Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
Why don't the defendants have a First Amendment defense? Weren't they just engaged in "speech"?
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:Tip-of-the-iceberg Missing Context for the Missing Context for the Missing Context:
Missing context, courtesy of The Atlantic, a month later:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/10/clinton-warrior-david-brock-offers-an-apology-and-his-allegiance-to-bernie-sanders/?utm_term=.4be47acb811a
Brock apology: Tip of the iceberg.
Goldman apology: Forced.
ml1 said:
I agree that no one should be saying that.
But the fact that some people are freaking out unnecessarily doesn't excuse the interference.
paulsurovell said:
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.
I disagree. Thinking that is 19th century thinking.
World dominance will be determined economically and politically. The using and projection of economic power with political focus and will.
You can attack a base, such as our great naval base in VA. All that will do is unite the country and focus our political will.
Or you can weaken and destroy a country by creating dissension, rancor, removing political resolve and will while ensuring that idiots and the venal are elected to leadership. Create the situation so that the country can no longer act effectively and decisively. A country to be relegated to second and then third world status.
The Russians understand this:
In a military journal, Gerasimov wrote of using covert and propaganda tactics to turn a “perfectly thriving state” into a victim of “foreign intervention” causing it to “sink into a web of chaos.” - Chief of the General Staff and First Deputy Defense Minister.
The Chinese also know the future is economic. Hence, their multi-trillion dollar investment into the One Belt, One Road project.
World dominance will be determined economically.
Always has been. It is rare for the lesser economic power to prevail in a military contest.
LOST said:
Why don't the defendants have a First Amendment defense? Weren't they just engaged in "speech"?
It's not illegal, per se, for foreign nationals to engage in political trolling (AKA information warfare,) but it is if you are legally required to do so before you do.
"The most interesting of the three crimes charged in the IRA indictment is the first, the conspiracy to defraud the United States. The indictment describes the conspiracy this way:
U.S. law bans foreign nationals from making certain expenditures or financial disbursements for the purpose of influencing federal elections. U.S. law also bars agents of any foreign entity from engaging in political activities within the United States without first registering with the Attorney General. And U.S. law requires certain foreign nationals seeking entry to the United States to obtain a visa by providing truthful and accurate information to the government.
Effectively, Mueller is saying that it’s not illegal, per se, to engage in political trolling (AKA information warfare), but it is if you don’t but are legally obliged to register before you do so. That’s an important distinction, because much of what these trolls did is accepted behavior in American politics — all sides did this in 2016, including people employed by campaigns and others expressing their own political opinions. Trolling (AKA information warfare) only becomes illegal when you don’t carry out the required transparency or reporting before you do so."
tjohn said:
World dominance will be determined economically.
Always has been. It is rare for the lesser economic power to prevail in a military contest.
Correct. As the Soviet Union has shown 40 years ago.
Too bad many don't understand this.
I think Paul's point (certainly it's my point) is that there isn't evidence yet that this has been an orchestrated plot by the Russian government. It's not appropriate for anyone to be saying now that Russia perpetrated an act of war agains the United States.
BG9 said:
ml1 said:
I agree that no one should be saying that.
But the fact that some people are freaking out unnecessarily doesn't excuse the interference.
paulsurovell said:
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.
I disagree. Thinking that is 19th century thinking.
World dominance will be determined economically and politically. The using and projection of economic power with political focus and will.
You can attack a base, such as our great naval base in VA. All that will do is unite the country and focus our political will.
Or you can weaken and destroy a country by creating dissension, rancor, removing political resolve and will while ensuring that idiots and the venal are elected to leadership. Create the situation so that the country can no longer act effectively and decisively. A country to be relegated to second and then third world status.
The Russians understand this:
In a military journal, Gerasimov wrote of using covert and propaganda tactics to turn a “perfectly thriving state” into a victim of “foreign intervention” causing it to “sink into a web of chaos.” - Chief of the General Staff and First Deputy Defense Minister.
The Chinese also know the future is economic. Hence, their multi-trillion dollar investment into the One Belt, One Road project.
ml1 said:
I think Paul's point (certainly it's my point) is that there isn't evidence yet that this has been an orchestrated plot by the Russian government. It's not appropriate for anyone to be saying now that Russia perpetrated an act of war agains the United States.
Paul is just a pit bull who will fight on to win this pointless argument at any cost. I think that Paul, like Trump, would be happy to preside over ruins if people acknowledge that he is right.
What I am not seeing is enough discussion about how to respond to cyber attacks and misinformation campaigns. I have no doubt that Russia is complicit to some extent, but we have to respond effectively (focus on cyber security and learning to filter out fake news) and calling it an act of war is just childish.
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.
******* LOL
cramer said:
LOST said:
Why don't the defendants have a First Amendment defense? Weren't they just engaged in "speech"?
Effectively, Mueller is saying that it’s not illegal, per se, to engage in political trolling (AKA information warfare), but it is if you don’t but are legally obliged to register before you do so. That’s an important distinction, because much of what these trolls did is accepted behavior in American politics — all sides did this in 2016, including people employed by campaigns and others expressing their own political opinions. Trolling (AKA information warfare) only becomes illegal when you don’t carry out the required transparency or reporting before you do so."
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/02/17/what-did-mueller-achieve-with-the-internet-research-agency-indictment/
Thank you.
ml1 said:
I think Paul's point (certainly it's my point) is that there isn't evidence yet that this has been an orchestrated plot by the Russian government. It's not appropriate for anyone to be saying now that Russia perpetrated an act of war agains the United States.
We invaded Afghanistan. That country did not attack us.
Was the invasion of that country to capture the leaders of Al Queda justified? If Putin refuses to expedite the Trolls would that justify invasion of Russia?
Only because this false claim keeps being made, I'll provide a response.
paulsurovell said:
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
In general, the "labeler" is usually the person engaged in the conduct he's trying to pin on others.
For some reason, Mr. Surovell called me a "useful idiot" at one point, which is one of those "McCarthyist" slurs - according to Mr. Surovell who said: "It's McCarthyist to label anyone who disagrees with the Russia story as "pro-Putin," "pro-Trump," "a useful idiot". So, you're welcome to the McCarthy mask, Mr. Surovell.
If you want to see real "McCarthyism", look at the folks who join you in pushing the line against the investigation, such as Sean Hannity and Sebastian Gorka (as we say earlier, they provided the original inspiration for your "Who Colluded More" title):
SEBASTIAN GORKA, FOX NEWS NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGIST: Finally, we're getting to find who is behind the curtain. And it's going to the very, very top of the last administration. We have been talking about FISA-gate or memo-gate. We will probably end up talking about Obama-gate.
Look at the fact already. I mean, John Brennan, just Google who this person is. John Brennan in 1976 voted for Gus Hall, the Communist Party candidate for American president, and then he joins the CIA four years later and then Obama eventually makes him director of the CIA, a man who voted for the Communist Party to take over America?
Look at Susan Rice. This --
HANNITY: I have never heard that by the way. That's news to me. We'll dig deeper.
GORKA: It's on CNN. Can you Google it.
HANNITY: Fake news CNN, it's got to be true. OK, go ahead.
GORKA: No, no, Washington Examiner and CNN.
KALLSTROM: It is true.
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2018/02/13/newt-gingrich-on-obama-officials-under-fire.html
At the time of the 1976 election John Brennan was just a few weeks passed his 21st birthday. He decided to vote Third-Party.
But in 1976 the Lyndon Laroucheits would probably have told you that Gus Hall was a CIA agent.
ml1 said:
I agree that no one should be saying that.
But the fact that some people are freaking out unnecessarily doesn't excuse the interference.
paulsurovell said:
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.
There's a lot of sleaze on social media and of course it's contemptuous whether the perpetrators are Russians, Macedonians, Brits, Czechs, Dutch, Norwegian, Nigerian or Americans.
nohero said:
Only because this false claim keeps being made, I'll provide a response.
paulsurovell said:
Nohero's cameo appearance:
No, you deserve the label. You've been smearing me as being pro-Trump for months, in the tradition of Joe McCarthy. And you know it.
Here is something for everyone! Glen Greenwald debates Jim Risen on Russiagate. We should have arranged a F-T-F to watch this one.
tjohn said:
Paul is just a pit bull who will fight on to win this pointless argument at any cost.
Here's what's going on:
I don't accept stories from the Intelligence Community and the media unless evidence is provided, regardless of how many others do, and regardless of how many times the stories are repeated.
Mueller Troll Farm Indictment Scam / Part 6:
Media enables hysterial warmongering.
Rep. Nadler says the indictment -- an unproven allegation -- "proves" we were attacked by Russia and that the attack was the equivalent of "Pearl Harbor."
Should Congress declare war on Russia?
Mueller Troll Farm Indictment Scam / Part 7:
Media distortion of indictment:
Ari Melber reports indictment claims Trump campaign communicated with Russians without mentioning that it was "unwitting." Only after 8:17 in the report is this made clear.
Melber's legal ace Nick Akerman reports fiction that Russians sent "a SWAT team" to US "posing as tourists" to "throw the election to Trump." Apart from the "SWAT Team" hyperbole, Akerman failed to realize that the indictment alleged Russians traveled to the US in 2014 before Trump was a candidate.
Paul,
You sell yourself short. You do a lot more than that. You forgot to include all of the far-right commentary you try to push off as proof of something or other - we can never quite figure out what.
paulsurovell said:
tjohn said:
Paul is just a pit bull who will fight on to win this pointless argument at any cost.
Here's what's going on:
I don't accept stories from the Intelligence Community and the media unless evidence is provided, regardless of how many others do, and regardless of how many times the stories are repeated.
What would happen if people just stopped posting on this thread and just let Paul carry on? All that people are doing at this stage (really, the entire thread) is just responding to him.
Paul's MO is that he will only post in "his" thread - he will not post in other threads. In this way he attempts to control the discussion - it's his turf. He won't respond to other threads.
I think we need a new subcategory: Soapbox > All Politics > Zombie threads. After a thread gets to a certain number of pages it goes in there. Would allow people to block those that always seem to rise to the top.
He's obviously accepting stories from SOME of the media (with a big record of deception and biases), which try to provide excuses for Trump without evidence. He accepts intelligence sources like the Nunes claims about the FISA warrant application, which claims had no proof and left out facts.
So he accepts stories which fit a narrative.
drummerboy said:
Paul,
You sell yourself short. You do a lot more than that. You forgot to include all of the far-right commentary you try to push off as proof of something or other - we can never quite figure out what.
paulsurovell said:
tjohn said:
Paul is just a pit bull who will fight on to win this pointless argument at any cost.
Here's what's going on:
I don't accept stories from the Intelligence Community and the media unless evidence is provided, regardless of how many others do, and regardless of how many times the stories are repeated.
I started a new thread: https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/the-mueller-russian-probe-thread
The purpose of this thread is to discuss who colluded more - hence the thread title. So I recommend that discussion related to this occurs here - if you want to discuss info specific to the Mueller thread - please use the new thread.
When people's ideas are derived from unconditional faith and trust in the CIA, FBI and mainstream media, one can understand why they would be willing to condone the following false and outrageous statements promoted by the media, which I cited in my last two posts:
-- Indictments are Proof.
-- Russian Trolls are Equivalent to Pearl Harbor
-- A Russian SWAT team came to America in 2014, posing as tourists, to throw the election to Donald Trump.
jamie said:
I started a new thread: https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/the-mueller-russian-probe-thread
The purpose of this thread is to discuss who colluded more - hence the thread title. So I recommend that discussion related to this occurs here - if you want to discuss info specific to the Mueller thread - please use the new thread.
What is wrong with this thread? Why does it have to be moved somewhere? You don't do that with other people's threads.
nan said:
jamie said:
I started a new thread: https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/the-mueller-russian-probe-thread
The purpose of this thread is to discuss who colluded more - hence the thread title. So I recommend that discussion related to this occurs here - if you want to discuss info specific to the Mueller thread - please use the new thread.
What is wrong with this thread? Why does it have to be moved somewhere? You don't do that with other people's threads.
Didn't he just write what the new thread is for vs this current thread.
Who colluded more - Trump or Hillary? That's what this thread is about. So please continue the discussion about it here.
You sound a bit like Fox News. Start with an assumption and then overflow with outrage. Try moving away from the political fringes.
paulsurovell said:
When people's ideas are derived from unconditional faith and trust in the CIA, FBI and mainstream media, one can understand why they would be willing to condone the following false and outrageous statements promoted by the media, which I cited in my last two posts:
-- Indictments are Proof.
-- Russian Trolls are Equivalent to Pearl Harbor
-- A Russian SWAT team came to America in 2014, posing as tourists, to throw the election to Donald Trump.
I agree that no one should be saying that.
But the fact that some people are freaking out unnecessarily doesn't excuse the interference.