Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:I’m not sure we give a ****, TBH.
nohero said:Is that why @South_Mountaineer has attacked me on Twitter more than 80 times?
DaveSchmidt said:Maintaining a now 3000+ post "Hillary Colluded More!" thread for over a year seems like an awful lot of chain-yanking by Mr. Surovell.
Why does anyone yank someone else’s chain?
"Attacked" or "disagreed"? Some people confuse the two.
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:Here's a document that reads like the Steele dossier. It was produced by the FBI. Do you think it's true? Why bring this up? Because I think it's important to understand that intelligence agents -- British, American or Russian -- are skilled in disinformation. That's what the FBI did with King, that's what Steele did with Trump.
I would feel better if Cohen could offer proof of where he was during that Italy trip - seems like that would be much better proof then his passport. Photos - receipts - what hotel he stayed at, etc. Maybe this has been provided - I haven't looked for it yet.
Unless you've got evidence that what Steele wrote is true.
I'm curious about the thought process where, in order to respond to Mr. J. Ross (commenting on how it would be good to have more evidence about Cohen's whereabouts if he denies being in Prague), one goes to "Trump is getting treated like MLK". To paraphrase the late Senator Bentsen, Trump's no MLK. More important, the "whatabout" has nothing to do with a simple investigation of where someone was at a particular time.
Mr. J. Ross isn't going to have evidence about the truth of the allegation that Steele heard about. That's why the U.S. government has investigators, to look into allegations like that.
paulsurovell said:
One thing to consider is a statement against interest. Lanny Davis, who is tied to the hip with Hillary Clinton and who's a supporter of Russiagate, denied that Cohen was ever in Prague and then went beyond the call of duty to point out that the false accusation that he was in Prague came from the Steele dossier (that was paid for by Hillary).
That's not how "statement against interest" works. Lanny Davis isn't a witness, he's Cohen's attorney. Presumable, whatever he is saying is supposed to be Cohen's story. Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with it.
nan said:
Not normal to follow someone from your community around on Twitter and make that many negative comments. That sounds like stalking and creepy.
Also not normal to tell a former Ambassador "Don't listen to him" and then to "inform" the Ambassador that "He rants like that on our local message board all the time. He's been fairly well refuted there, so I guess that's why he's come to twitter to repeat the same stuff."
Not normal at all.
Interesting that @nohero seems to be familiar with @South_Mountaineer's 80-plus attacks on my Tweets. And especially interesting that @nohero defends the attacks as "disagreements."
Not normal that he's taken to defending @South_Mountaineer on this. Perhaps he has a personal stake.
paulsurovell said:
nan said:Also not normal to tell a former Ambassador "Don't listen to him" and then to "inform" the Ambassador that "He rants like that on our local message board all the time. He's been fairly well refuted there, so I guess that's why he's come to twitter to repeat the same stuff."
Not normal to follow someone from your community around on Twitter and make that many negative comments. That sounds like stalking and creepy.
Not normal at all.
Interesting that @nohero seems to be familiar with @South_Mountaineer's 80-plus attacks on my Tweets. And especially interesting that @nohero defends the attacks as "disagreements."
Not normal that he's taken to defending @South_Mountaineer on this. Perhaps he has a personal stake.
Looks like the dots connect. Really awful that someone would attack you on twitter like that, where you can not defend yourself. It's a very public space, unlike MOL, which is just your local community. Trolling like that is wrong everywhere, but especially on Twitter, where no one will fact chect MOL.
This is basically character assasination and serious. Everyone has a right to be left alone to make comments on twitter without personal attacks. No one would want this done to them. I hope the person who does this will realize they have crossed the line and will stop.
nan said:
paulsurovell said:Looks like the dots connect. Really awful that someone would attack you on twitter like that, where you can not defend yourself. It's a very public space, unlike MOL, which is just your local community. Trolling like that is wrong everywhere, but especially on Twitter, where no one will fact chect MOL.
nan said:Also not normal to tell a former Ambassador "Don't listen to him" and then to "inform" the Ambassador that "He rants like that on our local message board all the time. He's been fairly well refuted there, so I guess that's why he's come to twitter to repeat the same stuff."
Not normal to follow someone from your community around on Twitter and make that many negative comments. That sounds like stalking and creepy.
Not normal at all.
Interesting that @nohero seems to be familiar with @South_Mountaineer's 80-plus attacks on my Tweets. And especially interesting that @nohero defends the attacks as "disagreements."
Not normal that he's taken to defending @South_Mountaineer on this. Perhaps he has a personal stake.
This is basically character assasination and serious. Everyone has a right to be left alone to make comments on twitter without personal attacks. No one would want this done to them. I hope the person who does this will realize they have crossed the line and will stop.
OMG...Another conspiracy theory...when will it ever end?
nan said:
Not normal to follow someone from your community around on Twitter and make that many negative comments. That sounds like stalking and creepy.
Every person who posts on "Twitter" has a button next to their name that says "Follow". If you are on Twitter, and want to have that person show up on your screen when they "tweet", you click the "Follow" button, and then you are "Following" them. That's how Twitter works.
So it's normal to follow someone from your community.
You probably shouldn't have relied on paulsurovell's description, but since you did I have to go through a brief summary. Which shouldn't be necessary on a community message board, but there it is.
Joined Twitter - November 2011, as indicated on Twitter profile. https://twitter.com/SMountaineer?lang=en
If you join, you can then make a list of people to read, and read them, and then reply with a comment if you feel like it. That's how Twitter works.
Didn't Tweet until August 13, 2013. Kept getting messages from Twitter along the lines of "You haven't tweeted yet". So I did: "Oh, I started this a while ago, in order to read "tweets". But the tweet thing keeps asking me to tweet, so this is my tweet." https://twitter.com/SMountaineer/status/368081827061198848?s=20
On MOL for years, too, for same reason - it's easier to read and go back to where you left off. First comment on April 7, 2015 asking a question on an Education thread (Education is a "gateway drug" for MOL, I think). https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/john-ramos-ex-super-of-bridgeport-ct-choosen-as-new-super?page=next&limit=300#discussion-replies-2971142
First "All Politics" comment after the election ("Rose Garden" thread, which may be the "gateway drug" for "All Politics").
I was engaged in this "Hillary Colluded" thread until the temporary time-out from Feb 28 – July 12
I eventually noticed that paulsurovell was continuing on Twitter, even though he had "retired" from MOL for the most part. This past May 15, I commented on one of his "tweets", where he made a statement about lack of press coverage and I "tweeted" a picture of that day's New York Times, showing coverage.
https://twitter.com/SMountaineer/status/996374930156597249?s=20
And then we had a back-and-forth conversation via Twitter. I assume my replies to his comments directed to me are part of the "80" tweets he counted. (Post edited to add - And they're "disagreements", by the way)
Like I said, it shouldn't be necessary to go through this, especially since every citation above is publicly-available. But, I think the wrong impression was created by paulsurovell's comment about my tweets (as shown by nan's reaction).
I hope this isn't necessary for me or anyone else in the future.
And speaking of negative comments -
paulsurovell said:
Speaking of "adults out there," I thought people might get a kick out of this. South_Mountaineer has attacked me on Twitter more than 80 times, but this is a little different, playing the role of "informant."
This comment has a picture (but not a link) to something I wrote in response to paulsurovell on Twitter. Again, it shouldn't be necessary to have to post something like this, but when something I wrote is taken out of context in order to attack me, this is the only way to respond I can think of. So follow along (there are links in my version) if you want to, or scroll past, either is fine with me.
On September 11, former Ambassador Michael McFaul (the guy Trump talked about letting Putin's people question) commented on a Trump tweet about collusion, attacking Hillary Clinton and the FBI, etc. (the usual garbage from Trump). Ambassador McFaul responded:
Mr. President, please present evidence "showing collusion between the FBI & DOJ, the Hillary campaign, foreign spies & Russians..." Otherwise, for just one day, stop spreading disinformation about people serving out country at FBI & DOJ & allow Americans to unite. Just one day.
https://twitter.com/McFaul/status/1039545241408167938
The Ambassador received 9,411 "likes", 3,230 "retweets", and 940 comments, not counting replies to comments. One of those commenters was paulsurovell, who wrote this:
The Steele dossier, paid for by Hillary for America and the DNC, was created by a former British spy who colluded with Russian government officials who provided the "dirt" on Trump to Steele. The FBI and Ohr of the DOJ consulted w Steele during the dossier's creation and the DOJ used the dossier in the FISA court to obtain a surveillance warrant on Trump campaign official Carter Page. Steele visited the State Department in October 2016 and briefed officials.
https://twitter.com/paulsurovell/status/1039588792942977025
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Sounds like what's been posted here, and reacted to and criticized and refuted, etc. I responded to paulsurovell along those lines (when you reply to someone else's reply on Twitter, the reply goes both to that person, and to the person they first replied to). Instead of just a reply, I worded the comment the way I did. It was a reply to paulsurovell, of course, and his whole "phony outrage" thing posted here is a bit much.
nan said:
paulsurovell said:Wow, that is LOW, and untrue. I will have to try to find that in Twitter and respond. McFaul, by the way, almost certainly knows Bill Browder is a fake but plays along. I get the impression he often says things to suit his purpose and to shape the view. He needs to be called out.
Speaking of "adults out there," I thought people might get a kick out of this. South_Mountaineer has attacked me on Twitter more than 80 times, but this is a little different, playing the role of "informant."
Ambassador McFaul's comment had nothing to do with Browder. He was responding to Trump, who took time out from Sept. 11 observances to rant about what he rants about all the time. See my prior post.
paulsurovell said:
Interesting that @nohero seems to be familiar with @South_Mountaineer's 80-plus attacks on my Tweets. And especially interesting that @nohero defends the attacks as "disagreements."
Not normal that he's taken to defending @South_Mountaineer on this. Perhaps he has a personal stake.
There were two reasons I was familiar with the Twitter replies: (1) I follow you, too. (2) This wasn’t the first time you’ve brought them up on MOL.
The reasons I can’t blame South_Mountaineer in this kerfuffle are harder for me to enumerate. I checked, though, and a personal stake doesn’t appear to be among them.
South_Mountaineer said:
And speaking of negative comments -
paulsurovell said:This comment has a picture (but not a link) to something I wrote in response to paulsurovell on Twitter. Again, it shouldn't be necessary to have to post something like this, but when something I wrote is taken out of context in order to attack me, this is the only way to respond I can think of. So follow along (there are links in my version) if you want to, or scroll past, either is fine with me.
Speaking of "adults out there," I thought people might get a kick out of this. South_Mountaineer has attacked me on Twitter more than 80 times, but this is a little different, playing the role of "informant."
On September 11, former Ambassador Michael McFaul (the guy Trump talked about letting Putin's people question) commented on a Trump tweet about collusion, attacking Hillary Clinton and the FBI, etc. (the usual garbage from Trump). Ambassador McFaul responded:
Mr. President, please present evidence "showing collusion between the FBI & DOJ, the Hillary campaign, foreign spies & Russians..." Otherwise, for just one day, stop spreading disinformation about people serving out country at FBI & DOJ & allow Americans to unite. Just one day.https://twitter.com/McFaul/status/1039545241408167938
The Ambassador received 9,411 "likes", 3,230 "retweets", and 940 comments, not counting replies to comments. One of those commenters was paulsurovell, who wrote this:
The Steele dossier, paid for by Hillary for America and the DNC, was created by a former British spy who colluded with Russian government officials who provided the "dirt" on Trump to Steele. The FBI and Ohr of the DOJ consulted w Steele during the dossier's creation and the DOJ used the dossier in the FISA court to obtain a surveillance warrant on Trump campaign official Carter Page. Steele visited the State Department in October 2016 and briefed officials.https://twitter.com/paulsurovell/status/1039588792942977025
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Sounds like what's been posted here, and reacted to and criticized and refuted, etc. I responded to paulsurovell along those lines (when you reply to someone else's reply on Twitter, the reply goes both to that person, and to the person they first replied to). Instead of just a reply, I worded the comment the way I did. It was a reply to paulsurovell, of course, and his whole "phony outrage" thing posted here is a bit much.
Did the ambassador respond to your tweet to him?
sbenois said:
Did the ambassador respond to your tweet to him?
No, there was no response on Twitter.
Post edited to add - He didn't acknowledge paulsurovell, either. Thank goodness I was there.
South_Mountaineer said:
sbenois said:No, there was no response on Twitter.
Did the ambassador respond to your tweet to him?
So what is the big kerfuffle about? You used Twitter appropriately and the Ambassador moved on.
Seems like we should all just get ready for the next rodeo.
Hi Ho Silver!
sbenois said:
So.what is the big kerfuffle about? You used Twitter appropriately and the Ambassador moved on.
Seems like we should all just get ready for the next rodeo.
Hi Ho Silver!
Yeah, I know, right? Unfortunately, it takes a little time and effort to correct a false claim like that.
South_Mountaineer said:
sbenois said:Yeah, I know, right? Unfortunately, it takes a little time and effort to correct a false claim like that.
So.what is the big kerfuffle about? You used Twitter appropriately and the Ambassador moved on.
Seems like we should all just get ready for the next rodeo.
Hi Ho Silver!
Remind us again, what is the alleged "false claim" that you and @nohero are so defensive about?
South_Mountaineer said:
sbenois said:. . . Thank goodness I was there.
Did the ambassador respond to your tweet to him?
^
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:There were two reasons I was familiar with the Twitter replies: (1) I follow you, too. (2) This wasn’t the first time you’ve brought them up on MOL.
Interesting that @nohero seems to be familiar with @South_Mountaineer's 80-plus attacks on my Tweets. And especially interesting that @nohero defends the attacks as "disagreements."
Not normal that he's taken to defending @South_Mountaineer on this. Perhaps he has a personal stake.
The reasons I can’t blame South_Mountaineer in this kerfuffle are harder for me to enumerate. I checked, though, and a personal stake doesn’t appear to be among them.
I don't blame him either. Nor does he "get under my skin." I'm just calling attention to his odd behavior, especially his reference to MOL to Amb McFaul.
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:The DNC picked it up after it was initiated by conservative groups, as has been pointed out innumerable times to you. Carry on.
dave23 said:OK, I'll bite -- who paid for it?
paulsurovell said:I think this is my favorite lie of yours.
... the Steele dossier (that was paid for by Hillary).
So Dave, you've had more than a day to try to salvage this falsehood. How much more research/word-parsing time do you need to show some intellectual integrity and retract it?
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:I don't blame him either. Nor does he "get under my skin." I'm just calling attention to his odd behavior, especially his reference to MOL to Amb McFaul.
paulsurovell said:There were two reasons I was familiar with the Twitter replies: (1) I follow you, too. (2) This wasn’t the first time you’ve brought them up on MOL.
Interesting that @nohero seems to be familiar with @South_Mountaineer's 80-plus attacks on my Tweets. And especially interesting that @nohero defends the attacks as "disagreements."
Not normal that he's taken to defending @South_Mountaineer on this. Perhaps he has a personal stake.
The reasons I can’t blame South_Mountaineer in this kerfuffle are harder for me to enumerate. I checked, though, and a personal stake doesn’t appear to be among them.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:Remind us again, what is the alleged "false claim" that you and @nohero are so defensive about?
sbenois said:Yeah, I know, right? Unfortunately, it takes a little time and effort to correct a false claim like that.
So.what is the big kerfuffle about? You used Twitter appropriately and the Ambassador moved on.
Seems like we should all just get ready for the next rodeo.
Hi Ho Silver!
Since I was @'d here, I have a response. I could be wrong, but it's not my impression that Messrs. Sbenois and DaveSchmidt are accepting of your claim that you were "attacked". And my own question, " 'Attacked' or 'disagreed'?" has been answered, as well.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:I don't blame him either. Nor does he "get under my skin." I'm just calling attention to his odd behavior, especially his reference to MOL to Amb McFaul.
paulsurovell said:There were two reasons I was familiar with the Twitter replies: (1) I follow you, too. (2) This wasn’t the first time you’ve brought them up on MOL.
Interesting that @nohero seems to be familiar with @South_Mountaineer's 80-plus attacks on my Tweets. And especially interesting that @nohero defends the attacks as "disagreements."
Not normal that he's taken to defending @South_Mountaineer on this. Perhaps he has a personal stake.
The reasons I can’t blame South_Mountaineer in this kerfuffle are harder for me to enumerate. I checked, though, and a personal stake doesn’t appear to be among them.
paulsurovell said:Since I was @'d here, I have a response. I could be wrong, but it's not my impression that Messrs. Sbenois and DaveSchmidt are accepting of your claim that you were "attacked". And my own question, " 'Attacked' or 'disagreed'?" has been answered, as well.
South_Mountaineer said:Remind us again, what is the alleged "false claim" that you and @nohero are so defensive about?
sbenois said:Yeah, I know, right? Unfortunately, it takes a little time and effort to correct a false claim like that.
So.what is the big kerfuffle about? You used Twitter appropriately and the Ambassador moved on.
Seems like we should all just get ready for the next rodeo.
Hi Ho Silver!
Something making you soooo defensive of "@South_Mountaineer's" tweets.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Something making you soooo defensive of "@South_Mountaineer's" tweets.
Since I was @'d here, I have a response. I could be wrong, but it's not my impression that Messrs. Sbenois and DaveSchmidt are accepting of your claim that you were "attacked". And my own question, " 'Attacked' or 'disagreed'?" has been answered, as well.
As you may have discerned, I do tend to disagree with the bull caca you put out, and often respond with reference to actual facts. I had to do so the other day with your false accusation that I held a viewpoint which I don't actually hold, but you claimed otherwise based on your faulty, incomplete description. So it's not a leap to not accept your other claims at face value.
No surprise, the trolls defend the troll.
Don't think we need detailed explanations, extensive research or charts and graphs. You don't go on twitter and tell an ambassador that the person that just commented to them is full of crap on their local message board. That is despicable behavior and needs to be called out.
nan said:
No surprise, the trolls defend the troll.
Don't think we need detailed explanations, extensive research or charts and graphs. You don't go on twitter and tell an ambassador that the person that just commented to them is full of crap on their local message board. That is despicable behavior and needs to be called out.
Nan suddenly supports censorship
sbenois said:
nan said:Nan suddenly supports censorship
No surprise, the trolls defend the troll.
Don't think we need detailed explanations, extensive research or charts and graphs. You don't go on twitter and tell an ambassador that the person that just commented to them is full of crap on their local message board. That is despicable behavior and needs to be called out.
And she suddenly doesn't need detailed explanations. Go figure.
sbenois said:
nan said:Nan suddenly supports censorship
No surprise, the trolls defend the troll.
Don't think we need detailed explanations, extensive research or charts and graphs. You don't go on twitter and tell an ambassador that the person that just commented to them is full of crap on their local message board. That is despicable behavior and needs to be called out.
I'm not calling for censorship. I'm calling for decency and respect. Ever heard of those?
Dennis_Seelbach said:
sbenois said:And she suddenly doesn't need detailed explanations. Go figure.
nan said:Nan suddenly supports censorship
No surprise, the trolls defend the troll.
Don't think we need detailed explanations, extensive research or charts and graphs. You don't go on twitter and tell an ambassador that the person that just commented to them is full of crap on their local message board. That is despicable behavior and needs to be called out.
Right, see above.
sbenois said:
nan said:Remember this the next time you accuse someone of personally attacking you
nohero said:Not surprised you can't figure this out by yourself.
nohero said:
I'm waiting for "plaid shirt guy" to be linked to Christopher Steele, Glenn Simpson, Bruce McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Bruce Ohr (and, of course, the Russian oligarchs that Bill Browder is working with), as part of the grand conspiracy against Trump.
nan said:Which of the others does he have "nothing to do with", or can't you say?
Plaid shirt guy is a social democrat and has nothing to do with Bill Browder.
[Edited to add] I understand completely if you can only speak to the Bill Browder conspiracies, and are leaving the conspiracies involving the others for Mr. Surovell to update us on. There are just too many conspiracies for only one person to be responsible for here on MOL.
Decency and respect.
sbenois said:
sbenois said:Decency and respect.
nan said:Remember this the next time you accuse someone of personally attacking you
nohero said:Not surprised you can't figure this out by yourself.
nohero said:
I'm waiting for "plaid shirt guy" to be linked to Christopher Steele, Glenn Simpson, Bruce McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Bruce Ohr (and, of course, the Russian oligarchs that Bill Browder is working with), as part of the grand conspiracy against Trump.
nan said:Which of the others does he have "nothing to do with", or can't you say?
Plaid shirt guy is a social democrat and has nothing to do with Bill Browder.
[Edited to add] I understand completely if you can only speak to the Bill Browder conspiracies, and are leaving the conspiracies involving the others for Mr. Surovell to update us on. There are just too many conspiracies for only one person to be responsible for here on MOL.
Ok, you can type. I will grant you that.
For Sale
-
Coffee mugs $1.50
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Not normal to follow someone from your community around on Twitter and make that many negative comments. That sounds like stalking and creepy.