advertisement


Trump Part 16

Status
Not open for further replies.
sean99 said:
The only way to rid ourselves of Trump is for the democrats to come up with a viable candidate to beat him next year. I fear they are currently forming a very large circular firing squad.
Click to expand...

i would say that's a bit of an illusion. the republicans were in a similar situation last time around, with a large and viscious field during their primary. it's kind of like sports. you may not cheer france on against brazil in a quarter final, but they miraculously become your favourite team in the world when playing croatia in the final. the quirks and hypocrisy of human psychology are sometimes a very good thing.
 
matthewr said:
Trump did attempt to unilaterally revoke sanctions for literally nothing in return for the US and in the hope of making billions from a Trump tower moscow that he continued was continuing to negotiate long after he claimed he wasn't. Having then lied and arguably committed crimes in this regard he as then compromised by Russia and started doing things like having one to one meetings with Putin at which nobody has any idea what was discussed. Again this is all in Part I of the Mueller report (and Seth's book).
Click to expand...

matthew, i am not arguing about this or that "fact", but an overall perceptual and political "concept". as i tried to explain in a previous post, it is not ignorance or refusal of belief, but an impression that this is all relatively trivial compared to the real deal of political compromise and intervention. i know it's cynical, but also highly pragmatic, imnsho. i'm 1000x more concerned about venezuela and brazil right now.

also, from the nate silver interview you cited, nate says:

"Keep in mind that only 42 percent of the public approves of Trump, and that’s in a really good economy! They don’t think he’s honest about Russia or other things. They also didn’t necessarily expect there to be a smoking gun about collusion/conspiracy. The public was way smarter than the media on this stuff, I think."
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-the-mueller-report-a-bfd/

i take from that he agrees with the intellectual left how the media got this very wrong (or was very stupid about it).
 
Washington Post-
“President Trump seethed Friday over the special counsel’s portrayal of his protracted campaign to thwart the Russia investigation and directed much of his ire at former White House counsel Donald McGahn, whose ubiquity in the report’s footnotes laid bare his extensive cooperation in chronicling the president’s actions.

Some of the report’s most derogatory scenes were attributed not only to the recollections of McGahn and other witnesses but also to the contemporaneous notes kept by several senior administration officials — the kind of paper trail that Trump has long sought to avoid leaving”.

The rats will start fighting in the sack. One day in the future they’ll be lining up to expose him in public and it’s going to be very entertaining.
 
Maybe a distinction needs to be made when referring to the "press" when pointing out the overhyped coverage that sold this investigation's conclusion to sell ad space. I really think 'press' as a term for reporting and investigating stories has very little resemblance in this age to my parent's 'press'. I dunno ... seems that way to me.
 
Part 2 of Glenn Greenwald debating conspiracy theorist David Cay Johnston. This time after the release of the Mueller report.

Glen at his brilliant, unbiased best:

 
Last edited:
maxflinn said:
Part 2 of Glen Greenwald debating conspiracy theorist David Cay Johnston. This time after the release of the Mueller report.

Glen at his brilliant, unbiased best:

Click to expand...
I would like to see Greenwald in a debate with Abramson - I'd put money on Greenwald being destroyed & his biases clearly shown - biases which you share, Max & therefore fail to recognise
 
My own thinking is coming around to the idea that the Democrats need to try to impeach Trump even if conviction will likely be blocked in the Senate. Otherwise they risk widespread voter apathy in 2020;due to the perception that they do not represent a real and principled opposition.
 
Glenn Greenwald's behaviour over this is genuinely bizarre. He sounds like a member of Trump's staff and I have no idea what he think's he's doing.
 
Tony L said:
The “intellectual left” appears to be the new ‘alt-right’ these days.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would confuse Greenwald with an intellectual, but he is meant to be a respected journalist. So I am not sure why he just airily dismisses all this stuff like he just doesn't think it's important.
 
Ciunas Audio said:
Max, not that I expect you to listen to it but try listening to Seth Abramson's interview & see where he would be disagreeing with Greenwald but using facts & cites, not opinion as Greenwald uses
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1119695574251593728
Click to expand...
Greenwald only uses opinion, while Seth uses facts and cites?

That's quite a statement...

Anyhow, perhaps as a fan of Seth's - obviously a completely unbiased one, like Seth himself - you can provide us with the facts that underpin the following comments of his, quoted word-for-word from the beginning of that Twitter interview you posted:

We have a foreign policy that was developed as part of a business deal Donald Trump was secretly negotiating in 2015 and 2016, and essentially a foreign policy that was announced at the Mayflower Hotel in April 27th of 2016 that was written by Kremlin agents, and I know that sounds like a fantastic claim but we know the names of the people who wrote that speech for Donald Trump, and they are agents of the Kremlin, so this is an ongoing threat to the United States.

Remember now, John, facts and cites, and please don't ask me to go researching. As an avid fan of Seth's, unbiased and objective, you'll no doubt have no problem providing the factual info for me.

Thanks in advance.
 
maxflinn said:
You think Glenn Greenwald is 'alt-right'?
Click to expand...

I’ve not even bothered watching it as I assumed by the very fact you posted it here that it was your typical alt-right pro-Trump slogan-chant denial of Russian election meddling/blanket dismissal of the Mueller report etc. I prefer just to read the report for myself rather than look to YouTube, RT etc for propaganda spin!

PS No, I’ve not finished it yet!
 
Tony L said:
I’ve not even bothered watching it.
Click to expand...
Do you think perhaps, in relation to Russiagate, you only like to consume content that you know will attempt to bolster your own beliefs regarding the matter?

Tony L said:
I prefer just to read the report for myself rather than look to YouTube, RT etc for propaganda spin!
Click to expand...
But you're a fan of Seth's. You look to him for his propaganda spin, do you not?

Do you think YouTube is controlled by Putin?

Tony L said:
PS No, I’ve not finished it yet!
Click to expand...
Neither have I.

It's handy that we can all access it, and quote from it.

I think I'll be quoting from it quite a bit, going forward..
 
maxflinn said:
Greenwald only uses opinion, while Seth uses facts and cites?

That's quite a statement...

Anyhow, perhaps as a fan of Seth's - obviously a completely unbiased one, like Seth himself - you can provide us with the facts that underpin the following comments of his, quoted word-for-word from the beginning of that Twitter interview you posted:

We have a foreign policy that was developed as part of a business deal Donald Trump was secretly negotiating in 2015 and 2016, and essentially a foreign policy that was announced at the Mayflower Hotel in April 27th of 2016 that was written by Kremlin agents, and I know that sounds like a fantastic claim but we know the names of the people who wrote that speech for Donald Trump, and they are agents of the Kremlin, so this is an ongoing threat to the United States.

Remember now, John, facts and cites, and please don't ask me to go researching. As an avid fan of Seth's, unbiased and objective, you'll no doubt have no problem providing the factual info for me.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Ok, so you are asking me to be a subject specific expert like Seth & be in command of all the complexity of facts - I doubt I can fill those shoes but what Seth says about this, AFAIR, is that Trump had a signed a letter of intent with friends of Putin to build a Trump Moscow Tower which he kept secret & lied about its existence (remember "I have no business with Russia") - it was only withdrawn in 2017, I believe but I don't have the encyclopedic knowledge Seth has - I'd need to research into it for exact dates. But that is what he means by "business deal" - it is fact, not opinion

I can't remember who are the "Kremlin agents" that Seth is talking about but he does say "we know their names & they are agents of the Kremlin" - I doubt this is opinion when stated in such a way, do you? I believe Papadopoulos was one of the named writers & he revealed himself as a Kremlin agent on March 31st, 2016 - I'm not sure but I think Page was also involved & I believe Dimitri Simes a friend of Putin (& goto person for Kushner) was also involved.

And yes, Seth uses a huge number of cited sources for each & every statement in his books - just as a true academic researcher would
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top