Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
We're making this thread into a Netflix special narrated by a guy with a paper bag over his head. You'll all be credited and we have a few executive producer slots open if anyone would like to be attached to it for a small investment. Also, we need a gaffer, who will get scale.
dave said:
We're making this thread into a Netflix special narrated by a guy with a paper bag over his head. You'll all be credited and we have a few executive producer slots open if anyone would like to be attached to it for a small investment. Also, we need a gaffer, who will get scale.
Theme song -
this is a lot more informative than a Jimmy Dore video.
nohero said:
dave said:
We're making this thread into a Netflix special narrated by a guy with a paper bag over his head. You'll all be credited and we have a few executive producer slots open if anyone would like to be attached to it for a small investment. Also, we need a gaffer, who will get scale.
Theme song -
And Mr. Surovell gets his own walk-up song, as determined by Jeremy Scahill of The Intercept
cramer said:
"banned"? My god. You are on the crazy train."
https://twitter.com/jeremyscahill/status/964568647950880768
Nohero's cameo appearance:
nohero said:
And Mr. Surovell gets his own walk-up song, as determined by Jeremy Scahill of The Intercept
cramer said:
"banned"? My god. You are on the crazy train."
https://twitter.com/jeremyscahill/status/964568647950880768
Mueller Troll Farm Indictment Scam / Part 1:
ADRIAN CHEN, THE NEW YORKER: Well, the effectiveness question which everybody is talking about now, it's of my personal belief that it isn't all that effective. It's essentially a social media marketing campaign with 90 people, a couple million dollars, a few million dollars behind it, run by people who have, you know, a bare grasp of the English language and not a full understanding of who they're targeting, what they're targeting.
I think if you think about that in terms of just a normal marketing campaign, that's not going to be a very good bang for your buck.
CHRIS HAYES: Huh?
ADRIAN CHEN: I think the paranoia aspect, right, the idea that there is this kind of all-powerful or immense propaganda machine that is going on, and anybody who is tweeting something that you don't like or is kind of causing trouble on the internet.
CHRIS HAYES: Could be an agent.
ADRIAN CHEN: Could be connected to Russia, that is a very powerful thing that's going on and is really increasing now I think in the wake of these indictments in kind of a warring way. There is not a lot of people saying well, let's hold back, you know, maybe it's not all of that big of a deal.
Mueller Troll Farm Indictment Scam / Part 3:
https://twitter.com/NeeNeeLove4/status/767177831646371840
[ to be continued ]
This article includes an Aaron Mate' interview with John Feffer, a foreign policy expert on Russiagate. Good video and link to transcript.
Russia Conspiracy Theorists Have Failed To Meet Their Burden Of Proof
In the article above, author Caitlin Johnstone, uses the Mate'-Feffer interview to demonstrate how the allegations of Russiangate are many weak arguments combined together to create the illusion of substance. This tactic is known as the "Gish gallop fallacy."
" . . .Feffer based his debate on the assumption of a "pattern" of allegations about the Russian government and its supposed support for the 2016 Trump campaign, which taken individually are all poorly substantiated and easily debunked, but taken together create the illusion of a solid argument in a debate tactic known as a Gish gallop fallacy. Named for a Young Earth creationist who made abundant use of the tactic, a Gish gallop is designed to overwhelm the opposing side with a deluge of weak points that are difficult to dispute in their entirety in a real-time dialogue.
The mainstream Russia narrative is made entirely of such individually weak arguments. Russiagate is one giant Gish gallop."
Twitter finally blocked many of those Russian trolls who were spreading awful lies about the Florida kids.
Mueller Troll Farm Indictment Scam / Part 4:
Missing context:
Leaving aside the obvious "whataboutism" in your post, does this mean you agree that there is online "activism", whether by Americans supporting their candidates or Russians meddling? And, if it was as real as you claim and blameable on Hillary, why doesn't that apply to the Russians and Trump?
paulsurovell said:
Mueller Troll Farm Indictment Scam / Part 4:
Missing context:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-hillary-clinton-paying-trolls-attack-people-online-article-1.2613980
paulsurovell said:
Mueller Troll Farm Indictment Scam / Part 4:
Missing context:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-hillary-clinton-paying-trolls-attack-people-online-article-1.2613980
Missing context, courtesy of The Atlantic, a month later:
Much of the effort appears to be fairly anodyne so far. An official-looking Twitter account, Facebook page, and Instagram and Pinterest accounts have been set up. The social media accounts seem to consist mainly of graphics and videos that deliver inspirational pro-Clinton messages, content that appears to have been designed in the hopes that it might go viral. “Even if she weren’t a woman, she would be the best candidate,” reads a quote from former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright superimposed on a graphic posted to the Facebook account. It continues: “I have never seen anybody better prepared to be president of the United States. Ever.”
That’s not all. Correct the Record has several Twitter accounts that directly engage with and respond to Twitter users who attack Clinton and her supporters. Here’s a typical exchange: On May 22, a Twitter user whose bio reads: “Proud Donald J Trump supporter” tweeted out the following: “Hillary is scum.” The next day, a Correct the Record account replied with the hashtag #ImWithHer and a graphic that read “Hillary’s platform is LOVE & KINDNESS.” A picture of Clinton smiling appears next to the text. In an exchange on May 24, a Twitter user with a bio that reads “Conservative Republican. Trump SUPPORTER. Fox news viewer,” wrote: “Whenever CROOKED HILLARY gets a tough question she either bursts into that blood curdling laughing cackle or starts barking like a dog. #LIAR.” Correct the Record responded with #ImWithHer and a graphic of Clinton with text reading: “She’s the most vetted person on earth. And standing STRONGER than ever.”
I didn’t verify this, but Correct the Record also said its messages were always identified as being from Correct the Record. And not for nothing, the idea of Barrier Breakers did not fly by without criticism.
Mueller Troll Farm Indictment Scam / Part 5:
Facebook VP of Advertising Rob Goldman comments on Mueller indictment, but after corporate freakout is forced to apologize for daring to speak the truth.
To be continued . . .
I read the article. For someone concerned about false narratives, why is a picture of Rachel Maddow used, since she's not mentioned and MSNBC isn't either. It's not hard to guess why Trump defenders like to feature a smart liberal woman (not to mention not hetero) to push the buttons of their target audience, but why in an appeal to liberals?
Also, its argument against a false pattern lists completely unrelated "sins" as the basis for its claims.
From the false Nayirah testimony to the Gulf of Tonkin incident to "Saddam has WMD" to "Gaddafi's troops are taking Viagra for rape" to the Bana Alabed psyop, there is an abundance of publicly available evidence that the US power establishment will unhesitatingly lie to the public to manufacture consent for war, and the mainstream media will unhesitatingly help them. You do not need to dip into tinfoil hat territory to see this. This is publicly available information.
There is currently no convincing reason to believe that this isn't another "Saddam has WMD", and there is every reason not to. Iraq was an absolutely unforgivable crime against humanity, and it is everyone's duty to prevent the US-centralized empire from ever being given that trust again. World-threatening escalations keep mounting between two nuclear superpowers and this evidence-free narrative is being used to justify it. In a post-Iraq invasion world, this is simply unacceptable.
I don't think you can link Rachel Maddow to those other false claims. In a way, using her picture undercuts the article's argument.
nan said:
This article includes an Aaron Mate' interview with John Feffer, a foreign policy expert on Russiagate. Good video and link to transcript.
Russia Conspiracy Theorists Have Failed To Meet Their Burden Of Proof
https://steemit.com/russia/@caitlinjohnstone/russia-conspiracy-theorists-have-failed-to-meet-their-burden-of-proof
In the article above, author Caitlin Johnstone, uses the Mate'-Feffer interview to demonstrate how the allegations of Russiangate are many weak arguments combined together to create the illusion of substance. This tactic is known as the "Gish gallop fallacy."
" . . .Feffer based his debate on the assumption of a "pattern" of allegations about the Russian government and its supposed support for the 2016 Trump campaign, which taken individually are all poorly substantiated and easily debunked, but taken together create the illusion of a solid argument in a debate tactic known as a Gish gallop fallacy. Named for a Young Earth creationist who made abundant use of the tactic, a Gish gallop is designed to overwhelm the opposing side with a deluge of weak points that are difficult to dispute in their entirety in a real-time dialogue.
The mainstream Russia narrative is made entirely of such individually weak arguments. Russiagate is one giant Gish gallop."
so does this mean the narrative has gone from -- "the Russians didn't meddle" to "well, the Russians did meddle, but they weren't any good at it"?
no doubt some people are overhyping the Russia interference story. but it appears it did happen, and it's something users of social media should take to heart. If you don't know the source of something you're reading, don't pay any attention to it.
paulsurovell said:
Mueller Troll Farm Indictment Scam / Part 5:
Facebook VP of Advertising Rob Goldman comments on Mueller indictment, but after corporate freakout is forced to apologize for daring to speak the truth.
And . . . the complete opposite can be true also.
https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-executive-rob-goldman-apologizes-to-company-and-robert-mueller/
At its core, Goldman’s mistake was a familiar one for Silicon Valley: An executive really smart at one thing seemed to think he was really smart at another thing.
ml1 said:
so does this mean the narrative has gone from -- "the Russians didn't meddle" to "well, the Russians did meddle, but they weren't any good at it"?
no doubt some people are overhyping the Russia interference story. but it appears it did happen, and it's something users of social media should take to heart. If you don't know the source of something you're reading, don't pay any attention to it.
Russian troll farm is not Russian government.
DaveSchmidt said:
Missing context, courtesy of The Atlantic, a month later:
Tip-of-the-iceberg Missing Context for the Missing Context for the Missing Context:
does it make it any better if they were financed by Russian criminals and not the Russian government? Somebody was bankrolling it.
paulsurovell said:
ml1 said:
so does this mean the narrative has gone from -- "the Russians didn't meddle" to "well, the Russians did meddle, but they weren't any good at it"?
no doubt some people are overhyping the Russia interference story. but it appears it did happen, and it's something users of social media should take to heart. If you don't know the source of something you're reading, don't pay any attention to it.
Russian troll farm is not Russian government.
ml1 said:
does it make it any better if they were financed by Russian criminals and not the Russian government? Somebody was bankrolling it.
paulsurovell said:
ml1 said:
so does this mean the narrative has gone from -- "the Russians didn't meddle" to "well, the Russians did meddle, but they weren't any good at it"?
no doubt some people are overhyping the Russia interference story. but it appears it did happen, and it's something users of social media should take to heart. If you don't know the source of something you're reading, don't pay any attention to it.
Russian troll farm is not Russian government.
Perhaps we can agree that an effort by a Russian troll farm should not be called an act of war by the Russian government equivalent to Pearl Harbor.
paulsurovell said:
Russian troll farm is not Russian government.
No more than Correct the Record is Hillary Clinton.
Smear and deflect but don't expect it to support any kind of factually based argument based on the actual content of the article.
South_Mountaineer said:
I read the article. For someone concerned about false narratives, why is a picture of Rachel Maddow used, since she's not mentioned and MSNBC isn't either. It's not hard to guess why Trump defenders like to feature a smart liberal woman (not to mention not hetero) to push the buttons of their target audience, but why in an appeal to liberals?
Also, its argument against a false pattern lists completely unrelated "sins" as the basis for its claims.
From the false Nayirah testimony to the Gulf of Tonkin incident to "Saddam has WMD" to "Gaddafi's troops are taking Viagra for rape" to the Bana Alabed psyop, there is an abundance of publicly available evidence that the US power establishment will unhesitatingly lie to the public to manufacture consent for war, and the mainstream media will unhesitatingly help them. You do not need to dip into tinfoil hat territory to see this. This is publicly available information.There is currently no convincing reason to believe that this isn't another "Saddam has WMD", and there is every reason not to. Iraq was an absolutely unforgivable crime against humanity, and it is everyone's duty to prevent the US-centralized empire from ever being given that trust again. World-threatening escalations keep mounting between two nuclear superpowers and this evidence-free narrative is being used to justify it. In a post-Iraq invasion world, this is simply unacceptable.
I don't think you can link Rachel Maddow to those other false claims. In a way, using her picture undercuts the article's argument.
nan said:
This article includes an Aaron Mate' interview with John Feffer, a foreign policy expert on Russiagate. Good video and link to transcript.
Russia Conspiracy Theorists Have Failed To Meet Their Burden Of Proof
https://steemit.com/russia/@caitlinjohnstone/russia-conspiracy-theorists-have-failed-to-meet-their-burden-of-proof
In the article above, author Caitlin Johnstone, uses the Mate'-Feffer interview to demonstrate how the allegations of Russiangate are many weak arguments combined together to create the illusion of substance. This tactic is known as the "Gish gallop fallacy."
" . . .Feffer based his debate on the assumption of a "pattern" of allegations about the Russian government and its supposed support for the 2016 Trump campaign, which taken individually are all poorly substantiated and easily debunked, but taken together create the illusion of a solid argument in a debate tactic known as a Gish gallop fallacy. Named for a Young Earth creationist who made abundant use of the tactic, a Gish gallop is designed to overwhelm the opposing side with a deluge of weak points that are difficult to dispute in their entirety in a real-time dialogue.
The mainstream Russia narrative is made entirely of such individually weak arguments. Russiagate is one giant Gish gallop."
ml1 said:
does it make it any better if they were financed by Russian criminals and not the Russian government? Somebody was bankrolling it.
May make it worse. Instead of a government wanting to influence foreign policy of another country toward it, criminals trying to protect and/or promote members of their gang.
OTOH
paulsurovell said:
Russian troll farm is not Russian government.
Russia is not a free and democratic country where individuals and organizations are totally free to operate outside of government control.
Is Putin even considering extraditing those who have been indicted?
Top trending video on youtube suggests David Hogg is a paid actor. Meanwhile, the Syrian government killed another couple hundred civilians this week.
Keep up the good fight, Paul.
I addressed the actual content. I disagree with the basic claim: "There is currently no convincing reason to believe that this isn't another 'Saddam has WMD' " There's no reason to discuss whether it is or isn't, and raising WMD is an obvious deflection.
nan said:
Smear and deflect but don't expect it to support any kind of factually based argument based on the actual content of the article.
South_Mountaineer said:
I read the article. For someone concerned about false narratives, why is a picture of Rachel Maddow used, since she's not mentioned and MSNBC isn't either. It's not hard to guess why Trump defenders like to feature a smart liberal woman (not to mention not hetero) to push the buttons of their target audience, but why in an appeal to liberals?
Also, its argument against a false pattern lists completely unrelated "sins" as the basis for its claims.
From the false Nayirah testimony to the Gulf of Tonkin incident to "Saddam has WMD" to "Gaddafi's troops are taking Viagra for rape" to the Bana Alabed psyop, there is an abundance of publicly available evidence that the US power establishment will unhesitatingly lie to the public to manufacture consent for war, and the mainstream media will unhesitatingly help them. You do not need to dip into tinfoil hat territory to see this. This is publicly available information.There is currently no convincing reason to believe that this isn't another "Saddam has WMD", and there is every reason not to. Iraq was an absolutely unforgivable crime against humanity, and it is everyone's duty to prevent the US-centralized empire from ever being given that trust again. World-threatening escalations keep mounting between two nuclear superpowers and this evidence-free narrative is being used to justify it. In a post-Iraq invasion world, this is simply unacceptable.
I don't think you can link Rachel Maddow to those other false claims. In a way, using her picture undercuts the article's argument.
nan said:
This article includes an Aaron Mate' interview with John Feffer, a foreign policy expert on Russiagate. Good video and link to transcript.
Russia Conspiracy Theorists Have Failed To Meet Their Burden Of Proof
https://steemit.com/russia/@caitlinjohnstone/russia-conspiracy-theorists-have-failed-to-meet-their-burden-of-proof
In the article above, author Caitlin Johnstone, uses the Mate'-Feffer interview to demonstrate how the allegations of Russiangate are many weak arguments combined together to create the illusion of substance. This tactic is known as the "Gish gallop fallacy."
" . . .Feffer based his debate on the assumption of a "pattern" of allegations about the Russian government and its supposed support for the 2016 Trump campaign, which taken individually are all poorly substantiated and easily debunked, but taken together create the illusion of a solid argument in a debate tactic known as a Gish gallop fallacy. Named for a Young Earth creationist who made abundant use of the tactic, a Gish gallop is designed to overwhelm the opposing side with a deluge of weak points that are difficult to dispute in their entirety in a real-time dialogue.
The mainstream Russia narrative is made entirely of such individually weak arguments. Russiagate is one giant Gish gallop."
paulsurovell said:
Mueller Troll Farm Indictment Scam / Part 4:
Missing context:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-hillary-clinton-paying-trolls-attack-people-online-article-1.2613980
False equivalence. Where does it say Hillary hired a Russian troll factory or that the Russians were hired on her behalf?
Here's a recent article about the troll factory:
http://time.com/5165805/russian-troll-factory-mueller-indictments/
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
-
2007 Honda Fit $4,400
More info
Video in a nutshell:
Dore: “That’s [rhetorical question or summary], right?”
Me: No.