The Mueller investigation.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Quack, Feb 17, 2018.

  1. Benson Registered Member

    Messages:
    99
    The stoopid force.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,957
    If you're not interested in doing anything but plugging your ears and wagging your tongue, maybe you should go hang out in the McDonald's playpen while the grownups have their chat?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,520
    It's how I presented it. I see no reason to do a lot of work in response to one sentence unsupported repetitions of Republican falsehoods, and I like repeating that none of you guys, the Republican parrot crowd, has read any of the Mueller Report, or registered in your awareness any of the dozen plus other legal actions currently pursued against Trump. I'm going to keep repeating that.

    In other words: Suck it up, snowflake - it's a universe more than the zero evidence you have ever presented on this or any related topic.
    I did. All of yours. Every single one. Including your claim right here that Barr was a source of information for you. (which you seem to have forgotten that you tried to deny, elsewhere, a while ago - I believe with some pejoratives for me, when I insisted on the fact). This is your second or third time around on this wingnut carousel - if your memory isn't up to supporting your latest bs, best take notes as you go.
    I didn't object to "published", of course - that's a tired ploy, you should give it a rest - I explicitly and clearly objected to "information". You said Barr presented information. He did not, and you were warned in advance that he would not, and your were informed afterwards that he had not. All with evidence and reason and so forth.
    In Barr's case, it is not a suspicion but a demonstrated certainty. Disinformation in such cases has been his job for decades. He's a well-known professional, and his skill at disinformation was his only job qualification here.
    You cannot post a single example of my labeling information "disinformation", from any source. It's not a term I throw around much.
    And no, not "simply" anything: you have confused "sources I don't like" - such as CNN, ABC, MSNBC, the DNC, etc - with sources I claim are essentially American rightwing corporate authoritarian propaganda feeds (also known as "fascist", and "Republican"), such as Fox and conservative talk radio and the less principled of the think tanks and the like.

    Maybe this confusion comes from not reading my posts? I think it comes from your inability to escape the Republican bubble due to lack of information. You never know what you are talking about in these issues, and your ignorance makes you vulnerable to professional manipulators. You even fell for Barr's testimony, the wingnut chorus of "no collusion" and "exoneration", and so forth.

    I get plenty of info from sources I don't like. I get no info from sources that exist only to produce propaganda of various kinds - including disinformation. These are not sources of information. Anything from them would have to be independently obtained and verified anyway, so I skip the preliminary step. Since you do not bother to independently obtain or verify anything, you would be wise to skip that step as well.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,599
    So you have to live with the fact that your claims will be ignored as repetitions of cheap propaganda.
    I do not count your use of words, it is irrelevant which bad words you use to name sources you don't like.
    Most of your posts are quite boring repetitions of the same nonsense. So, it would be very reasonable not to read them. But I usually answer replies to my posts, and if I answer them, I read them. Not sure if you read my postings, given that most of the responses could be easily written by a simple bot, like this
    blabla.
    No post without such cheap personal defamation ...
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,013
    Citation, please.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,520
    By you.
    Ok - sounds like you have a plan.
    When does that begin?
    Then posting falsehoods about my use of words should be easy for you to avoid in the future.
    Defamation? - Dude, that's your explicitly posted methodology, your claim, your description of how you obtain information from what you say you have assumed to be propaganda. You have spent many paragraphs describing and defending this method of yours. I just pointed out (again) that such methods - your claimed methods, that you have posted several times on this forum and described clearly - have a weakness: because they do not include reality checks or independent verification of fact, they do not handle professional American rightwing authoritarian corporate propaganda and disinformation campaigns very well, as seen in your vulnerability to Barr's testimony.

    Did you not recognize your own claimed methods?
    Here's a different one: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/...leverage-trump.html?__twitter_impression=true
    Just another collusion event, impeachable offense, security risk, and opportunity for treason documented in the Mueller Report.
     
  10. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,599
    By everybody else too, because repetition is boring.
    Start counting your bad words to avoid
    Certainly not. I would recommend you to read the relevant postings again, you seem to have misunderstood a lot. I have emphasized many times that having access to propaganda from different sides (which is the closest thing to "independent" sources) makes the job much easier.
    The problem with your method is that what you name "reality check" and "verification" is simply compatibility check with the propaganda of your own side.
    Fine, that you give sometimes some nontrivial information. Unfortunately, it is irrelevant for the discussion with me. given that I have never made any claims about the existence or non-existence of kompromat against Trump.

    With your description of this as "collusion" and "impeachable offence" you discredit yourself, given that the article clarifies explicitly:
    Aside: The construction sounds IMHO quite artificial, AFAIU there have been negotiations about a Trump tower in Moscow, but they resulted in nothing, not? Are such negotiations which end in nothing already "dealings"? If not, or even if there is only some uncertainty about the meaning of "dealings", then Trump's "no dealings" would not be in conflict with such negotiations, and therefore no kompromat against him. But, ok, I'm not a native speaker, and, moreover, it is difficult for me to estimate what would be sufficient to blackmail citizens of "free felonies a day" country.
     
  11. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,599
    By everybody else too, because repetition is boring.
    Start counting your bad words to avoid
    Certainly not. I would recommend you to read the relevant postings again, you seem to have misunderstood a lot. I have emphasized many times that having access to propaganda from different sides (which is the closest thing to "independent" sources) makes the job much easier.
    The problem with your method is that what you name "reality check" and "verification" is simply compatibility check with the propaganda of your own side.
    Fine, that you give sometimes some nontrivial information. Unfortunately, it is irrelevant for the discussion with me. given that I have never made any claims about the existence or non-existence of kompromat against Trump.

    With your description of this as "collusion" and "impeachable offence" you discredit yourself, given that the article explicitly writes:
    Aside: The construction itself seems IMHO quite artificial, AFAIU there have been negotiations about a Trump tower in Moscow, but they resulted in nothing, not? Are such negotiations which end in nothing already "dealings"? If not, or even if there is only some uncertainty about the meaning of "dealings", then Trump's "no dealings" would not be in conflict with such negotiations, and therefore no kompromat against him. But, ok, I'm not a native speaker, and, moreover, it is difficult for me to estimate what would be sufficient to blackmail citizens of "free felonies a day" country.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,520
    More claims made - like all your others - in complete ignorance.
    Yep. That's your method - no reality checks, no information, just balancing what you assume is propaganda from sources you assume are "sides".
    No wonder you suckered for Barr's testimony, treating is as a source of information.
    More falsehood - from someone who has no idea what my "side" is, and cannot recognize disinformation (or any other form of propaganda from American professionals) when it is paraded in front of them.
    Apparently you - ignorant as always - are assuming "collusion" and "impeachable offense" are crimes.
    The dominant source of that foolish but widespread notion - employed loudly by the less intellectually capable wingnuts of America to declare Trump "exonerated" and the Mueller Report lacking in evidence of "collusion" and so forth - is the Republican Party media feed.

    Getting played like that by American pros happens to you because you are ignorant - according to your claimed methods, willfully so: as you keep reminding us, you never do reality checks, you never verify anything, you just assume everything is equivalently propaganda from what are equivalently "sides" and treat it accordingly.
    Of course.
    That's why everybody involved lied about them.

    Btw: why do you assume they have "ended"? Trump is still meeting with Putin and other Russians, after all - and excluding all other Americans, even the Presidential translators, while allowing the Russians complete access.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
  13. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,599
    double posting
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
  14. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,599
    Sorry for the double postings, bad internet connection.
    Start counting your bad words to avoid such minor quibbles like that you use other invectives more often than "disinformation"? But, ok, let's count, you have used "disinformation" on the same page http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-mueller-investigation.160560/page-35 three times before my answer, and in particular also in a variant of your usual babble that all my sources are bad:
    So, you applied it yourself, on the same page, and to a lot of very different sources. You name this "falsehood"? If this is all you can present as "falsehoods" I'm fine with this. Quite different from what you write about me:
    I see you have either not understood the key points of my method, or simply try to misrepresent it. I'm not "balancing" at all.

    I don't share your naive idea that the (or at least some of the) sources of one (your own) side are reliable. It changes, in fact, nothing if one considers them all as being propaganda. So, there is no way to get a secure, certain "reality check", whatever you name "reality check" is a euphemism you use for what is written in some other source which you, for whatever reasons, have classified as reliable.

    Something very close to what you name "reality check" is simply to look if sources from the other side write essentially the same (modulo translation from propaganda language into normal language). I would not name this "reality check", because there is nonetheless no certainty about what really happened, even if both sides write the same. But if something is written by both sides, it is sufficiently reasonable to accept this. (This would be the only situation where I would apply something one can, in principle, name "balancing": If both sides say the same, "balancing" would return this same information too. But this would be a quite artificial application of the word "balancing", not? Translated into your language, the closest phrases to describe this would be "reality check" or "verification".)
    How often do you want to repeat that fairy tale? If I write "if what Barr writes is correct, ..." at a time the report was not available, I have given a piece of correct information myself, and not suckered.

    Feel free to correct this falsehood by explaining your side and your methods in more detail. I know that hypotheses about how you handle information can be only guesses, but these guesses have not yet been falsified by any observation.
    No, I recognize that these are different things. But I'm not aware that the statement in the article could not have been as well
    "If Moscow has leverage over a presidential candidate, that is no collusion." or "If Moscow has leverage over a president, that is not an impeachable offense". Both would be true because as "collusion" as "offense" require some active participation from Trump's side, but "Moscow has leverage over a presidential candidate" does not.
    And yet another boring repetition. Who cares if something comes from a Republican Party media feed if the content is essentially correct?

    Aside: In this case, you have even presented your evidence, and, as usual, I have read it and found something interesting and uncomfortable for you. I'm afraid you will learn this lecture and post no evidence in replies to me during the next three years.
    You think they talk about a Trump tower in Moscow? Ok, that's your hypothesis. I don't think it is a plausible guess.

    Trump's behavior makes sense, given that he cannot be sure that even translators are trustable. He lives, last but not least, in three felonies a day land where a lot of law enforcement tries to get him. Does the deep state have kompromat against a particular translator, which could be used to force him to tell about the content of the talks to his political enemies and their media? Such leaks have happened all the time during his presidency. On the Russian side, he can be sure that there will be no such leaks by translators.
     
  15. Benson Registered Member

    Messages:
    99
    It's in the report.
     
  16. Benson Registered Member

    Messages:
    99
    Not that "yawn" material to make you sound clever. It does the opposite, please find a new tune.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,520
    No, I didn't. I applied it to a few and very similar, closely related sources.
    You don't observe. You don't factcheck anything.
    In the first place, you can't identify sides, or sources, or similarities of propaganda language from US pros. It's beyond your capabilities, because you don't know anything about the reality involved - you don't know what's propaganda and what isn't.
    In the second, it wouldn't work if you could. You cannot fact check or reality check without considering facts and reality.
    The content of the Republican Party media feed is propaganda and disinformation, entirely, on purpose - such feeds are "essentially incorrect" by professional design. That's why your parroting of them is such rank and obvious bullshit.
    And nobody cares whether you care.
    He's ok with the Russian ones.
    The only translators he doesn't trust are the ones he hires and controls? Odd. And incompetent - a President is supposed to be able to administrate, do the job of chief executive. This one can't even hire a trustworthy translator of Russian - after decades of Russian business dealings.

    Meanwhile, it doesn't matter whether he trusts anyone or not - he has to record and report to the relevant oversight committees and diplomatic corps his dealings with foreign powers. It's a Constitutionally mandated part of his job - he took an oath, remember? Secret and unrecorded meetings with foreign heads of State are impeachable offenses.
    If he willingly submits to blackmail.
    In other words, he's completely incompetent and unfit for office.
    He's in charge of all that stuff - the intelligence reports on who is compromised land on his desk, the top officials of those law enforcement agencies serve at his pleasure, the leaks have all come from people he hired or people directly under their command - as with fascists in general, Trump is a fuckup.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,520
    It isn't.
    You haven't read the report.
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,013
    I do wonder, sometimes, about the people who think this is sufficient. Being unable to tell us what they are talking about is a sign of either ignorance or excrement. That is, either you don't know what you're on about, or you do and are denigrating yourself for reasons that, at best, make sense to you.

    To the other, we've been at this Trump experience long enough that nobody is really surprised when the people who offer him support aren't capable of carrying on functional discourse. Even more so the Sciforums experience. Corpulent and craptacular confidence of cluelessness is common in these climes.
     
  20. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,957
    He did read it, he just doesn't understand what the bigger words in it mean, like "dissemination".
     
  21. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,901
    "Now in fact, your report expressly states that it does not exonerate the president," Nadler said.

    "It does," Mueller said.
     
  22. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    716
    Nor did the report indict the president. You can try to hang your hat on the DOJ rules against indicting a sitting president, but impeachment is not a criminal procedure and requires no illegal act as justification, just political will, which is a potentially double-edged sword with its own calculus.

    And the latest impeachment ploy is apparently based on...
    The whistleblower didn't have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN. Instead, the whistleblower's concerns came in part from learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work, and those details have played a role in the administration's determination that the complaint didn't fit the reporting requirements under the intelligence whistleblower law, the official said. https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/20/politics/donald-trump-whistleblower/index.html

    That isn't enough to justify a transparent, political hit job, apparently distracting from a past Biden scandal.
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,358
    Last I heard there were a lot of people (chosen by the president) convicted of all kinds of crimes.
    If that is the "circle of influence" of a president, he is reponsible for their behaviors.

    Point is, some people believe the law does not apply to them as opposed to the people who live in the "shit-holes" of the world. No one is above the law, it's not complicated.
    Trump has broken several laws, he cannot be president "in good conscience".
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2019

Share This Page