Finally, the Trump is Putin's puppet narrative is dead... and has been

a reply to: theantediluvian

So say it's all true, and Russia did all the bad things, and such..

Do you realize what they will lead to?

People are pushing for the truth, but what if the truth leads us to WW3?

That's what it sounds like to me, Trump gets impeached and then we have Pence and Congress is so outraged they declare war on Russia.

Everything the left and middle and right have been arguing about is a moot point because EVERYTHING changes, and not for the better.

Unless you see a different outcome?

originally posted by: Cygnis

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Cygnis

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Cygnis

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Wayfarer

This is merely you're opinion, and actually doesn't make it fact. The manner in which you can equate your complete lack of judicial expertese to make an assertion like that belies the truth of your assertion: That you are saying what you really wish was the case, not what actually is.

But I'm open minded. Throw it on me, how is he in bed with Russia? Give me more than nixing a round of sanctions for an action we haven't gotten evidence on.

If you are truly open minded then simply wait for Mueller's investigation to give its report. Its that simple.

Interesting.. When on a witch hunt, one can always find a witch.

Mueller is an interesting critter, however, I trust him about as much as I trust Comey, or anyone else with ties to a bunch of other government people.. Back-scratching abounds.

Sounds like you've bought the Trump propaganda (which is suspicious inasmuch as his modus operandi has been to de-legitimize Mueller's investigation because he's just so 'innocent'). I take it you've already made up your mind and no matter what Mueller's report states you won't believe it if its critical of Trump in any way.....

Very telling you to assume I've bought into anything, or anyone and drunk their kool-aid.....

Your previous response to me referencing 'Witch Hunt' is evidence that you are already viewing the Mueller investigation from a biased perspective. It can't really be any more clear than that.

Because there will be more after what Mueller finds, additional calls of collusion regarding his investigation, more sub-plots, and turn about. It's literally like a spin-off of the main soap-opera with a sub-plot and will go on for years and amount to a pile of "He said", "She wrote", "They thought", "Documents show". and on and on and on..

If you can't be unbiased, how can you expect Mueller to be unbiased as well?

I haven't said I was unbiased, though I endeavor to be. I have mentioned many times on this forum before that I plan on accepting whatever Mueller's findings are.

Your assumptions of what will happen after his report are released though are further proof of how you view the situation from an already tainted expectation. I would recommend adopting a more dispassionate scientific approach rather than to let your emotions (and their corresponding effects) further taint the objective assessment you are capable of making.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Wayfarer

This thread was not meant to be a pro Trump thread. Personally, I'm not thrilled with recent action in Syria, nor do I see any point in antagonizing Russia.

Cool, so if it comes out and parties are at guilt we'll deal with it.

The literal point of the article and this thread is we shouldn't speak in absolutes before it comes out to drive foreign policy.

But as it stands, it doesn't look like Trump is Putins puppet, the title of the thread.

So what are you arguing?

Your quoted statement isn't from me.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The only proven Russian collusion thus far.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Wayfarer

This is merely you're opinion, and actually doesn't make it fact. The manner in which you can equate your complete lack of judicial expertese to make an assertion like that belies the truth of your assertion: That you are saying what you really wish was the case, not what actually is.

But I'm open minded. Throw it on me, how is he in bed with Russia? Give me more than nixing a round of sanctions for an action we haven't gotten evidence on.

If you are truly open minded then simply wait for Mueller's investigation to give its report. Its that simple.

out of curiosity, what are the other options on this? Do we as individuals have the power to do anything at all dealing with Muller's investigation?

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Cygnis

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Cygnis

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Cygnis

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Wayfarer

This is merely you're opinion, and actually doesn't make it fact. The manner in which you can equate your complete lack of judicial expertese to make an assertion like that belies the truth of your assertion: That you are saying what you really wish was the case, not what actually is.

But I'm open minded. Throw it on me, how is he in bed with Russia? Give me more than nixing a round of sanctions for an action we haven't gotten evidence on.

If you are truly open minded then simply wait for Mueller's investigation to give its report. Its that simple.

Interesting.. When on a witch hunt, one can always find a witch.

Mueller is an interesting critter, however, I trust him about as much as I trust Comey, or anyone else with ties to a bunch of other government people.. Back-scratching abounds.

Sounds like you've bought the Trump propaganda (which is suspicious inasmuch as his modus operandi has been to de-legitimize Mueller's investigation because he's just so 'innocent'). I take it you've already made up your mind and no matter what Mueller's report states you won't believe it if its critical of Trump in any way.....

Very telling you to assume I've bought into anything, or anyone and drunk their kool-aid.....

Your previous response to me referencing 'Witch Hunt' is evidence that you are already viewing the Mueller investigation from a biased perspective. It can't really be any more clear than that.

Because there will be more after what Mueller finds, additional calls of collusion regarding his investigation, more sub-plots, and turn about. It's literally like a spin-off of the main soap-opera with a sub-plot and will go on for years and amount to a pile of "He said", "She wrote", "They thought", "Documents show". and on and on and on..

If you can't be unbiased, how can you expect Mueller to be unbiased as well?

I haven't said I was unbiased, though I endeavor to be. I have mentioned many times on this forum before that I plan on accepting whatever Mueller's findings are.

Your assumptions of what will happen after his report are released though are further proof of how you view the situation from an already tainted expectation. I would recommend adopting a more dispassionate scientific approach rather than to let your emotions (and their corresponding effects) further taint the objective assessment you are capable of making.

The mistake there being emotions, there are none about this. It's like dust, a plain flat taste that just keeps lingering. Politics really does try and pull on the emotional side, however, I tend to leave mine at the door in a lot of things.

Being jaded and cynical about things, especially in politics, usually keeps one a bit sane.

Expecting the government to do the right thing is a sure-fire way of setting oneself up for disappointment. At least that has always been my experience.

I've been awaiting a leader for a long time, I have yet to see one worth following. Until such a time, I shall remain dispassionate about things, as there are no leaders in this day and age.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Wayfarer

This is merely you're opinion, and actually doesn't make it fact. The manner in which you can equate your complete lack of judicial expertese to make an assertion like that belies the truth of your assertion: That you are saying what you really wish was the case, not what actually is.

But I'm open minded. Throw it on me, how is he in bed with Russia? Give me more than nixing a round of sanctions for an action we haven't gotten evidence on.

If you are truly open minded then simply wait for Mueller's investigation to give its report. Its that simple.

out of curiosity, what are the other options on this? Do we as individuals have the power to do anything at all dealing with Muller's investigation?

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at. If you're asking if you as a civilian have any recourse to dismantle or affect Mueller's investigation in any way, my answer would be 'Tangentially - in effect what Trump is doing, which is to discredit the investigation as much as possible so that if/when something damning is reported, public opinion can be swayed to support the President as he denies all claims, dismantles/curtails any kind of punitive agency action, and seeks the support of the populace to engender cooperation from his senate counterparts'.

Granted, I consider all the aforementioned actions pretty heinous as an affront against truth, but if you've made up your mind to disbelieve anything Mueller's report mentions because you consider him 'the enemy' then I can see how one would justify such actions.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Your quoted statement isn't from me.

I'm aware, it was from the OP which I still assume you haven't read fully, so I added that so you could see it

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Wayfarer

Your quoted statement isn't from me.

I'm aware, it was from the OP which I still assume you haven't read fully, so I added that so you could see it

Ah, I see, it was confusing to reference the OP's line as an apparent response to me, but I understand what you were getting at.

In that case my response to your previous query would be that the title of the thread, which intimates a conclusive assessment, is in fact anything but, and to make or support such a statement implies a severe bias: one that involves arriving at a conclusion before either all the evidence has been presented, or through a lack of expertise on the subject entirely.

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: CriticalStinker


come on now, you know putin got into a few of our voting systems. and, the electrical grid.

bless his heart - he probably didn't mean to, tho.

That is a false statement about the electrical grid. The computer was not hacked, the computer had malware that was found on it. The malware was commercial grade i.e. can be purchased by anyone to have them use it for any purpose. It is also the type of malware that you can get from downloads, or emails etc. The computer was NOT part of the electrical grid.

Vermont Hack

Also the Russians never hacked the election machines

January 5-6, 2017 - Intelligence officials meet separately with Obama and Trump to present the results of their probe into cyber espionage during the presidential campaign. After the president and the president-elect are briefed, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence releases a declassified version of its classified report on Russian meddling. According to the report, hackers did not breach voting machines or computers that tallied election results but Russians meddled in other ways. Putin ordered a multifaceted influence campaign that included spreading pro-Trump propaganda online and hacking the DNC and Podesta. Bracing for a possible Clinton win, Russian bloggers were prepared to promote a hashtag #DemocracyRIP on election night. Paid social media users, aka "trolls," shared stories about Clinton controversies to create a cloud of scandal around her campaign.

CNN

Stop listening to people and look it up for yourself.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I have said this for a while now. However I am curious on how they are going to get themselves out of this situation.

a reply to: Grambler

How dare you mention Uranium One! US intervention in Syria began in 2012 while Clinton was SOS, therefore your narrative is dead. I mean, that's the standard right? Lmao.

The Uranium One thing is a joke. I look forward to the results of any investigations.

17 Russians posting on Facebook overpowered hundreds of millions of dollars from Hillary and the msm nearly entirely supporting her.

That's just disingenuous. 17 Russians posting on Facebook? The IRA employed hundreds of people. 17 people were charged. Mueller didn't charge the rank and file trolls.

Hundreds of millions from Hillary? What are you talking about? Advertising? Both campaigns spent hundreds of millions of dollars. The Clinton campaign blew more on television advertising (which is more expensive), the Trump campaign ran a much more effective digital media campaign and got better bang for their buck. (though in the final weeks, they dumped tens of millions on TV ads) They also had embedded Facebook operatives (and Google and others) which Clinton turned down, snatched up a #load of bargain rate targeted advertising on Facebook in particular. I can provide links if you want.

Furthermore, the estimates were that for everyone dollar Trump was spending in advertising, he was getting something like 8x as much free coverage in the Summer as Clinton was. Why? I would imagine a lot of it had to do with the fact that he was out giving speeches at rallies several times a week and she was not. Those rallies got covered. We all watched speeches from them.

While the MSM was more critical of Trump in terms of numbers of major outlets, how much of the market share do those outlets actually hold? Fox News has dominated cable (and not just news) for decades. It's only with the rise of MSNBC that CNN & MSNBC have finally topped Fox (when their shares are combined).

There is no such thing as liberal political talk radio. It's completely dominated by a number of conservatives.

And we all know that the Trump campaign cut a deal with Sinclair Broadcasting to get better coverage during the election. We also know that it's looking like as they profess that they're here to promote Trump's agenda, they're going to get approved for takeover of Tribune which will put them in 72% of homes.

And how does the coverage differ between conservative media and the liberal leaning outlets? Fox News is basically a part of the Trump administration now. Several of their top people are LITERALLY advising the President and actively campaigned for him during the election. Sinclair forces affiliates to run conservative propaganda pieces.

But you're right, the major newspapers were very critical of Trump. None of this really matters in the least. You're essentially saying it doesn't matter what the Russians did because Trump ran a better campaign than Clinton.

How about using a kremlin sourced dossier to spy on people in trumps team? Nothing to see there, only trumps team Russians can’t mnections are worth investigating

That's factually inaccurate. One, describing the dossier as "Kremlin-sourced" is misleading on several levels. (only parts are attributed to government officials, you're implying that it was a product of the Kremlin, etc) Second, what part of the dossier was used in the FISA warrant?

Oh, no part of it.

And thirdly, Carter Page was no longer part of the Trump campaign and he was the only one that was surveilled using information from Steele. But perhaps most importantly, nothing about surveilling Carter Page had anything to do with trying to disadvantage Trump or advantage Clinton. Using vague language, there's this insinuation that somehow the dossier was an excuse to spy on the Trump campaign which is just nonsense.

Not putting Carter Page under surveillance would have been dereliction of duty. Furthermore, the Obama admin's response was weak and made even weaker by trying to do the right thing and consulting with top Republicans in Congress who shot down any attempt at informing the public of what was happening (thanks Mitch!).

And in fact, the FBI did more to benefit Trump then anything. First it was all the supposed leaks from the NY field office to Fox News and others. Remember that FBI gone rogue narrative? It was big on ATS right before the election. The idea that the FBI was revolting to save the country from Clinton (now you lot have done a 180 and rant about the "deep state" constantly but when you thought the "deep state" was hurting Clinton, you couldn't have been more pleased).

Then there was Comey's decision to announce like a week before the election that a 2nd email investigation had been launched. Seems legit right? Funny he didn't seem to feel the same need to announce the FBI's investigation into people connected to Trump. Strange that the "deep state" wasn't leaking all this stuff pre-election given how much they were in the bag for Clinton.

But sure, I guess that’s messing. Unfortunately, that sort of meddling by Russians and many other countries has been occurring for decades.

And Obama knew this, yet laughed off Russia being a concern.

No, this sort of meddling has not been happening the US for decades. Show me one example that comes CLOSE to the email hacking/release during the campaign.

Obama mocked Romney in the 2012 election, having nothing to do with election meddling. I'm sure Russia seemed like less of a problem in 2012 as they Russia Reset crap hadn't completely fallen apart yet, they hadn't invaded Crimea, they hadn't hacked the non-secure Pentagon email systems (2015) and others, and they hadn't yet interfered in our election as they did in 2016.

As Greenwald clearly lays out in the article, trump has been harder on Russia than obama was. So tell me, where we’re the cries from everyone screaming about Russians to look in to Russian connections to Hillary and obama?

I addressed some of Greenwald's arguments in a follow up post. Trump hasn't been particularly hard on Russia at all. He's been dragged kicking and screaming to do anything, instead opting to blabber about "being friends with Russia" after they'd just meddled in the election to hurt his opponent and benefit him. (not to mention we just went through a failed "reset" with Russia where we got burned, culminating with them invading Crimea).

Trump isn't personally hawkish on Russia at all. In fact, quite the opposite. And what happened to your argument that Trump was being forced to act by the deep state? When it's convenient, Trump is being forced to act and other times, it's no no no, he's actually very hard on Russia!

Puh-leaze.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Many have been saying the same thing for years now, with absolutely no effect on those tasked with informing the public. The Trump/Putin "bromance" was a complete lie, and dupes fell for it.

The media:



The media's parrots:

Cause everyone knows that Trump is always loyal to his friends and would never backstab them.
I mean, once Trump is your friend he would never, ever, turn on you.

The entire premise of this thread is a serious eyeroller.

a reply to: Wayfarer

In that case my response to your previous query would be that the title of the thread, which intimates a conclusive assessment, is in fact anything but, and to make or support such a statement implies a severe bias: one that involves arriving at a conclusion before either all the evidence has been presented, or through a lack of expertise on the subject entirely.

Fair enough, I've been bitching about speaking I'm absolutes... I'll take that hit.

But never the less, I think that it's been to acceptable for the media and many Americans to pass off the Russian narrative as a fact.

That is making it way to easy to sell foreign policy in anything that involves Russia, all of a sudden people who never wanted us to hit Syria are OK with to spite Russia.... Which is the whole point of Greenwald's article, and this thread.

This thread also was not about whether or not they meddled... They did, we just don't know the extent... However, it's not looking like Trump is Putin's puppet,quite the contrary.

a reply to: okrian

The entire premise of this thread is a serious eyeroller.

As opposed to being convinced a country with less economic power than Texas controlling America?

Duly noted... I'm rolling my eyes too.

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: rickymouse


putin didn't meddle in our election of obama or bush, so of course trump should be tuffer!

but, NOT implementing proper sanctions isn't tuff at all, it's weak.

And why do you think that is? Could it be that cyber warfare wasn't as far along as it was in 2016? Just wait until 2020.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

How dare you mention Uranium One! US intervention in Syria began in 2012 while Clinton was SOS, therefore your narrative is dead. I mean, that's the standard right? Lmao.

The Uranium One thing is a joke. I look forward to the results of any investigations.

Great I was bored tonight, so now i get to smack you around for a little!

(Just kidding I always like our conversations)

I am one the side that I dont believe Obama or trump are guilty of anything due to their "soft" stance on russia in either situation.

In fact I support trying to improve relations with russia. So trump or Obamas attenpt to do this has no bearing on their guilt or innocence to me.

My point is there are a host of people saying Trump knew Russia was against us but has been soft on russia, therefore this shows he most likely did something bad with them.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

Obama never bombed Assad or his military assets: a decision which, to this day, is scorned across official Washington. Hillary Clinton blasted Obama’s refusal to do more to stop Assad, and in 2017, she actively encouraged Donald Trump to bomb Assad and take out his air force.

So, official Washington is all Deep State, right? The President is there to drain the swamp and remove all of those incumbents?

And Hillary Clinton is part of that and she is a globalist warmonger?

And she wanted to bomb Syria and she urged Trump to do it and he did, so he is a globalist warmonger too, right?

And Obama is the only one who went against all this and is still drawing the ire of the deep state to this day since he didn't want to bomb Assad? So Obama is not Deep State?

Is any of this making sense? It's getting plenty of flags but it contradicts all the narrative on this website. Or are people not reading the irony?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler



That's just disingenuous. 17 Russians posting on Facebook? The IRA employed hundreds of people. 17 people were charged. Mueller didn't charge the rank and file trolls.

Hahahaha!

Ok so what then 500 million? Hahaha!

It was a small handful. This is dwarfed by the number and power of influence from supporters right here in amwerica of both hillary or trump.

And I keep warning you how acting like these trolls is going to come back and bite you. We already see pushes to say these trolls were bernie and jill stein supporters, thereby setting the precednt to shame any non establishment lleft or right wing person as being pushed by russians in the future.

As for the money spent; yes my [point is that with the hundreds of millions, possibly billions spent by both sides, with the overwhelming msm support of hillary, with the radio support of trump, with other foriegn news agencies of prominance li9ke the BBC all having hillarys back (starnge how they are forgotten as not a state sponsored news in favor of one candidate) the hundreds thousands on facebook ads from russian trolls is dwarfed.

For people to try to act like somehow it swayed the election is laughable.

As far as fox being for Trump, that may be. But I will tell you this; there were far more people on fox that critized Trump than people at NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NYT etc that were against Hillary.

Again you know full well that both in the lead up to the general election, and after it, the coverage of Trump has been overwhelmingly negative by the MSM.

And did anyone at fox give trump debate questions? Did the fbi use a pro trump fox article as part of the justification to get a fisa warrant on a former hillary campaigner like they did with yahoonews?

Nope.