

My opinion greatly agrees with your statement that the DNC anointed Clinton and that this is one of many reasons, possibly not the major, or even in the top 3, reason(s) why Sanders lost (one reason that should have never existed, and is definitely not (d) democratic). As for your statement that Clinton was a horrible candidate, no wonder Trump won, that is virtually what I stated on these boards was the case, and was very likely to occur back Feb.-March, and throughout most of 2016 until it was actualized on Nov. 8th.

I see no need to rewrite history, and I am not disagreeing that sometimes a straw may indeed break the back of an aged, weary, and overburdened camel driven beyond their capacity and capability. To most rational consideration, however, while the "straw" may be the precipitating causation, the underlying factors (eg weary, overburdened, and driven beyond their capacity and capability) are the primary and most important factors involved in Hillary's loss despite spending enormously more and having a largely perceived much easier path to both an expected popular vote landslide and electoral college victory.

Likewise, I have not yet seen any compelling evidence that Russian propaganda on social media did anything but minorly, and largely ineffectively, compliment the much more rabid, long-term, well funded, and extensively more predominant, tea-bagger and reichwing conservidiot propaganda which had/has been flooding the churches and hometown media throughout small town America since Gingrich's splash into national politics back in the early nineties. This is not an obscurant or unobvious perspective or understanding.

Again I don't see any compelling evidence indicating that the rooskies were anywhere near as effective in their slurs against the Clintoons as our own homegrown fascists have been in their 2.5 decade campaign against them. That said, there may be a lot of serious Putin/Trump issues that are being investigated, and probably should be a lot more seriously and extensively investigated, in connection with the campaign and administration of the current POTUS, so I am certainly not recommending that any investigations of what happened be limited, restricted or in any way diminished or dismissed, I just see few flowers, and no real fruit springing forth (as of yet) with regard to any serious impact of Russian internet ads or social media influences in, and of, themselves.

 

[a_unique_person]

Difficult to listen to in the translation, and my deutsch is not good enough to listen solely in German without a lot of pausing and rewinding, but from what I do get out of this talk, it is very interesting. Thank-you for sharing.

The Russian meddling in foreign elections issue is a problem, but (so far) I haven't seen evidence that it was as big an issue as some Democrats seem to desire it to be. I'm more concerned about money laundering, back door business deals, organized crime connections, porn star payoffs and blackmail issues, but that's just me.

It's pretty hard to work out the order for that list.

 

[Trakar]

It's pretty hard to work out the order for that list.

The list is much longer, that was a sampling. It is difficult to put any list of potential Trump crimes and offenses into a truly reasonable listing as it is continuously growing and evolving. Occasionally, it expands on a tweet by tweet (and nearly consistently on a day-by-day) basis.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't do FB, or Twitter, I do have accounts (both FB and Twitter) because they are the easiest way I can post comments on articles in some of the mainstream newspapers and magazines without buying subscriptions to every one of them, but I do not communicate with family, friends, or others through these accounts. I don't really like either FB or Twitter and other than this message board, Skeptical Science, RealClimate, and a couple of private academic discussion boards and two professional listserv groups neither of which are open to public participation, I don't have much use or interest in "social media."

If you don't do FB, what do you mean by posting comments? What are you posting and who's reading it?

Try reading what I actually wrote, and then contrast and compare it to your response. I said:

vs. your response:

(bolding added to assist in comparison and contrast)

Bull ****. No compelling evidence? That's where you're going here, and you think I should be compelled by your weasel words? Sorry, not buying it.

There is plenty of compelling evidence. Unless of course one is in confirmation bias denial.

My opinion greatly agrees with your statement that the DNC anointed Clinton and that this is one of many reasons, possibly not the major, or even in the top 3, reason(s) why Sanders lost (one reason that should have never existed, and is definitely not (d) democratic). As for your statement that Clinton was a horrible candidate, no wonder Trump won, that is virtually what I stated on these boards was the case, and was very likely to occur back Feb.-March, and throughout most of 2016 until it was actualized on Nov. 8th.

I see no need to rewrite history, and I am not disagreeing that sometimes a straw may indeed break the back of an aged, weary, and overburdened camel driven beyond their capacity and capability. To most rational consideration, however, while the "straw" may be the precipitating causation, the underlying factors (eg weary, overburdened, and driven beyond their capacity and capability) are the primary and most important factors involved in Hillary's loss despite spending enormously more and having a largely perceived much easier path to both an expected popular vote landslide and electoral college victory.

At least you admit I'm right, you think the rigged system kept little Bernie down.

While I believe the Russian and GOP manipulation of beliefs led to Trump's victory. And most definitely, the Clinton camp totally blew underestimating the power of marketing.

Likewise, I have not yet seen any compelling evidence that Russian propaganda on social media did anything but minorly, and largely ineffectively, compliment the much more rabid, long-term, well funded, and extensively more predominant, tea-bagger and reichwing conservidiot propaganda which had/has been flooding the churches and hometown media throughout small town America since Gingrich's splash into national politics back in the early nineties. This is not an obscurant or unobvious perspective or understanding.

Again I don't see any compelling evidence indicating that the rooskies were anywhere near as effective in their slurs against the Clintoons as our own homegrown fascists have been in their 2.5 decade campaign against them. That said, there may be a lot of serious Putin/Trump issues that are being investigated, and probably should be a lot more seriously and extensively investigated, in connection with the campaign and administration of the current POTUS, so I am certainly not recommending that any investigations of what happened be limited, restricted or in any way diminished or dismissed, I just see few flowers, and no real fruit springing forth (as of yet) with regard to any serious impact of Russian internet ads or social media influences in, and of, themselves.

You clearly aren't looking.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Nunes won't release the memo to the FBI, despite their request

Bear in mind that the Republicans have vowed that the FBI needs fixing, that the memo reportedly details wrongdoing by the FBI, and that the person that Nunes would be releasing the memo to a) is a Republican, b) was appointed by Trump, in part and according to Trump himself, to "bring [the FBI] back to greatness", and c) was not at the FBI at the time that the alleged wrongdoing occurred. So the reason to keep the memo from him is...?

 

[Trakar]

If you don't do FB, what do you mean by posting comments? What are you posting and who's reading it?

I make a handful of comments weekly to various articles in WaPo, NYT, Seattle Times, LA Times, Wall St. Journal, and a few other national and local papers, as well as a few blogs such as Slate and Huffpost. Presumably these are primarily read by other readers of the articles. My postings are always informational relating to statements made by the authors of the articles, and I rarely read, yet alone respond to other commenters, unless it is the middle of winter and I'm bored. FB and Twitter accounts are used to allow me to comment in these article comments sections, and I believe the articles and my comments probably pop-up on my facebook and twitter pages, but I don't really pay attention to any of that. I visit my actual FB and Twitter accts about once a month or so to delete all the requests, offers and contact attempts but that is about the extent of use of FB and Twitter.

Bull ****. No compelling evidence?..That's where you're going here, and you think I should be compelled by your weasel words? Sorry, not buying it.

I wouldn't expect you to buy anything I'm not trying to sell. I tend to use the term "compelling evidence" in reference to the manner it is used in a scientific discussion, and I do understand that this may be misunderstood or confusing. The traditional definition of "compelling evidence" is along the lines of a preponderance of supportive data and reference in its support of a specific result. If the data and reference support a variety, or substantive range of potential results then it generally should not claimed to be compelling evidence in support of a specific result. All I'm trying to say, is that I have seen no preponderance of official data, nor the multitudinous referenced official investigations and studies confirming and evidencing all of the steps necessary to get from Trump/Putin Collusion as the largest or most important causation of Clinton's electoral college defeat.

There is plenty of compelling evidence. Unless of course one is in confirmation bias denial.

Agreed, but the most compelling evidence suggests that Clinton was the primary causation of her own loss. 25 years of baggage sewn and donated by our own nation's Republican party and their FauxNews mouthpiece (not to mention AM talk radio in general, and most Christian churches) seems to have reasonably played a much larger role in what happened on Nov. 8, 2016 than anything Russian trolling on the internet for a year could plausibly attain, unless you have compelling evidence strongly suggesting otherwise.

Certainly any Russian interference is deplorable and should be fully investigated, assessed, and addressed with regard to extent, impact, and consequence for both the guilty parties and any who colluded with them.

This, however, won't solve, or resolve, the Democratic Party's issues, any more than Trump leading the Republican Party into control of all three branches of government solved, and resolved, the Republican Party's issues.

 

[Parsman]

All I'm trying to say, is that I have seen no preponderance of official data, nor the multitudinous referenced official investigations and studies confirming and evidencing all of the steps necessary to get from Trump/Putin Collusion as the largest or most important causation of Clinton's electoral college defeat.

Agreed, but the most compelling evidence suggests that Clinton was the primary causation of her own loss. 25 years of baggage sewn and donated by our own nation's Republican party and their FauxNews mouthpiece (not to mention AM talk radio in general, and most Christian churches) seems to have reasonably played a much larger role in what happened on Nov. 8, 2016 than anything Russian trolling on the internet for a year could plausibly attain, unless you have compelling evidence strongly suggesting otherwise.

Certainly any Russian interference is deplorable and should be fully investigated, assessed, and addressed with regard to extent, impact, and consequence for both the guilty parties and any who colluded with them.

This, however, won't solve, or resolve, the Democratic Party's issues, any more than Trump leading the Republican Party into control of all three branches of government solved, and resolved, the Republican Party's issues.

Very much this. It is clear Russia is trying to muddy the waters in all recent democratic activities in the West (Brexit, French and German elections etc.) through the use of the Internet. I would be very surprised if the West isn't trying to do the same to Russia. In the 2016 USA Presidential Election however the biggest problem was the perception of Hilary Clinton that already existed within the public in the USA. None of this means she was a bad person but it does mean she was a bad candidate who then ran a bad campaign (not visiting rustbelt states because they were part of the Democratic firewall??? Still ranks as one of the stupidest political decisions I have seen in my 55 years on this Earth). None of this means that any Russian collusion shouldn't be investigated, but there were bigger problems for the Democrats in 2016 and they should be addressed rather than using a Russian squirrel.

 

[varwoche]

Difficult to listen to in the translation, and my deutsch is not good enough to listen solely in German without a lot of pausing and rewinding, but from what I do get out of this talk, it is very interesting. Thank-you for sharing.

The Russian meddling in foreign elections issue is a problem, but (so far) I haven't seen evidence that it was as big an issue as some Democrats seem to desire it to be. I'm more concerned about money laundering, back door business deals, organized crime connections, porn star payoffs and blackmail issues, but that's just me.

(1) The outcome was determined by super close elections in three states. (2) The wiki leaks drip-drip down the stretch was a huge deal in the press, and coincides with tightening polls.

While it will never be possible to prove that Russia tipped the election, to so blithely dismiss the possibility is highly irrational. You're more concerned about porn star payoffs!? I can't even start to fathom that thinking.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

You're more concerned about porn star payoffs!? I can't even start to fathom that thinking.

It's not the porn stars or payoffs themselves so much as it is proof that Trump can be successfully blackmailed. Arguing that he was too much of a pig to be blackmailed was pretty much his only defence. The Russians have kompromat, this porn star thing shows that it works, there's enough similarities between the two (such as Trump's lawyer used as a go-between) to surmise that said kompromat was used, and since we haven't heard about it, used successfully.

Which means the President of the United States is an active Russian intelligence asset.

Shouldn't that concern you?

 

[varwoche]

It's not the porn stars or payoffs themselves so much as it is proof that Trump can be successfully blackmailed. Arguing that he was too much of a pig to be blackmailed was pretty much his only defence. The Russians have kompromat, this porn star thing shows that it works, there's enough similarities between the two (such as Trump's lawyer used as a go-between) to surmise that said kompromat was used, and since we haven't heard about it, used successfully.

Which means the President of the United States is an active Russian intelligence asset.

Shouldn't that concern you?

Sure, except if you follow the discussion you might realize that your question is misplaced.

 

[uke2se]

It seems to me that the memo has two purposes.

1. To distract from the Trump-induced government shutdown.

2. To serve as a possible straw to grasp when firing Muller. They are banking on a sufficiently large part of the country buying a plain lie about what's in the memo - even if they release it - and that the other part of the country will do nothing but whine and moan.

 

[quadraginta]

Nunes won't release the memo to the FBI, despite their request

Bear in mind that the Republicans have vowed that the FBI needs fixing, that the memo reportedly details wrongdoing by the FBI, and that the person that Nunes would be releasing the memo to a) is a Republican, b) was appointed by Trump, in part and according to Trump himself, to "bring [the FBI] back to greatness", and c) was not at the FBI at the time that the alleged wrongdoing occurred. So the reason to keep the memo from him is...?

If Nunes isn't gonna let the FBI see the memo how is he going to release it to the public like he said he would?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It seems to me that the memo has two purposes.

1. To distract from the Trump-induced government shutdown.

2. To serve as a possible straw to grasp when firing Muller. They are banking on a sufficiently large part of the country buying a plain lie about what's in the memo - even if they release it - and that the other part of the country will do nothing but whine and moan.

A third option: Nunes shot his mouth off bragging about something he didn't have or misrepresenting something he did have and now it is snowballing out of control.

 

[NoahFence]

Nunes won't release the memo to the FBI, despite their request

Bear in mind that the Republicans have vowed that the FBI needs fixing, that the memo reportedly details wrongdoing by the FBI, and that the person that Nunes would be releasing the memo to a) is a Republican, b) was appointed by Trump, in part and according to Trump himself, to "bring [the FBI] back to greatness", and c) was not at the FBI at the time that the alleged wrongdoing occurred. So the reason to keep the memo from him is...?

It was a bluff. Nunes knows (obviously) that the contents of the document are fraudulent.

 

[Mumbles]

A third option: Nunes shot his mouth off bragging about something he didn't have or misrepresenting something he did have and now it is snowballing out of control.

Oh, it's not as if Nunes ran out of a car one night without explanation and then reappeared spouting a bunch of lies at the White House the following day...

Oh, wait, that's exactly what he did.

 

[phiwum]

Oh, it's not as if Nunes ran out of a car one night without explanation and then reappeared spouting a bunch of lies at the White House the following day...

Oh, wait, that's exactly what he did.

I'm confident the memo exists. Whether it is worth the paper it's printed on is another matter.

 

[Trakar]

It's not the porn stars or payoffs themselves so much as it is proof that Trump can be successfully blackmailed. Arguing that he was too much of a pig to be blackmailed was pretty much his only defence. The Russians have kompromat, this porn star thing shows that it works, there's enough similarities between the two (such as Trump's lawyer used as a go-between) to surmise that said kompromat was used, and since we haven't heard about it, used successfully.

Which means the President of the United States is an active Russian intelligence asset.

Shouldn't that concern you?

Fully agreed, though not all issues of great concern regarding this administration and the GOP more generally involve the Russian/Putin focus. Giving too great an emphasis on a single issue could easily mean that greater concerns get swept under the rug so to speak, especially when those larger issues are potentially much wider spread and bipartisan in nature.

 

[Trakar]

It seems to me that the memo has two purposes.

1. To distract from the Trump-induced government shutdown.

2. To serve as a possible straw to grasp when firing Muller. They are banking on a sufficiently large part of the country buying a plain lie about what's in the memo - even if they release it - and that the other part of the country will do nothing but whine and moan.

Sounds plausible, but that is true of a lot of suppositions.
I would think, for instance that the shut-down itself is largely designed as a distraction from the narrowing focus of investigations and potentially cooperating and damning inner circle witnesses. Alas, it is the weight of supporting evidences that turn such suppositions into effective branding irons. Such supporting evidences may exist, but not enough of them are in the public domain at this time to begin heating up the casting forges. I am working on some wax designs, however.

 

[Trakar]

A third option: Nunes shot his mouth off bragging about something he didn't have or misrepresenting something he did have and now it is snowballing out of control.

Given the cast of actors and their histories, this also sounds very plausible.

 

[NoahFence]

Man I would have LOVED to be a fly on the wall for this conversation:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/23/politics/jeff-sessions-robert-mueller-interview/index.html

Jeff Sessions was interviewed last week.