Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Quack, Feb 17, 2018.
Nope. Your worship of Nixon is noted. It gives insight into your feelings for Trump.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
back reads and backs away slowly
you may be or be becoming delusional
A) I do not/did not worship Nixon
B) I do not like Trump
If you read the posted, then add up the people and corporations that his actions pissed off, then look at what the media did, you may find that you had been intentionally misled.
I think she should be locked up. If Trump had a private server with classified documents on it... And it was breached... And cleaned up by Comey and his cronies...
Well you tell me what I already know you think.
Finding the truth about someone is not illegal.
Neither is making outrageous claims as to the legality of an event. But at some point it should be.
I see a lot of information outside of your bubble which is not accessible to you and see a lot of fantasies in your postings.
It is quite trivial in this case because we know what was the aim of this bot operation (making money via advertising by bots which have collected followers in various bubbles. Given this aim, it is clear that the bots have not distributed there political ideas which have been unpopular in those bubbles - this would have been counterproductive. Of course, given that the chief of the firm has some own political ideas, one can expect that he will restrict the ideas proposed to some not in obvious contradiction with his own, even if those would be popular in some bubbles. But what the bots post will be mainstream in those bubbles.
Remove the stealing of identities and opening bank accounts with them from the indictment, what remains? If nothing remains, then these bots have nothing to do with any influence on the elections.
Take this as a simple legal question about what is legal and illegal in the US. The question is if doing what I do here, together (in cooperation) with a friend, is legal or not. Reading the indictment, I got the impression that they could make a similar indictment against me and my hypothetical friend. And I would name this a restriction of freedom of speech.
No. I would get played if I would trust such information.
No. At that time the report was not yet open to the public, thus, any other "information" about it was speculation.
"Unreliable information" includes the possibility that it is disinformation. So, this is playing with words to distort the meaning.
Given that I have not made claims about the report (beyond simply mentioning what I have heard about the content) there is no need to reconsider. Given that neither you nor anybody else here has provided a single good reason to read it, I will probably not read it. I have a lot of more interesting reading. But if somebody provides a good reason to read it, I will.
The idea is simple and clear to everybody who knows how a civilized discussion looks like, and, moreover, for everybody who recognizes that it makes no sense to use a "fact" questioned by the opponent as an assumption in an argument aimed to convince that opponent. The idea that questioning facts would make them go away is your fantasy, I have never had such an idea, so that's defamation. (But maybe it is a projection.)
The interesting point of this defamation is that already the questioning of iceaura's "facts" becomes sufficient to conclude that I'm played by the Reps.
No, you don't.
You got played. You posted your conclusions and reasoning and so forth right here.
The word "other" proved you got played. (You were not even alert enough to put the word "information" in quotes, back then - take a moment to consider that, eh?)
The fact that you still don't acknowledge the public availability of much of the information about the events legally documented by Mueller is just another example of you getting played. Everyone except the Republican bubbleboys knew a lot of what that report was going to contain - everyone.
It should have included the fact that it was disinformation - that being Barr's job.
But it didn't. Not in your posts. You didn't allow for that. You drew conclusions, made arguments - - you got played.
As you would know, if you had bothered to read my posts or attend to their content, I have no such aim. In any matter of US politics you are not here to be convinced of things, or discuss things, or even be an "opponent" of some kind, and I am not here to waste my time.
You are posting the media feed from the American fascist movement - the Republican Party line, the rightwing corporate propaganda operations that have by sheer force framed the American public political discourse. I am here to point that out - repetitively, over and over and over.
You post it word for word, meme for meme, focus for focus, obsession for obsession, following every twist and turn and self-contradiction and reversal, parroting every silly error of fact and absurdity of "reasoning". And the central tactic of that media operation is repetition - bombardment. Not argument. Your nonsense about the Mueller investigation and report was maybe more flagrant than other of your posting, more comically out of touch with reality than average (your Inhofe level climate change bilge gives it a run) but the pattern of your parrotage has been solidly established, and "argument" has nothing to do with it.
Besides: that is your value here, aside from the occasional post on European matters you seem to actually know something about - you are a convenient summary target for dealing with the standard US fascist agitprop. I don't have to watch TV or dredge up Hannity quotes, read this week's sewage from whatever disgraced W era figure is being rehabilitated in the NYT editorial pages prior to making the talk show rounds with their "book", or God forbid sign unto the wingnut twitterverse of Trump and Trumpies. You will post it, enough of it, right here, often in conveniently summarized form.
Better than being completely useless, eh?
Looks like someone done got Hillary Derangement Syndrome. Derp!
It wouldn't be anywhere nearly as bad as if he deliberately passed such documents to the Russians or called on them to hack him. By the way when Trump took office, he said Comey was a great guy, so clearly he had no objection at the time to how Comey handled the whole saga.
Thank you for admitting your hypocrisy.
From NYT: "Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, has used WhatsApp, an unofficial encrypted messaging service, to communicate with foreign contacts about official White House business." Private server used for confidential government business, covered up by Trump. But that's fine with you. Because whatever Trump and his cronies do is OK, and whatever Clinton and her cronies do is criminal.
Again, thank you for admitting your hypocrisy.
Then nothing Comey did was illegal.
Of course, it was quite obvious that your aim was not a fair discussion, but the distribution of personal defamation. But thanks for openly admitting this.
Of course. I was replying to your posting - fair discussion was not on the table.
You I merely deal with as the source of the posts - although I can see how that might appear defamatory, to the careless reader with no interest in content.
Instead: The distribution of post defamation. I defame posts, of certain kinds. Especially Republican Party line parrot posts, which have no role here except aggrandizement and bandwidth monopoly - defamation is the indicated response. A post that concludes anything from the content of Barr's summary is simply to be labeled and mocked - there's no argument there, nothing to discuss, and no reason to pretend otherwise.
And you were so close to completing a post, a critical and accusatory post even, without reverting to that shit. Missed opportunity.
To understand the personalities and motives behind the origin of the general Republican Party line handling of Mueller's investigation and report, one must tap into memories from the American school playground. Whether that holds for every parrot as well is often harder to say - not enough information.
We have more evidence indicating Trump's private and classified emails and document caches were breached than we have that Clinton's were.
All the leaked Clinton stuff so far public came from elsewhere, and we know her security blocked strong hacking attempts by professionals who had leads. We don't know that about Trump. Trump's phone, for example, and his family's phones (they had security clearances and classified access as well, a huge security hole that Chelsea Clinton apparently did not have) were of kinds and setups famous for their vulnerability, with nothing like the security of Clinton's setup, we know they used them for classified stuff, and we have no evidence of any failed hacking attempts. So unless one is willing to assume that the Chinese and North Koreans and Russians and freelance darksiders all decided to not even try to hack Trump, circumstances point to his having been compromised long ago and into at least the first few months of his Presidency.
We may even find the currently redacted portions of Mueller's report informative in this regard. We know some of the redactions are to protect certain individuals from embarrassment and damage to their reputations - as explicitly stated in the report - which fits that speculation.
Of course. You do not worship Nixon, but feel his many accomplishments were ignored by a mean and callous media who wanted to focus only on his minor, trivial crimes that anyone could have committed. And the media is similarly maligning Trump, who by your standards isn't perfect but has done so many good things that the media hypocritically ignores in favor of reporting on some very minor locker room talk and slight misdirection of his own justice department, which is barely unethical.
Do I have the spin right?
It doesn't make sense how you can say you're a Vietnam vet and you're upset with the US government that sent you to war and you're anti-war, etc., yet you roundly defend the guy who spent years extending and expanding the scope of that same war instead of immediately winding it down, and who basically threw away everything your fellow soldiers had managed to gain with their sacrifices when he finally decided to pull out.
The Case–Church Amendment was legislation attached to a bill funding the U.S. State Department. it was approved by the U.S. Congress in June 1973 that prohibited further U.S. military activity in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia unless the president secured Congressional approval in advance.
However if you prefer to blame that on Nixon---------------ok
You are entitled to your delusions!
IMHO when Nixon reformed the draft laws by creating a lottery system circa 1969
2 things happened
1)rich kids joined the national guard or fled the country
2)and the sons of the middle class were suddenly conscripted which made the war much less desirable for their parents
and then, the media decided to lead the mob
we won the military part of the war during tet(the media played a different tune)
2 things happened (approximately)
1) victor charles was almost completely wiped out
2) general giap(who led the north vietnamese army south) lost over 70% of his army
I myself always tell people that the US didn't lose in Vietnam in the conventional sense and they should stop describing it like a cartoon. The US didn't run out of manpower or industrial output, it simply lost its appetite to continue the fight, and the South Vietnamese army collapsed after America left. As you note, the North Vietnamese and their allies sustained massive losses and it wasn't the kind of victory they'd want to win twice, if they could even afford that. Maybe you should argue those kinds of details with Schmelzer instead of me, since he seems to think it was a Soviet rout of incapable American micemen. The US however did fail to prevent the Viet Cong from ultimately seizing the country, so you can't pretend Nixon really achieved anything in Vietnam he couldn't have obtained by cheaper, more peaceful means.
Nixon had a leading hand in massively extending that war in both duration and scope (i.e. Cambodia), along with apparently sabotaging the peace negotiations which had been previously ongoing under Johnson. If you're anti-war I still don't see how you could sympathize with that guy, because he definitely wasn't. Also, lying to the public about your allies breaking the law for political advantage is pretty serious, no? Somewhat more serious than a guy receiving sexual favours from an intern under his desk?
Yeah, he does, pretty much.
It's like the climate change spin you keep trying to slide in without actually declaring it - it's too late. It's visible. You are posting the Republican Party bothsides line, and bothsides is bullshit. If you don't want to be associated with that spin, quit posting it.
Nixon was allowed to resign, one step ahead of impeachment. His VP had also been allowed to resign, one step ahead of a bench warrant. That option is also open to Trump - problem is, he can't afford to lose the civil immunity of office. The FBI has clearly stated that the only reason he's not under Federal indictment right now is that he's the President.
- - - -
tangent, Republican rewriting of history category:
The military part of the war was an atrocity - an American army cannot "win" an atrocity.
Meanwhile, the US flat out lost the political and humanitarian part of the war, largely due to the political faction that has now become the Republican Party.
That, according to von Clausewitz et al (and the explicit declarations of the Americans who launched it), is losing the war.
Why are you misrepresenting the blame assigned to Nixon?
He did what he did (including expanding the war, especially on civilians), it was very bad, and he won re-election by recruiting the current Republican Party base from the bigots, fundies, and imbeciles of the Confederacy - the people leaving the Democratic Party because of Johnson's civil rights initiatives, not because of the Vietnam War.
Lefties and liberals - many of them "rich kids" - had been a "mob" of protesters and anti-war activists for years before that. They forced Johnson's retirement, they forced the media's attention, they forced Congressional attention, they get the credit - not fucking Nixon.
Sideline: one of the earliest uses of the word "deplorable" to describe the behavior of what has become the Republican base voter: https://www.theperspective.com/subjective-timeline/politics/the-kent-state-shooting/
Times change, great tv doesnt. But CNN is downsizing Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ipso facto. I'm your boss.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Assumption followed by assumption. Never said he did anything illegal. But smashing phones and destroying evidence when your told to turn them in so breaches can be secured by people who know how to use technology is ignorant negligence at best. By that fact if Comey is willing to stand beside that type of behavior speaks volumes of his own character.
Official white house business is not classified to my knowledge. Active Military information is. Duh-duh-duh duh duh duh duh duh duh duh-duh.
Oh come on someone give me something better than a straw man. I ain't Dorthy.
It is often classified. Other people know that - and now you do too.
That's why Trump overruled the intelligence professionals and forced them to give Jared Kushner a security clearance - so he could install the young man in the White House and have him deal with official White House business. (Kushner's latest neato contribution was presenting Netanyahu - in public, on camera - with a map of Israel that marked the Golan Heights as Israeli territory. Apparently that's his idea of bringing peace to the Middle East.)
(You might have noticed earlier that much of the classified material you are supposedly worried about on Clinton's server was White House business - but then you probably have no idea what was on Clinton's server, any more than you know what Comey's politics are, or anything else about that long-debunked fact-free wingnut obsession you schlep everywhere)
So you think that Trump's administration is ignorantly negligent? Or does he get a pass for hiding evidence?
May 10, 2017 - Trump releases active military information to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Trump denied it at first.
But let me guess - that's OK with you.
Separate names with a comma.