Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
paulsurovell said: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?
nevermind - I was trying to figure out how you can look past the issues within his country, not the US national ones and defend this guy more so then our own IC.
That's why I was curious about your thoughts on the following:
What is his stance on social issues like LGBT Rights?
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?
Paul - why did you quote from an article a year ago? ie: Richard Burr's statement? Please comment on the recent findings:
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.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:Silly that the media demonizes Putin and weaponizing "laughter" only is the latest installment?
paulsurovell said:One of your sillier contentions.
DaveSchmidt said: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."
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.
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".
Paul - which stories from the list you posted do you consider from real media outlets? And how many of the were opinion?
Did you strongly disagree with every article on the list? You can find similar lists for virtually anything - it's called THE INTERNET.
This one seemed plausible: https://www.alltimeconspiracies.com/is-russia-weaponizing-the-giant-squid/
(edited to add video)
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:It took me until the sixth article to find one that actually described the headline’s subject (space, in this case) as being a weapon or weaponized. I stopped there.
Silly that the media demonizes Putin and weaponizing "laughter" only is the latest installment?
Lesson: Give headline writers a trope and they’ll flog it to death.
But it’s outside of military contexts that weaponize has really proliferated in the last decade. We’ve weaponized: women, architecture, black suffering, anthropology, the facts, texting, femininity, marketing, secularism, religion, ideology, traditional forms of dress, virtue, sadness, social constructions, iWatches, and fictional experiences in video games. The word, of course, has enjoyed glibber applications: Writers have weaponized everything from flatulence to kale salads. This website appears, to some, to weaponize the narcissism of small differences.
The 2016 presidential election has been a hotbed for weaponization. There’s the weaponization of Jeb Bush’s campaign fundraising, online harassment from Bernie Bros, and grief at the Republican National Convention. Donald Trump has weaponized the issue of trade. Putin has weaponized WikiLeaks against the Clinton operation. On The Diane Rehm Show, psychologist William Doherty cautioned against “weaponizing diagnoses” of mental illness against Donald Trump. And on The Run-Up podcast, conservative radio show host Charlie Sykes lamented how an “alternative reality has been weaponized” by the alt-right media. This weaponization has transformed just about every political act “into a powerful means of gaining advantage,” as Chuck McCutcheon and David Mark argue in their election glossary, Doubletalk.
So, is weaponize just a metaphor du jour? We do like to broaden our words over time; take our nonetymological usages of decimate and awesome, perennial gripes of prescriptivists. Or are we under the spell of a linguistic recency illusion? When we notice a word in one place, we indeed find it frequenting many others. Have professors just cribbed from sergeants, appropriating weaponize to shorthand their theories of hegemony? Many usages of weaponize do come from the mouths and pens of experts, and a new-fangled Twitter account even mocks the overused weaponized X in academese. All of these factors surely have some influence on the spread of this aging word, but the massive and growing stockpile of weaponize still suggests it’s more than just a buzzword.
One could say that Trump defenders have weaponized examples of the use of "weaponized" in anything involving Russia.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
Trump defenders
Sorry, "people defending Trump against allegations being investigated by the Special Counsel".
That was made clear before, but I didn't realize there was an expiration date on that clarification.
paulsurovell said:
Silly that the media demonizes Putin and weaponizing "laughter" only is the latest installment?
I hope it's clear now that using the word "weaponize" to describe an action with something other than a military weapon is NOT evidence of some nefarious "demonization" of Russia. The long list of examples published by someone on the internet, shared by Mr. Surovell, is only convincing to people who don't value perspective and context. There's no indication of how those uses over many years compare to other uses of the word "weaponize" to describe other actions. There's no statistical comparison to use to even BEGIN to assess the significance of the use of that word with respect to Russia, and think that is "proof" of something. Without considering that, it's not even worth bringing it up and claiming that it makes a point.
Mr. Surovell has provided us with an example of how "stuff on the Internet" does affect people's thinking, even if it's ridiculous stuff. Mr. Surovell read arguments that "weaponize" was proof of something, and decided to share it in this little corner of social media. That's how these false ideas spread. That's a concept understood by celebrities, advertisers, and Russia's Internet Research Agency. It's a concept more Americans need to understand.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Sorry, "people defending Trump against allegations being investigated by the Special Counsel".
nohero said:
Trump defenders
That was made clear before, but I didn't realize there was an expiration date on that clarification.
Do you "know" what allegations against Trump are being investigated by the Special Counsel? And if your answer is "Yes" who made those allegations and what are your sources?
Happy Flynn Sentencing Day! We still don't know why he lied about his contacts and conversations with Kislyak.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Do you "know" what allegations against Trump are being investigated by the Special Counsel? And if your answer is "Yes" who made those allegations and what are your sources?
paulsurovell said:Sorry, "people defending Trump against allegations being investigated by the Special Counsel".
nohero said:
Trump defenders
That was made clear before, but I didn't realize there was an expiration date on that clarification.
I have no idea why you think that's an intelligent or appropriate response to what I wrote. To answer your question, I am aware of the same information available to you. I'm not going to repeat what others have already told you (as if you didn't know) about the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation, or about what's been published with respect to court filings.
The "Who's On First" argument strategy is getting old.
You: "What allegations are being investigated?"
Me: "What's on second."
You: "I don't care who's on second."
Me: "Who's on first".
You: "I don't know."
All: "THIRD BASE!"
Paul - what would Flynn have told Mueller for Mueller to recommend zero jail time?
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:I have no idea why you think that's an intelligent or appropriate response to what I wrote. To answer your question, I am aware of the same information available to you. I'm not going to repeat what others have already told you (as if you didn't know) about the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation, or about what's been published with respect to court filings.
nohero said:Do you "know" what allegations against Trump are being investigated by the Special Counsel? And if your answer is "Yes" who made those allegations and what are your sources?
paulsurovell said:Sorry, "people defending Trump against allegations being investigated by the Special Counsel".
nohero said:
Trump defenders
That was made clear before, but I didn't realize there was an expiration date on that clarification.
The "Who's On First" argument strategy is getting old.
You: "What allegations are being investigated?"
Me: "What's on second."
You: "I don't care who's on second."
Me: "Who's on first".
You: "I don't know."
All: "THIRD BASE!"
For many months you've been saying "We don't know what Mueller is doing." Now you say "people defending Trump against allegations being investigated by the Special Counsel".
If you "know" what allegations against Trump Mueller is investigating, why have you been denying that for months? If you don't "know" then your statement this morning was just another screw-up that you don't have the integrity to admit to.
dave23 said:
Happy Flynn Sentencing Day! We still don't know why he lied about his contacts and conversations with Kislyak.
The cat is already out of the bag and you're going to be disappointed. Details to follow.
jamie said:
Paul - what would Flynn have told Mueller for Mueller to recommend zero jail time?
Maybe that Paul Manafort met three times in the Ecuadorian embassy with Julian Assange.
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:The cat is already out of the bag and you're going to be disappointed. Details to follow.
Happy Flynn Sentencing Day! We still don't know why he lied about his contacts and conversations with Kislyak.
Why would I be disappointed? I think it's fantastic that Flynn got caught in his Turkey dealings. That's enough for me, why he's not recommended jail time from Mueller is a bit odd. I can't figure out what his cooperation entailed - look forward to your details.
And still awaiting for your details on the dossier lawsuit.
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:Maybe that Paul Manafort met three times in the Ecuadorian embassy with Julian Assange.
Paul - what would Flynn have told Mueller for Mueller to recommend zero jail time?
Attempt at humor I'm guessing?
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:For many months you've been saying "We don't know what Mueller is doing." Now you say "people defending Trump against allegations being investigated by the Special Counsel".
paulsurovell said:I have no idea why you think that's an intelligent or appropriate response to what I wrote. To answer your question, I am aware of the same information available to you. I'm not going to repeat what others have already told you (as if you didn't know) about the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation, or about what's been published with respect to court filings.
nohero said:Do you "know" what allegations against Trump are being investigated by the Special Counsel? And if your answer is "Yes" who made those allegations and what are your sources?
paulsurovell said:Sorry, "people defending Trump against allegations being investigated by the Special Counsel".
nohero said:
Trump defenders
That was made clear before, but I didn't realize there was an expiration date on that clarification.
The "Who's On First" argument strategy is getting old.
You: "What allegations are being investigated?"
Me: "What's on second."
You: "I don't care who's on second."
Me: "Who's on first".
You: "I don't know."
All: "THIRD BASE!"
If you "know" what allegations against Trump Mueller is investigating, why have you been denying that for months? If you don't "know" then your statement this morning was just another screw-up that you don't have the integrity to admit to.
The "no collusion" crowd must be flailing today, if arguments like yours are any indication. The "allegations" are about some kind of collusion or cooperation or foreknowledge (pick a word) on the part of the Trump campaign, with regard to Russian activities connected with the election.
What you characterize as the statement, "We don't know what Mueller is doing", is really the sensible position that (except for what's been filed in court) we don't know what he's talking to witnesses about, who he may be talking to about it, or how it fits in with the scope of his assignment.
Your suggestion that what I just summarized amounts to a "screw-up" on my part, and the deliberate insult, are a sign that you may be too close to this and should consider taking a break from Mueller-bashing for a few days.
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:The cat is already out of the bag and you're going to be disappointed. Details to follow.
Happy Flynn Sentencing Day! We still don't know why he lied about his contacts and conversations with Kislyak.
I won't be disappointed by the truth.
Judge Sullivan to Michael Flynn: “Arguably, you sold your country out."
Re Turkey, I believe.
Judge Sullivan even asked the government if Flynn could have been charged with treason for interfering in the sanctions imposed by the Obama administration.
cramer said:
Flynn has accepted Sullivan's offer to delay sentencing.
Yep. Flynn's got more to say, apparently.
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:The cat is already out of the bag and you're going to be disappointed. Details to follow.
Happy Flynn Sentencing Day! We still don't know why he lied about his contacts and conversations with Kislyak.
I can't wait for these details now.
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:I can't wait for these details now.
dave23 said:The cat is already out of the bag and you're going to be disappointed. Details to follow.
Happy Flynn Sentencing Day! We still don't know why he lied about his contacts and conversations with Kislyak.
I can't imagine that we're more disappointed than Flynn, who thought he was going home today with no more possibility of going to jail.
Kat out of bag. Moose and squirrel confused. Useful idiot, we are winning!
dave23 said:
Judge Sullivan to Michael Flynn: “Arguably, you sold your country out."
Re Turkey, I believe.
He suggested Flynn might be guilty of treason for not disclosing he was a foreign agent (not for an enemy but for Turkey, a NATO ally) while he was National Security Adviser (except it was before inauguration).
Later he retracted the statements. One wonders where he got those ideas from.
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:I won't be disappointed by the truth.
dave23 said:The cat is already out of the bag and you're going to be disappointed. Details to follow.
Happy Flynn Sentencing Day! We still don't know why he lied about his contacts and conversations with Kislyak.
Here is the FBI memo on Flynn's interview in which he allegedly lied. The memo was let out of the bag yesterday.
Keep in mind that the agents who interviewed him stated that he did not appear to be lying. The accusation of lying came later, after Mueller had begun his investigation.
The most likely explanation of Flynn's guilty plea seems to be to avoid prosecution for failing to register as a foreign agent (Turkey). Otherwise he likely would have pleaded not guilty to the accusation of lying.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
It took me until the sixth article to find one that actually described the headline’s subject (space, in this case) as being a weapon or weaponized. I stopped there.
Lesson: Give headline writers a trope and they’ll flog it to death.