Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:  You really think he said "water is wet"?

Kind of.

 Mr. Ridski - You failed to realize that when Mr. Surovell made the claim, he was talking about how someone else described what Trump said.  It's your fault, obviously, that you didn't know that.  It's what he does.

 Oh, you mean he was doing that BCC thing of only having other people's opinions so he can't be called out on what he says?

Edited to add: Actually he wasn't. He really believes Trump said "water is wet".

DaveSchmidt said:
FWIW, I think an inadvertent redundancy can have that effect. If I say “wettest ... from the standpoint of water,” it sounds like I’m clarifying that wettest means water, and vice versa. 
At least, that’s why I assumed Trump’s remark generated snickering.

 Personally I think he simply forgot the word "volume" at the end of that sentence.

paulsurovell is amplifying Huffington Post's narrative that Trump is an incompetent fool by using it to claim that it said he said "water is wet" when he didn't and neither did the Huffington Post. He's perpetuating the myth, despite how obvious the truth is, and his willingness to continue such facile conversations in spite of being proven incorrect is how the Russians converted so many people with such little money & effort.

ridski said:

Oh, you mean he was doing that BCC thing of only having other people's opinions so he can't be called out on what he says?

 Yes, they do have that in common.  It's sort of a BCC/paulsurovell manner of posting.

ridski said:

Personally I think he simply forgot the word "volume" at the end of that sentence.

 Makes sense.

dave23 said:
I was referring, of course, to the background check by Fusion begun by the GOP. I was not talking a physical manifesto to be handed off secretly in an underground garage by shady figures in overcoats.
Stick to strange claims about water and paranoid ruminations about Mueller creating the Russian indictments from his imagination.

You got caught in a lie.

And Mueller has a track record of deceiving the nation with false narratives:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4719428/mueller-testifies-iraqs-wmds

paulsurovell said:

And Mueller has a track record of deceiving the nation with false narratives:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4719428/mueller-testifies-iraqs-wmds

 You've misused that clip before.  Mueller was testifying about what the FBI was doing to address domestic terrorism.  He had a short statement noting what another witness had testified.  "As Director Tenet has pointed out, Secretary Powell presented evidence last week that Baghdad has failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction, and willfully attempting to evade and deceive the international community."  Mueller was not presenting evidence about Iraq, he was relying on others.

Other than that, what's the basis for suggesting "Mueller was creating the Russian indictments from his imagination"?

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said: And Mueller has a track record of deceiving the nation with false narratives: https://www.c-span about Iraq, he was relying on others. Other than that, what's the basis for suggesting "Mueller was creating the Russian indictments from his imagination"?

He prevaricated on his own behalf, not just in terms of what others said:

https://fas.org/irp/congress/2003_hr/021103mueller.html

Mr. Chairman, although the most serious terrorist threat is from non-state actors, we remain vigilant against the potential threat posed by state sponsors of terrorism. The seven countries designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism—Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, and North Korea—remain active in the US and continue to support terrorist groups that have targeted Americans.

Although Iran remains a significant concern for its continued financial and logistical support of terrorism, Iraq has moved to the top of my list. As we previously briefed this Committee, Iraq's WMD program poses a clear threat to our national security, a threat that will certainly increase in the event of future military action against Iraq. Baghdad has the capability and, we presume, the will to use biological, chemical, or radiological weapons against US domestic targets in the event of a US invasion. We are also concerned about terrorist organizations with direct ties to Iraq—such as the Iranian dissident group, Mujahidin-e Khalq, and the Palestinian Abu Nidal Organization.

-- Groups like the Abu Nidal Organization may target US entities overseas but probably lack the military infrastructure to conduct organized terrorist attacks on US soil. A notable exception is the Mujahedin-e Khalq, which has a US presence and proven operational capability overseas and which cooperates with Baghdad.

-- Secretary Powell presented evidence last week that Baghdad has failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction, willfully attempting to evade and deceive the international community. Our particular concern is that Saddam may supply al-Qaeda with biological, chemical, or radiological material before or during a war with the US to avenge the fall of his regime. Although divergent political goals limit al-Qaeda's cooperation with Iraq, northern Iraq has emerged as an increasingly important operational base for al-Qaeda associates, and a US-Iraq war could prompt Baghdad to more directly engage al-Qaeda.

The quote you posted is @dave23's.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said: And Mueller has a track record of deceiving the nation with false narratives: https://www.c-span about Iraq, he was relying on others. Other than that, what's the basis for suggesting "Mueller was creating the Russian indictments from his imagination"?

He prevaricated on his own behalf, not just in terms of what others said:

https://fas.org/irp/congress/2003_hr/021103mueller.html

Mr. Chairman, although the most serious terrorist threat is from non-state actors, we remain vigilant against the potential threat posed by state sponsors of terrorism. The seven countries designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism—Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, and North Korea—remain active in the US and continue to support terrorist groups that have targeted Americans.

Although Iran remains a significant concern for its continued financial and logistical support of terrorism, Iraq has moved to the top of my list. As we previously briefed this Committee, Iraq's WMD program poses a clear threat to our national security, a threat that will certainly increase in the event of future military action against Iraq. Baghdad has the capability and, we presume, the will to use biological, chemical, or radiological weapons against US domestic targets in the event of a US invasion. We are also concerned about terrorist organizations with direct ties to Iraq—such as the Iranian dissident group, Mujahidin-e Khalq, and the Palestinian Abu Nidal Organization.

-- Groups like the Abu Nidal Organization may target US entities overseas but probably lack the military infrastructure to conduct organized terrorist attacks on US soil. A notable exception is the Mujahedin-e Khalq, which has a US presence and proven operational capability overseas and which cooperates with Baghdad.

-- Secretary Powell presented evidence last week that Baghdad has failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction, willfully attempting to evade and deceive the international community. Our particular concern is that Saddam may supply al-Qaeda with biological, chemical, or radiological material before or during a war with the US to avenge the fall of his regime. Although divergent political goals limit al-Qaeda's cooperation with Iraq, northern Iraq has emerged as an increasingly important operational base for al-Qaeda associates, and a US-Iraq war could prompt Baghdad to more directly engage al-Qaeda.

The quote you posted is @dave23's.

 

 The quote I posted was from the link you posted.  It's what Mueller said in the video at the link you posted.  

Your longer quote says the same thing, with more words.  He's not there to testify about foreign intelligence.  He points to the other witnesses.  He's talking about domestic terrorism concerns in light of what the other witnesses said.  That's pretty obvious.  

But instead of going back and forth on that, you could address the question.  Other than what you say about Mueller's testimony, what's the basis for suggesting Mueller was creating the Russian indictments from his imagination?

ridski said:

paulsurovell is amplifying Huffington Post's narrative that Trump is an incompetent fool by using it to claim that it said he said "water is wet" when he didn't and neither did the Huffington Post. He's perpetuating the myth, despite how obvious the truth is, and his willingness to continue such facile conversations in spite of being proven incorrect is how the Russians converted so many people with such little money & effort.

Here @ridski, do your thing.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
I was referring, of course, to the background check by Fusion begun by the GOP. I was not talking a physical manifesto to be handed off secretly in an underground garage by shady figures in overcoats.
Stick to strange claims about water and paranoid ruminations about Mueller creating the Russian indictments from his imagination.

You got caught in a lie.
And Mueller has a track record of deceiving the nation with false narratives:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4719428/mueller-testifies-iraqs-wmds

Given your struggles with the truth, I'm not surprised by your reading of my post.

Hard to tell from your flaccid response, but I'm guessing you do think Mueller made up the indictments entirely...? Or you just want to hint at some doubt without totally committing...? You've been a bit mealy- mouthed on this topic. Perhaps you can make a clear, declarative statement for a change. 

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
I was referring, of course, to the background check by Fusion begun by the GOP. I was not talking a physical manifesto to be handed off secretly in an underground garage by shady figures in overcoats.
Stick to strange claims about water and paranoid ruminations about Mueller creating the Russian indictments from his imagination.

You got caught in a lie.
And Mueller has a track record of deceiving the nation with false narratives:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4719428/mueller-testifies-iraqs-wmds

Given your struggles with the truth, I'm not surprised by your reading of my post.


Hard to tell from your flaccid response, but I'm guessing you do think Mueller made up the indictments entirely...? Or you just want to hint at some doubt without totally committing...? You've been a bit mealy- mouthed on this topic. Perhaps you can make a clear, declarative statement for a change. 

Mueller lied to the nation and that must be considered when judging his indictments (allegations).  As I've pointed out before, Mueller's obstruction of the Congressional 9/11 investigation must also be considered and equally important, his false indictment of Steven Hatfill in the Anthrax case.

With regard to your sleazy and nasty online persona and your persistent prevarication, the good news is that they are of no consequence for anyone, apart from the occasional sympathy one feels for such a troubled mind. In that spirit, my best wishes for a full and timely recovery.

paulsurovell said:

Mueller lied to the nation and that must be considered when judging his indictments (allegations).  As I've pointed out before, Mueller's obstruction of the Congressional 9/11 investigation must also be considered and equally important, his false indictment of Steven Hatfill in the Anthrax case.

Mueller wasn't in foreign intelligence.  Mueller didn't obstruct the 9/11 investigation - I'm pretty sure the tortured argument for that claim was taken apart the first time you made it.  Bungling the anthrax investigation doesn't say anything about whether he would invent indictments.  You're also magnifying a handful of (dubious) claims against the man's entire career.

If you want to play the "Who Do You Trust" game to evaluate Mueller's work vs. Trump's claims, you could lose that one.

paulsurovell said:

With regard to your sleazy and nasty online persona and your persistent prevarication, the good news is that they are of no consequence for anyone, apart from the occasional sympathy one feels for such a troubled mind.

They’re of no consquence to me because I don’t see them. Then again, could be that dave23 has disguised himself as a forest.

paulsurovell said:

Mueller lied to the nation and that must be considered when judging his indictments (allegations).  As I've pointed out before, Mueller's obstruction of the Congressional 9/11 investigation must also be considered and equally important, his false indictment of Steven Hatfill in the Anthrax case.

I don't disagree with that. I don't take his every word as gospel. But as I've said ad infinitum, I've yet to see a plausible alternative theory the one that the Russians are responsible for the hacks and the attempts to deviously influence political campaigns across the world, including the 2016 presidential election. Numerous people in Trump's orbit had highly unusual meetings with Russian leaders then lied about it. That doesn't prove collusion or crime, but it sure is damned suspicious. Why not try to get to the bottom of it? Crying "Cold War II" is fallacious and merely a weak attempt to distract.

You drop a few tiny doubtlets then act as if you've proven something. 

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

Mueller lied to the nation and that must be considered when judging his indictments (allegations).  As I've pointed out before, Mueller's obstruction of the Congressional 9/11 investigation must also be considered and equally important, his false indictment of Steven Hatfill in the Anthrax case.

I don't disagree with that. I don't take his every word as gospel. But as I've said ad infinitum, I've yet to see a plausible alternative theory the one that the Russians are responsible for the hacks and the attempts to deviously influence political campaigns across the world, including the 2016 presidential election. Numerous people in Trump's orbit had highly unusual meetings with Russian leaders then lied about it. That doesn't prove collusion or crime, but it sure is damned suspicious. Why not try to get to the bottom of it? Crying "Cold War II" is fallacious and merely a weak attempt to distract.
You drop a few tiny doubtlets then act as if you've proven something. 
 

I've cited alternative theories which I find more plausible than the official theory, but I've never claimed to have "proven" them.

paulsurovell said:
I've cited alternative theories which I find more plausible than the official theory, but I've never claimed to have "proven" them.

 It's a lot more than that. You support the claims and the authors pushing them. 

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
I've cited alternative theories which I find more plausible than the official theory, but I've never claimed to have "proven" them.

 It's a lot more than that. You support the claims and the authors pushing them. 

Yes, people generally support claims that support their positions.

Regarding the question of who is claiming that their position is "proven," it's the supporters of the  official narrative -- that Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta --  who claim that their position is "proven" -- whereas in fact it's an unproven allegation.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
I've cited alternative theories which I find more plausible than the official theory, but I've never claimed to have "proven" them.

 It's a lot more than that. You support the claims and the authors pushing them. 

Yes, people generally support claims that support their positions.
Regarding the question of who is claiming that their position is "proven," it's the supporters of the  official narrative -- that Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta --  who claim that their position is "proven" -- whereas in fact it's an unproven allegation.

 Or in other words - Yes, you're doing more than merely "citing alternative theories". 

paulsurovell said:
I've cited alternative theories which I find more plausible than the official theory, but I've never claimed to have "proven" them.

  

 You've cited alternative theories to Podesta's hack, the Facebook groups, the tweets, and the similar happenings across the world?

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:
I've cited alternative theories which I find more plausible than the official theory, but I've never claimed to have "proven" them.

  

 You've cited alternative theories to Podesta's hack, the Facebook groups, the tweets, and the similar happenings across the world?

 In some instances alternative theories, in some instances evidence that debunks the allegations. It's all on the tread for anyone who wants to see.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

 You've cited alternative theories to Podesta's hack, the Facebook groups, the tweets, and the similar happenings across the world?

 In some instances alternative theories, in some instances evidence that debunks the allegations. It's all on the tread for anyone who wants to see.

 You just have to dig through all the manure.  There's a pony in there somewhere.

paulsurovell said:

 In some instances alternative theories, in some instances evidence that debunks the allegations. It's all on the tread for anyone who wants to see.

Do point me to the evidence--not alternative theories--that debunks the allegations of the Russian Facebook groups and Twitter accounts designed to influence elections across the globe.

ETA: In your own, concise words, please.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

 In some instances alternative theories, in some instances evidence that debunks the allegations. It's all on the tread for anyone who wants to see.

Do point me to the evidence--not alternative theories--that debunks the allegations of the Russian Facebook groups and Twitter accounts designed to influence elections across the globe.

 Paul has pointed in the past to what a source in Jane Mayer’s latest New Yorker article acknowledges was “the relatively small number of obvious propaganda messages, such as paid Facebook ads.”

Mayer continues, however:

Far more important, in the 2016 campaign, was “organic content”: the countless messages, created by masked Russian social-media accounts, that were spread by algorithms, bots, and unwitting American users. The reach of such content, he told me, “turned out to be huge.” Of the four hundred and seventy Facebook accounts known to have been created by Russian saboteurs during the campaign, a mere six of them generated content that was shared at least three hundred and forty million times. The Facebook page for a fake group, Blacktivist, which stoked racial tensions by posting militant slogans and stomach-churning videos of police violence against African-Americans, garnered more hits than the Facebook page for Black Lives Matter.

How Russia Helped Swing the Election for Trump

Yes, it's the "organic" content like Blacktivist that was particularly insidious.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

 In some instances alternative theories, in some instances evidence that debunks the allegations. It's all on the tread for anyone who wants to see.

Do point me to the evidence--not alternative theories--that debunks the allegations of the Russian Facebook groups and Twitter accounts designed to influence elections across the globe.
ETA: In your own, concise words, please.

 Do a search in my comments.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
Do point me to the evidence--not alternative theories--that debunks the allegations of the Russian Facebook groups and Twitter accounts designed to influence elections across the globe.
ETA: In your own, concise words, please.

 Do a search in my comments.

Re fb and twitter: You shift from a it-didn't-happen stance to a it-didn't-work stance. 

DaveSchmidt said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

 In some instances alternative theories, in some instances evidence that debunks the allegations. It's all on the tread for anyone who wants to see.

Do point me to the evidence--not alternative theories--that debunks the allegations of the Russian Facebook groups and Twitter accounts designed to influence elections across the globe.

 Paul has pointed in the past to what a source in Jane Mayer’s latest New Yorker article acknowledges was “the relatively small number of obvious propaganda messages, such as paid Facebook ads.”
Mayer continues, however:

Far more important, in the 2016 campaign, was “organic content”: the countless messages, created by masked Russian social-media accounts, that were spread by algorithms, bots, and unwitting American users. The reach of such content, he told me, “turned out to be huge.” Of the four hundred and seventy Facebook accounts known to have been created by Russian saboteurs during the campaign, a mere six of them generated content that was shared at least three hundred and forty million times. The Facebook page for a fake group, Blacktivist, which stoked racial tensions by posting militant slogans and stomach-churning videos of police violence against African-Americans, garnered more hits than the Facebook page for Black Lives Matter.

How Russia Helped Swing the Election for Trump

Good example of the claim it's "proven" that leaked emails and incendiary facebook ads were "hacked" and "bought" at the direction of the Russian government.

Perhaps I missed it, but does the article say that Kathleen Jamieson or Jane Meyer interviewed (better yet surveyed) any black voters who stayed home or switched their votes to Stein/Johnson/Trump because of what they saw on the "Blacktivist" or "Black Lives Matter" Facebook pages?

Or did they interview/survey any white Michigan/PA/WI voters who voted for Trump because of what they saw on those pages?

You misunderstand the purpose of efforts like Blacktivist. They were intended to scare white people.

dave23 said:
You misunderstand the purpose of efforts like Blacktivist. They were intended to scare white people.

 Also, to influence voters without their being able to remember a specific page or ad that did the trick.

Worth watching. The CTO of Cambridge Analytica and former CTO of the RNC is interviewed about using technology and social media during the Trump campaign to amplify Trump's message using things like Facebook bots.