Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 04:58 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
He showed incoherence

How so?
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 04:59 am
@oralloy,
They specialize in lying and anger stroking. Bernie showed them what a real man is about.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 05:04 am
@Lash,
Quote:
Some people can get hung up on mannerisms and appearance...

Are you directing this criticism at me, personally? I wasn't "hung up" on the guy's personal style — given the political atmosphere in 2004 his message wasn't that resonant and his proposals were unrealistic.

Quote:
That time has finally arrived, and I thank Kucinich for his part in getting us to this point.

I'd be more likely to credit the obvious failures and shortcomings of post-industrial capitalism for having gotten us to this point rather than any progressive narrative. People have been demanding social freedom, economic justice, and an end to war for centuries. Kucinich didn't write that script.

Quote:

Mannerisms and appearance are meaningless to people desperate for change.

And desperation often prevents people from identifying pandering hucksters. While there are many people who do "intently listening to policy, and then make it their business to research what a candidate has done and said before, calculating believability" there are a sizable number who merely get swept along with the momentum, jumping on the bandwagon because someone's telling them what they wish to hear and feeling as if they're part of some great social movement gives them a thrill. That's how Trump got elected. While I find the current crop of progressive politicians more convincing and believable than DK was in '04, I sure hope their current base is more realistic and pragmatic than that which giddily backed the "Boy Mayor".
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 05:19 am
@hightor,

hightor wrote:

I went to a Kucinich rally once. Out of curiosity. He was singularly unimpressive. It would have been unimaginable to see him on the world stage representing the USA. (As much as I dislike and distrust Trump, he's as "American as apple pie" and clearly represents a significant percentage of the electorate who can be expected to remain loyal to him.) Kucinich looked like someone who was only empowered by the projections of the idealistic people who believed in him, someone who sucked up the adulation of the crowd by mouthing predictable, simplistic, and largely impractical slogans and phrases. He'd make some statement, pause for effect, and bask in the applause. It was revolting. No, he wasn't Elizabeth Warren. Or Gabbard. Or Sanders. Reciting progressive goals, even when well ahead of the curve, didn't surmount the air of unelectability which surrounded him. His showing confirmed this.

Almost your entire critique of Kucinich was based on appearance and mannerism. Most people fall for it.

Tall men have a great edge, forceful speakers,... Dennis is short, thin, and thready-voiced. It puts some people off and give them a negative opinion before he opens his mouth.

This is the subject of plenty of psychological studies, as I’m sure you know.

So, he was revolting because he paused for applause?
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 05:42 am
Out of surgery. A tad wobbly and somewhat incapacitated. But evening prior to my surgery, my twin brother woke me in the middle of the night with chest pains (he had small heart attack two weeks ago) and so had to rush him to emergency. As of this writing, we remain alive.

And how is it possible this thread contains no mention of the Mueller report release? I'm just reading of the details now. A primary observation is how competent and accurate the reporting was.
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 06:02 am
@Lash,
Quote:

So, he was revolting because he paused for applause?

I didn't say "he" was revolting. I used "it", referring to the rally itself and the scripted kabuki dance between the audience and the candidate. I don't find those situations very appealing or enlightening — I'd much prefer to see a candidate interviewed by a competent journalist or read the candidate's words than see a church-like pantomime or a Trump-like Nuremburg rally. Somebody getting cheered by supporters isn't all that persuasive.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 07:39 am
@blatham,
I am glad to see you ok as of your posts, I hope you continue to recover; as well as your twin brother.

I agree about the accurate reporting. All that "fake news" claim just turned out to be a cheap PR slogan.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 07:40 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:


And how is it possible this thread contains no mention of the Mueller report release?

The media and your Trump thread are wallpapered with it. It doesn’t need to permeate every millimeter of space.

And progressives think the whole thing is vastly overblown. It’s been a multimillion dollar team building excursion for Trump voters, so thanks idiot beltway.

When Bernie voters get pissed by attacks from the media or bullshit cheating by the DNC, we send Bernie money. It cements our resolve.

What you and your misguided Mueller investigation have done is stiffen the necks of Trump voters. They don’t really like him that much, but they’re happy to insult the establishment vicariously through him. They are using him as a cudgel to beat the hell out of liberalism, media.

You guys with financially comfortable lives just don’t have a clue.

I hope this Mueller investigation hasn’t made him too strong to beat.

Trying to overturn the 2016 has set a very bad precedent for all of us.

And btw, now, the opening investigation is about the spying of our own agencies on candidate and then-president Trump. It set a horrific precedent. Our government is devolving straight to the ninth ring of hell.


0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 07:44 am
Liberal/progressive Glenn Greenwald:

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/

THE TWO-PRONGED CONSPIRACY THEORY that has dominated U.S. political discourse for almost three years – that (1) Trump, his family and his campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election, and (2) Trump is beholden to Russian President Vladimir Putin — was not merely rejected today by the final report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. It was obliterated: in an undeniable and definitive manner.

The key fact is this: Mueller – contrary to weeks of false media claims – did not merely issue a narrow, cramped, legalistic finding that there was insufficient evidence to indict Trump associates for conspiring with Russia and then proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That would have been devastating enough to those who spent the last two years or more misleading people to believe that conspiracy convictions of Trump’s closest aides and family members were inevitable. But his mandate was much broader than that: to state what did or did not happen.

That’s precisely what he did: Mueller, in addition to concluding that evidence was insufficient to charge any American with crimes relating to Russian election interference, also stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was no evidence – not merely that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction – that key prongs of this three-year-old conspiracy theory actually happened. As Mueller himself put it: “in some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event.”

With regard to Facebook ads and Twitter posts from the Russia-based Internet Research Agency, for example, Mueller could not have been more blunt: “The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation” (emphasis added). Note that this exoneration includes not only Trump campaign officials but all Americans:


To get a further sense for how definitive the Report’s rejection is of the key elements of the alleged conspiracy theory, consider Mueller’s discussion of efforts by George Papadopoulos, Joseph Misfud and and “two Russian nationals” whereby they tried “to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian officials” to talk about how the two sides could work together to disseminate information about Hillary Clinton. As Mueller puts it: “No meeting took place.”

Several of the media’s most breathless and hyped “bombshells” were dismissed completely by Mueller. Regarding various Trump officials’ 2016 meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, Mueller said they were “brief, public and nonsubstantive.” Concerning the much-hyped change to GOP platform regarding Ukraine, Mueller wrote that the “evidence does not establish that one campaign official’s efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican platform was undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia,” and further noted that such a change was consistent with Trump’s publicly stated foreign policy view (one shared by Obama) to avoid provoking gratuitous conflict with the Kremlin over arming Ukrainians. Mueller also characterized a widely hyped “meeting” between then-Senator Jeff Sessions and Kislyak as one that did not “include any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign.”

Regarding one of the most-cited pieces of evidence by Trump/Russia conspiracists – that Russia tried once Trump was nominated to shape his foreign policy posture toward Russia – Mueller concluded that there is simply no evidence to support it:

In other crucial areas, Mueller did not go so far as to say that his investigation “did not identify evidence” but nonetheless concluded that his 22-month investigation “did not establish” that the key claims of the conspiracy theory were true. Regarding alleged involvement by Trump officials or family members in the Russian hacks, for instance, Mueller explained: “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
revelette1
 
  4  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 08:56 am
'Putin Has Won': Mueller Details How Russia Interfered in Election

Quote:
WASHINGTON—Robert Mueller’s long-awaited report is unambiguously clear on this point: Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and sought to help Donald Trump win the White House.

That has been the unanimous view of the intelligence community for nearly 2½ years. But it is laid out in unprecedented detail across nearly 200 pages of the special counsel’s report, which also describes Russian efforts to forge ties with members of Trump’s campaign to further the Kremlin’s interference goals.

The report from Mr. Mueller will likely serve as the definitive document about Russia’s use of an array of digital weapons to influence the American electorate in 2016. It will also bolster warnings from senior U.S. intelligence officials that Russia and other hostile foreign powers remain intent on disrupting future elections, including the 2020 presidential contest.

Mr. Mueller asserted on the very first page of the report that the Russian government “interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.”

The report describes how the Russian troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency engaged in interference dating back to 2014, as Russia’s relations with the U.S. took an abrupt turn for the worse after Russia’s seizure of Crimea. In June of that year, the report said, four IRA employees traveled to the U.S. on an intelligence-gathering mission, assisting what would metastasize over the following two years into a relentless psychological war on voters.

IRA employees took to social media from Moscow pretending to be Americans, creating bogus accounts on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter that reached tens of millions of people and garnered hundreds of thousands of followers, the report said. In one instance, Russians used social media to recruit an American to walk through New York wearing a Santa Claus suit and a Donald Trump mask, the report says.

“Hopefully, what this report does is put to bed any lingering questions about what Russian intent or activities were during the 2016 presidential election,” said April Doss, who served as senior counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee’s own Russia investigation until last year. “This is a level of detail we have never seen before.”

Russia has denied interfering in the election.

The report explains how Russia’s yearslong hacking and social-media operations coincided with a series of contacts between the Kremlin and Trump campaign officials and associates, including Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son. Those interactions included discussions about possible business deals, policy goals and getting dirt on Hillary Clinton. The latter transpired during a well-known meeting in Trump Tower in New York. Investigators didn’t establish that a conspiracy existed between the two sides to work together to interfere in the election.

The Russians also succeeded in getting a number of officials closely associated with the Trump campaign to promote the Russian government’s messages. Those officials included the younger Mr. Trump; then-digital-media director for the Trump campaign, Brad Parscale; and prominent members of the media. A lawyer for Mr. Trump Jr. declined to comment on sharing disinformation from Russia, but said there was nothing wrong with his client’s decision to listen to a Russian offer of potentially damaging information on Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Parscale declined to comment on Thursday. Previously, he has said that he retweeted a tweet of Russian origin in his timeline that others in the campaign had retweeted and that Twitter doesn’t advise users of the country of origin for tweets.

In his Thursday press conference, Mr. Barr was emphatic that the report found that no American, including anyone associated with the Trump campaign, knowingly conspired or coordinated with the Russian government to hack Democratic Party emails or peddle disinformation on social-media networks.

Mr. Barr addressed as a separate issue the special counsel’s investigation of whether anyone associated with the Trump campaign helped disseminate or encouraged the release of documents related to the Democratic Party that were stolen by Russian hackers. Mr. Barr didn’t say that no American engaged in such activity, but rather that “publication of these types of materials would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy.”

Large portions of the report’s section on Russian interference were redacted due to concerns that details would reveal sources or methods of the U.S. investigation, or do damage to an ongoing probe. About two dozen Russian officers were indicted last year as a result of Mr. Mueller’s investigation, but they all remain at large.

Certain sections about Russian interference are so heavily redacted they are nearly unreadable, including one labeled “Structure of the Internet Research Agency” and more than a full page describing Russia’s operations involving political rallies. Both are scrubbed due to concerns about harming an ongoing investigation, while substantial information about Russia’s hacking of Democratic Party emails is blacked out to protect investigative techniques.

Despite the redactions, new details are scattered throughout the report. Former national security adviser Mike Flynn embarked on an effort to find Mrs. Clinton’s deleted emails at Mr. Trump’s direction in the summer of 2016, enlisting the help of a Senate staffer and a longtime GOP donor, according to the report.

Mr. Trump “asked individuals affiliated with his campaign to find the deleted Clinton emails,” the report said. Mr. Flynn “recalled that Trump made this request repeatedly, and Flynn subsequently contacted multiple people in an effort to obtain the emails.” A lawyer for Mr. Flynn didn’t respond to a request for comment. The emails haven’t surfaced.

The report doesn’t answer all Russia-related questions. Konstantin Kilimnik, a Ukrainian-born aide to Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort, remains a riddle.

Investigators have long sought to learn whether Mr. Kilimnik, who the Federal Bureau of Investigation says has ties to Russian intelligence, was a conduit between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign. Mr. Kilimnik denies ever serving as a conduit or having ties to Russian intelligence. The report didn’t say definitively that Mr. Kilimnik ever worked for Russian intelligence, but noted that several facts supported the notion.

During the campaign, Mr. Manafort told investigators that he purveyed polling data to Mr. Kilimnik, with the expectation that he would then give it to people in Ukraine and to a former client in Russia, oligarch Oleg Deripaska. The report also says that Rick Gates, who served as Mr. Manafort’s deputy on the Trump campaign, told investigators he relayed to Mr. Manafort his belief that Mr. Kilimnik was a Russian spy.

Investigators weren’t sure whether to believe Mr. Manafort. “Because of questions about Manafort’s credibility and our limited ability to gather evidence on what happened to the polling data after it was sent to Kilimnik, the Office could not assess what Kilimnik (or others he may have given it to) did with it,” the report said.

The report also reveals some of the forensic challenges encountered by investigators, and suggests that some questions about the Russian operation and WikiLeaks’ exact role in releasing Democratic Party emails may never be fully known. It acknowledges that investigators encountered hurdles trying to obtain communications between Russia’s military intelligence agency known as the GRU, Russian military hackers behind the pilfering of the emails and WikiLeaks, which received those emails and dumped them online in advance of the 2016 election.

The Kremlin was apparently thrilled with Mr. Trump’s victory. Kirill Dmitriev, the chief executive of Russia’s sovereign-wealth fund who has close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, received a message from an unidentified person on Nov. 9, 2016, as news spread that Mr. Trump had triumphed in an upset. It read, according to the report, “Putin has won.”


Why this report is important on this thread. Putin/Russia targeted dissatisfied voters and went on a divide and conquer campaign and he won.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 09:52 am
@revelette1,
Quote:
Why this report is important on this thread. Putin/Russia targeted dissatisfied voters and went on a divide and conquer campaign and he won.
But goodness. That whole Russian campaign to divide Dem voters through encouraging anger against Clinton and the party certainly has nothing to do with this thread. When Lash spins negative news and commentary about Trump, Russia, the Mueller investigation and the GOP and instead tries to direct criticism towards the Dems, that's because she really cares about liberal/progressive goals and policies.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 09:57 am
Convenient for Obama and Hillary not to have to take any responsibility.
Brand X
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 10:05 am
@ggreenwald

'Even more revealing than the warnings from Morell (who endorsed Hillary) not to expect Trump/Russia conspiracy evidence, James Clapper stated definitively in March, 2017 that he never saw any such evidence either. He was Director of National Intelligence!

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-clapper-no-evidence-of-collusion-between-trump-and-russia-890509379597

@ggreenwald

'As a reminder, even vehement anti-Trump insiders in the intelligence community were trying to war Dems as early as March, 2017, that there would be no evidence of Trump/Russia conspiracy over the election. But humans often believe what they wish were true'

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-ally-says-smoke-no-fire-no-russia-trump-collusion-n734176
revelette1
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 10:07 am
@Brand X,
There is no reason for one to negate the other. Some people never were going to vote for Hillary no matter what. However, that does not mean there were not just as many people who were not influenced by the Russia propaganda machine to elect Donald Trump. In such a close election, it mattered.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 10:11 am
@Brand X,
Neither one is important now, Mueller did find connections but no criminal connection between Trump campaign and Russia. Plenty there that was concerning.

Quote:
but rather that “publication of these types of materials would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy.”


From the WSJ article in my previous post.

Russia engaged in election meddling and the Trump administration was more than willing to be helped by it.
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 10:30 am
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 10:57 am
Blatham’s most recent lie:

Lash spins negative news and commentary about Trump, Russia, the Mueller investigation and the GOP and instead tries to direct criticism towards the Dems, that's because she really cares about liberal/progressive goals and policies.

——————————
I criticize Trump, the GOP, the Mueller investigation, and the Dems. Why do you feel such a compulsion to lie? The truth is evident, easy to find here.

You are required to lie in order to protect your dirty corporatist favorites, aren’t you? Instead, why don’t you just support politicians when they’re honest and criticize them when they lie?

Hold them all accountable for what they do and say. Don’t be a tool.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 11:03 am
Bernie has got the most awesome playlist—Neil Young, The O’Jays (Give the People What They Want), Tracey Chapman (Talkin Bout a Revolution)

Dr. West will be here today, and I’m in heaven.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 11:21 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Bernie has got the most awesome playlist—Neil Young, The O’Jays (Give the People What They Want), Tracey Chapman (Talkin Bout a Revolution)

Dr. West will be here today, and I’m in heaven.


So cool; so insipid.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 19 Apr, 2019 11:23 am
@Lash,
Thank you for this. It will be amusing to watch blatham and co. dismiss one of their leftist heroes.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 07:04:00