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

South_Mountaineer said:
Ken Starr is not in the "wait and see" camp. 
He is correct ONLY IF we assume that there is nothing Mueller knows that we don't know. 

The president’s tweet may or may not be an accurate reflection of anything Starr said. I’m trying to find the source of the quotes and have come up empty; previously when Starr said something like this, he’d qualify it with a statement along the lines of “as far as we know” or “according to what’s been made public.”

DaveSchmidt said:

South_Mountaineer said:
Ken Starr is not in the "wait and see" camp. 
He is correct ONLY IF we assume that there is nothing Mueller knows that we don't know. 

The president’s tweet may or may not be an accurate reflection of anything Starr said. 

 Hope you're not suggesting Trump wasn't entirely forthcoming in this Russia-related tweet. 

But you're right, take a "wait and see" view on what Starr really says and thinks. 

BBC takes the lead in the media competition to demonize Putin

Humor has always been used as a weapon. (The headline’s use of “turned” obscures this, implying that humor is being turned into something it wasn’t.) The BBC article is saying: This is how it’s done in Putin’s Russia. 

I thought it was an interesting, if not terribly deep, take on the topic, just as I imagine a Russian might be interested in a brief article headlined “How Trump Turned Twitter to His Advantage.” Thanks for sharing it.

paulsurovell said:
BBC takes the lead in the media competition to demonize Putin

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-46567364

In today's Russia, where the media is largely controlled by the Kremlin and its allies, there is little room for genuine political humour unless it is used to deflect the blame from the government.
...

When Vladimir Putin came to power in 2000, one of the first casualties was popular TV satirical show Kukly (Puppets), which had repeatedly had a go at the new president.

TV is the main source of information for most Russians and humour was gradually replaced with apolitical or sanitised jokes that carefully avoid criticising Mr Putin or his inner circle.

Most comedy programmes on Russian state television these days are anodyne affairs which either do not touch on political topics, or direct humour at the Kremlin's perceived enemies abroad.

The Trumpists are jealous that they can't do the same thing to "SNL". 

Paul was bent out of shape when the guardian story was retweeted 2,400 times.  But when it comes to Russian social media interference - we'll hear crickets - or "it's ok, we do that same"

Together, the 20 most popular pages generated 39 million likes, 31 million shares, 5.4 million reactions and 3.4 million comments. Company officials told Congress that the Russian campaign reached 126 million people on Facebook and 20 million more on Instagram.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/16/new-report-russian-disinformation-prepared-senate-shows-operations-scale-sweep/?utm_term=.51cc4416b7ee

Has Paul ever said Russia was in the wrong on anything?  Or acknowledged that they favored Trump?

Paul - would it be collusion if Kushner and/or Bannon told Russia where to target their social media campaigns?

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:

Perhaps since you tend to lean towards Putin's version of things - you can stand behind his explanation:
http://time.com/5194830/vladimir-putin-jews-tatars-ukrainians-u-s-election-interference/

 Here's the explanation for your explanation:
https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/why-jews-in-russia-don-t-think-putin-s-comments-are-anti-semitic-1.5896535

 I didn't say Putin's comments were anti-Semitic - I was mainly asking if you agree with Vlad in regards to the indicted Russian nationals: "may not even be Russian nationals, but minorities like Jews and Tatars with dual citizenship."

Do you really think Vlad can't find out this information himself?

DaveSchmidt said:
Humor has always been used as a weapon. (The headline’s use of “turned” obscures this, implying that humor is being turned into something it wasn’t.) The BBC article is saying: This is how it’s done in Putin’s Russia. 
I thought it was an interesting, if not terribly deep, take on the topic, just as I imagine a Russian might be interested in a brief article headlined “How Trump Turned Twitter to His Advantage.” Thanks for sharing it.

 As I wrote, I see the article as just another missive in the campaign to demonize Putin -- "look he's even subverting laughter in Russia."

Why else would the author include this:

Ben Nimmo, an Atlantic Council researcher on Russian disinformation, told the BBC that attempts to create funny memes were part of the strategy as "disinformation for the information age".

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:

Perhaps since you tend to lean towards Putin's version of things - you can stand behind his explanation:
http://time.com/5194830/vladimir-putin-jews-tatars-ukrainians-u-s-election-interference/

 Here's the explanation for your explanation:
https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/why-jews-in-russia-don-t-think-putin-s-comments-are-anti-semitic-1.5896535

 I didn't say Putin's comments were anti-Semitic - I was mainly asking if you agree with Vlad in regards to the indicted Russian nationals: "may not even be Russian nationals, but minorities like Jews and Tatars with dual citizenship."
Do you really think Vlad can't find out this information himself?

 If you look at the interview his point is that those charged were not working for the Russian government so he doesn't care whether they were "Russians" or not.  The Haaretz article explains the distinction between ethnic Russians and Russian citizens which he appears to be referencing.

jamie said:
Paul was bent out of shape when the guardian story was retweeted 2,400 times.  But when it comes to Russian social media interference - we'll hear crickets - or "it's ok, we do that same"

Together, the 20 most popular pages generated 39 million likes, 31 million shares, 5.4 million reactions and 3.4 million comments. Company officials told Congress that the Russian campaign reached 126 million people on Facebook and 20 million more on Instagram.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/16/new-report-russian-disinformation-prepared-senate-shows-operations-scale-sweep/?utm_term=.51cc4416b7ee

The Guardian story is an exemplar of US media coverage of Russiagate. That's why it's important. It's an absurd story treated seriously by mainstream media and as I showed last night, by leaders of the Democratic Party.

It is also absurd to blame (a) the outcome of the 2016 election and/or (b) the political divisions in the US on Facebook ads by Russian trolls.

Here are a couple of references:

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/10/10/the-shaky-case-that-russia-manipulated-social-media-to-tip-the-2016-election/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/20/new_yorkers_adrian_chen_russia_social_media_marketing_bot_campaign_wasnt_effective.html

jamie said:

Has Paul ever said Russia was in the wrong on anything?  Or acknowledged that they favored Trump?

 Russia was wrong to annex Crimea and Russia is wrong to promote the oil and gas industry rather than clean energy. Russia's political system is corrupt, dominated by Oligarchs, devoid of any vision of the future.

Putin said in Helsinki that he favored Trump.

The above does not imply that Russia interfered in the 2016 election or that it colluded with the Trump campaign. Those are bogus allegations.

Nor does it mean that Russia is our enemy -- it's not -- and that we don't have mutual interests that should be the basis of our relationship -- we do.

jamie said:

Paul - would it be collusion if Kushner and/or Bannon told Russia where to target their social media campaigns?

 What gave you the idea to think up this hypothetical?

But the answer to that hypothetical, which depends on several layers of hypotheticals is Yes.

paulsurovell said:

It is also absurd to blame (a) the outcome of the 2016 election and/or (b) the political divisions in the US on Facebook ads by Russian trolls.

If we put blame aside, and if we acknowledge America’s own record in this department, it’s not crazy to still want to get to the bottom of any foreign attempts to exploit those divisions to influence the outcome, and then try to prevent a recurrence. 

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

It is also absurd to blame (a) the outcome of the 2016 election and/or (b) the political divisions in the US on Facebook ads by Russian trolls.

If we put blame aside, and if we acknowledge America’s own record in this department, it’s not crazy to still want to get to the bottom of any foreign attempts to exploit those divisions to influence the outcome, and then try to prevent a recurrence. 

 Exactly.  We'll never be certain how much of an effect those intentional actions by Russia had on the outcome (including voter suppression) and ongoing political divisions.  But their existence requires a response.

If some guy was in the middle of South Orange with a neo-Nazi table and literature, I don't think even @paulsurovell would say, "Leave him alone, he's not going to have much of an impact".  

paulsurovell said:
BBC takes the lead in the media competition to demonize Putin

 Yeah, he's such a good guy that it's simply not fair to discuss anything negative about him.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:
BBC takes the lead in the media competition to demonize Putin

 Yeah, he's such a good guy that it's simply not fair to discuss anything negative about the boss.

 Fixed that for you.

So - was Putin in the know of the social media blitz?  Yes or no?

Does Trump getting elected and blowing up our democracy favor Russia?  Yes or no?

Based on the FB algorithm, this campaign would of had a significant impact.  Russia knew exactly what they were doing - and they did it well.

I would say this thread title falls in line with the Russian operation as well, demeaning Hillary over Trump was their #1 mission.  Even though it doesn't directly demean her, equating her with Trump on any level certainly does, especially when 99.9% of the thread is not about her.

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:
Humor has always been used as a weapon. (The headline’s use of “turned” obscures this, implying that humor is being turned into something it wasn’t.) The BBC article is saying: This is how it’s done in Putin’s Russia. 
I thought it was an interesting, if not terribly deep, take on the topic, just as I imagine a Russian might be interested in a brief article headlined “How Trump Turned Twitter to His Advantage.” Thanks for sharing it.

 As I wrote, I see the article as just another missive in the campaign to demonize Putin -- "look he's even subverting laughter in Russia."
Why else would the author include this:

Ben Nimmo, an Atlantic Council researcher on Russian disinformation, told the BBC that attempts to create funny memes were part of the strategy as "disinformation for the information age".

 One of your sillier contentions.

South_Mountaineer said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

It is also absurd to blame (a) the outcome of the 2016 election and/or (b) the political divisions in the US on Facebook ads by Russian trolls.

If we put blame aside, and if we acknowledge America’s own record in this department, it’s not crazy to still want to get to the bottom of any foreign attempts to exploit those divisions to influence the outcome, and then try to prevent a recurrence. 

 Exactly.  We'll never be certain how much of an effect those intentional actions by Russia had on the outcome (including voter suppression) and ongoing political divisions.  But their existence requires a response.
If some guy was in the middle of South Orange with a neo-Nazi table and literature, I don't think even @paulsurovell would say, "Leave him alone, he's not going to have much of an impact".  
 

Russia is the new "outside agitator" conjured up to explain domestic "unrest."  "Russia" easily morphs into "pro-Russia" which easily morphs into repressive measures against Americans who hold unpopular views. That's what this Facebook charade is all about.

With regard to neo-Nazis in South Orange, they should be opposed (see image below), but unless they are engaging in violence or making threats they cannot be removed.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:
BBC takes the lead in the media competition to demonize Putin

 Yeah, he's such a good guy that it's simply not fair to discuss anything negative about him.

 Is it possible to discuss anything positive about him? Or is he the devil incarnate?

jamie said:
So - was Putin in the know of the social media blitz?  Yes or no?
Does Trump getting elected and blowing up our democracy favor Russia?  Yes or no?
Based on the FB algorithm, this campaign would of had a significant impact.  Russia knew exactly what they were doing - and they did it well.

 Answers to questions:

(1) He obviously heard about the trolls at a minimum through the media (not really a blitz)

(2) No. Russia needs and wants a stable America.

(3) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/12/28/theres-still-little-evidence-that-russias-2016-social-media-efforts-did-much-of-anything/?utm_term=.66c448837e7c

There's still little evidence that Russia's 2016 social media efforts did much of anything

A little-noticed statement from Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, detailed how unsophisticated the Russian ad targeting actually was in the context of the election. Among the points he made:

-- Maryland was targeted by nearly five times as many ads as was Wisconsin (262 to 55).

-- Thirty-five of the 55 ads targeting Wisconsin ran during the primary.

-- More ads targeted DC than Pennsylvania.

-- A total of $1,979 was spent in Wisconsin — $1,925 of it in the primary.

-- The spending in Michigan and Pennsylvania were $823 and $300, respectively.

-- More of the geographically targeted ads ran in 2015 than in 2016.

Facebook’s own public numbers hint at how the ads were weighted relative to the campaign. Ten million people saw ads run by the Russian agents — but 5.6 million of those views were after the election.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:
BBC takes the lead in the media competition to demonize Putin

 Yeah, he's such a good guy that it's simply not fair to discuss anything negative about him.

 Is it possible to discuss anything positive about him? Or is he the devil incarnate?

 I've heard the trains always run on time.

jamie said:
I would say this thread title falls in line with the Russian operation as well, demeaning Hillary over Trump was their #1 mission.  Even though it doesn't directly demean her, equating her with Trump on any level certainly does, especially when 99.9% of the thread is not about her.

 Every post about the Steele dossier is a post about the Hillary campaign's collusion with Russian government officials -- through their contractor Fusion GPS -- to get dirt on Trump.

The Steele dossier consists in large part of allegations by Russian government officials.

That is the factual premise of the thread and its OP.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:
BBC takes the lead in the media competition to demonize Putin

 Yeah, he's such a good guy that it's simply not fair to discuss anything negative about him.

 Is it possible to discuss anything positive about him? Or is he the devil incarnate?

 Please start a new thread highlighting all of Putin’s current accomplishments and goals- it may help a lot.

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:
BBC takes the lead in the media competition to demonize Putin

 Yeah, he's such a good guy that it's simply not fair to discuss anything negative about him.

 Is it possible to discuss anything positive about him? Or is he the devil incarnate?

 Please start a new thread highlighting all of Putin’s current accomplishments and goals- it may help a lot.

He played a key role in Obama's four most important foreign policy accomplishments:

(1) The Iran Nuclear Deal

(2) The UN Security Council vote on the illegality of Israeli settlements

(3) The Paris Accord

(4) Averting an attack on Syria

Putin continues to support Obama's legacy on these matters and he supports Obama's desire for additional arms control agreements.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:
BBC takes the lead in the media competition to demonize Putin

 Yeah, he's such a good guy that it's simply not fair to discuss anything negative about him.

 Is it possible to discuss anything positive about him? Or is he the devil incarnate?

He looks great on horseback and is a particularly strong social media force.

paulsurovell said:

He played a key role in Obama's four most important foreign policy accomplishments:
(1) The Iran Nuclear Deal
(2) The UN Security Council vote on the illegality of Israeli settlements
(3) The Paris Accord
(4) Averting an attack on Syria
Putin continues to support Obama's legacy on these matters and he supports Obama's desire for additional arms control agreements.

 1) Yes

2) Yes, but it didn't amount to much

3) Yes

4) He supported Assad's slaughter

And yet he helped get Trump elected. 

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:
Humor has always been used as a weapon. (The headline’s use of “turned” obscures this, implying that humor is being turned into something it wasn’t.) The BBC article is saying: This is how it’s done in Putin’s Russia. 
I thought it was an interesting, if not terribly deep, take on the topic, just as I imagine a Russian might be interested in a brief article headlined “How Trump Turned Twitter to His Advantage.” Thanks for sharing it.

 As I wrote, I see the article as just another missive in the campaign to demonize Putin -- "look he's even subverting laughter in Russia."
Why else would the author include this:

Ben Nimmo, an Atlantic Council researcher on Russian disinformation, told the BBC that attempts to create funny memes were part of the strategy as "disinformation for the information age".

 One of your sillier contentions.

 Silly that the media demonizes Putin and weaponizing "laughter" only is the latest installment?

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/12/how-putins-russia-turned-x-into-a-weapon.html#more

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:
BBC takes the lead in the media competition to demonize Putin

 Yeah, he's such a good guy that it's simply not fair to discuss anything negative about him.

 Is it possible to discuss anything positive about him? Or is he the devil incarnate?

 Please start a new thread highlighting all of Putin’s current accomplishments and goals- it may help a lot.

He played a key role in Obama's four most important foreign policy accomplishments:
(1) The Iran Nuclear Deal
(2) The UN Security Council vote on the illegality of Israeli settlements
(3) The Paris Accord
(4) Averting an attack on Syria
Putin continues to support Obama's legacy on these matters and he supports Obama's desire for additional arms control agreements.

How about on his domestic front?  Is getting more real estate like Crimea on his list?

What is his stance on social issues like LGBT Rights?

What are your thoughts on RT not being able to criticize Putin and media freedom in general?

According to Freedom House the press in Russia is 'not free'. On a scale of 0 (least free) to 100 (most free) Russia scores 20; again, far below all other Western countries, on the same level as United Arab Emirates, Vietnam and Gambia, and even below Turkey, which had in 2016, 81 journalists imprisoned.

How about Russia censoring the Internet (Roscomnadzor)?

Is Russia a democracy or a plutocracy?

Any updates on the Skripal poisoning?

Would you hold Putin accountable for aggression in the Kerch Strait?

paulsurovell said:

Silly that the media demonizes Putin and weaponizing "laughter" only is the latest installment?

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/12/how-putins-russia-turned-x-into-a-weapon.html#more

• Whistleblower says Russians got antigravity weaponized spaceships    Lunatic Outpost, August 2012

 Well if you're not worried about antigravity weaponized spaceships, then there's no convincing you, I guess.

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:
BBC takes the lead in the media competition to demonize Putin

 Yeah, he's such a good guy that it's simply not fair to discuss anything negative about him.

 Is it possible to discuss anything positive about him? Or is he the devil incarnate?

 Please start a new thread highlighting all of Putin’s current accomplishments and goals- it may help a lot.

He played a key role in Obama's four most important foreign policy accomplishments:
(1) The Iran Nuclear Deal
(2) The UN Security Council vote on the illegality of Israeli settlements
(3) The Paris Accord
(4) Averting an attack on Syria
Putin continues to support Obama's legacy on these matters and he supports Obama's desire for additional arms control agreements.

How about on his domestic front?  Is getting more real estate like Crimea on his list?
What is his stance on social issues like LGBT Rights?
What are your thoughts on RT not being able to criticize Putin and media freedom in general?
According to Freedom House the press in Russia is 'not free'. On a scale of 0 (least free) to 100 (most free) Russia scores 20; again, far below all other Western countries, on the same level as United Arab Emirates, Vietnam and Gambia, and even below Turkey, which had in 2016, 81 journalists imprisoned.
How about Russia censoring the Internet (Roscomnadzor)?
Is Russia a democracy or a plutocracy?
Any updates on the Skripal poisoning?
Would you hold Putin accountable for aggression in the Kerch Strait?
 

I don't get your line of reasoning. You asked me for examples of Putin's current accomplishments and goals. I gave you four.You respond by asking me about negatives like his annexation of Crimea, which I previously criticized.

Do the four accomplishments -- all in the US national interest -- mean anything? Are you able to acknowledge that he has done some good things for the US?