Russia probes kick into high gear

[+DieChecker]

13 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Only that tiny CT branch comes with professionally done propaganda material. Someone's paying for that, I'd say. And you already had very real incidents because of their very unreal claims. 

 

We will see. Is that fair enough? 

Yeah. Fair enough.

Worked last night, so now to bed... 

[RoofGardener]

3 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Yeah. Fair enough.

Worked last night, so now to bed... 

Sweet Dreams  

Wait.. have you checked for Russians under your bed ?  

[aztek]

a Russian sleeps in my bed, lol 

[Tatetopa]

2 hours ago, and then said:

I find that fact to be very disturbing as an American citizen.  When overt propaganda can be brought to bear on a daily basis with the intent of damaging our nation and its Constitution and there seems to be no legal recourse, where do we go from here?  If it continues unchecked our nation will fall into chaos.  If the targets of the propaganda fight back, the nation may fall into chaos.  The question remains... who benefits from a weakened America at war with itself?

 It is disturbing I agree.

Overt propaganda can be brought to bear by both sides daily, whether their intent is to damage the Constitution or simply make a lot of money is  conjecture.  Results may indeed be damage, motive is unproven.

When you talk about MSM though, I think you need to include all MSM, and in that case views and opinions are split.  FOX news has more than double the viewership of CNN and is equal to or greater than CNN + MSNBC according to the 2018 numbers I found.  Sinclair Broadcasting Group is one of the largest television broadcasting companies in the country in addition to owning a large number of local radio stations.  Sinclair has talked to the Trump Organization about a Trump network.

Both sides are engaged in this propaganda war, facts without spin and unbiased truth are pretty hard to find anywhere.  Our opinions vary on this but it would make me nervous to have a Trump Broadcasting Network as it would be uncomfortably close to a state network.  He may not speak French, but I believe President Trump is in full agreement with Louis XIV  . l'état, c'est moi. : I myself am the nation.  

 

Who benefits from our weakness and division?  All of our rivals and many of our friends.  As the President has said, he doesn't like the EU, he would rather make deals with individual countries because that gives the huge US economy and advantage.  If the US is fractured, all of our trading partners will think advantage has shifted and will seek to renegotiate.  As you have pointed out many times before, it may already have gone too far.  Many citizens who have been fed on hate and division will not want to walk back.  There seem to be a number of people who want the government to collapse so that they can institute the rule of might makes right.  There will be no Constitution then either.

 

[F3SS]

I've always wondered how Trump can at once be seen as a bumbling fool while being accused of super villian levels of criminal genius. The jig is up lefties. Either accept reality or enjoy your stay in Bedlam. Your inability to swallow your pride and see the light is quite a spectacle. If you weren't so full of yourselves I'd assume you'd be embarrassed of your behavior.

[Gromdor]

32 minutes ago, F3SS said:

I've always wondered how Trump can at once be seen as a bumbling fool while being accused of super villian levels of criminal genius. The jig is up lefties. Either accept reality or enjoy your stay in Bedlam. Your inability to swallow your pride and see the light is quite a spectacle. If you weren't so full of yourselves I'd assume you'd be embarrassed of your behavior.

I've you actually read what he has been accused of?  It's all bumbling fool type crimes.  Paying off porn stars.  Using charity money as his own piggy bank.  Making a scam university.  Pocketing inauguration funds.  For being a supposedly successful business man, he sure is desperate to grab money whenever he can and always seems to be in the red.  The ones with the brains are crooks like Cohen and Manaford that do all the dirty deeds to cover up for him.

I've always maintained that he was too stupid and erratic to be an effective "collusion" partner. 

[F3SS]

21 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I've you actually read what he has been accused of?  It's all bumbling fool type crimes.  Paying off porn stars.  Using charity money as his own piggy bank.  Making a scam university.  Pocketing inauguration funds.  For being a supposedly successful business man, he sure is desperate to grab money whenever he can and always seems to be in the red.  The ones with the brains are crooks like Cohen and Manaford that do all the dirty deeds to cover up for him.

I've always maintained that he was too stupid and erratic to be an effective "collusion" partner. 

He's also been accused of successfully stealing a United States presidential election against unprecedented odds while secretly working in cahoots with the infamous Vladimir Putin to do so all while running a supposedly disastrous campaign and in some cases he's been said to have been a Russian asset since the end of the cold war. That's super villian stuff. All that while he's supposedly hated by all who surround him running a White House in disarray yet has an unending amount of loyalist goons happy to do his bidding, keep his secrets and fall on the sword for him. That too is super villian stuff. 

[hatecraft]

45 minutes ago, F3SS said:

He's also been accused of successfully stealing a United States presidential election against unprecedented odds while secretly working in cahoots with the infamous Vladimir Putin to do so all while running a supposedly disastrous campaign and in some cases he's been said to have been a Russian asset since the end of the cold war. That's super villian stuff. All that while he's supposedly hated by all who surround him running a White House in disarray yet has an unending amount of loyalist goons happy to do his bidding, keep his secrets and fall on the sword for him. That too is super villian stuff. 

He also has small hands and is orange.

[F3SS]

20 minutes ago, hatecraft said:

He also has small hands and is orange.

All super villians have their reasons for hating the world.

[Helen of Annoy]

13 hours ago, F3SS said:

He's also been accused of successfully stealing a United States presidential election against unprecedented odds while secretly working in cahoots with the infamous Vladimir Putin to do so all while running a supposedly disastrous campaign and in some cases he's been said to have been a Russian asset since the end of the cold war. That's super villian stuff. All that while he's supposedly hated by all who surround him running a White House in disarray yet has an unending amount of loyalist goons happy to do his bidding, keep his secrets and fall on the sword for him. That too is super villian stuff. 

'scuse me, but he was never accused by anyone sane of stealing the elections by himself. Or doing anything that made sense, ever.  

He just keeps playing the role of billionaire, which is considered a proof of intelligence in your society (not to digress how wrong that assumption is). But no one outside the US mistook him for an intelligent person. Not ever and especially not now, after we had the misfortune of hearing directly from him what exactly his thought process looks like.  

As such, and being sort of 'celebrity', with no scruples at all, already in debt, he was ideal candidate for Putin, who naturally wants the US divided and destabilized. 

The whole world can see, except the Trump's faithful, from Trump's behaviour, from his words and actions, who pulls his strings. 

 

Just one example, seemingly small but very telling: 

At the begging of his 'presidency', Trump already had to attempt sowing discord within NATO. He went that far to openly ask for protection money from NATO members or he'll withdraw the US from NATO. 

It was so surreal I kept wondering who on Earth told that man that NATO is an US organisation that collects extortion money in exchange for protection. People said he's just ignorant while had watched too many gangster movies. 

But the truth was even more bizarre. The other day, there was 70th anniversary of NATO. And Russian ambassador to my country 'congratulated' us by tweeting and old Soviet caricature, featuring people, representing NATO members, being hanged on clothes line, beaten by an officer with $ sign on his sleeve, money falling out of their pockets.

So yes, it was Russians that filled Trump's head with the idea that NATO members are paying actual money to the US. And it wouldn't be worth mentioning if Trump didn't insist on the extortion money he was convinced is belonging to him, no matter how many actual politicians, diplomats, prime-ministers, presidents and others explained to him what the real situation is. Nope. He stubbornly demanded the money Russians told him is going directly to the US. 

 

You've elected a man who learns extremely slowly and from the wrongest possible source.    

Also, mocking and belittling people who are not ready to dismiss the obvious is just one of the propaganda techniques you've been attacked by. I enjoy humour, absolutely, on my expense too, bring it on, but it's very visible that there're focused, professionally made sets of 'humorous' deflections for Trump. Which is understandable, since he hardly can be defended with real arguments, but the deliberate, self-destructive blindness of Trump's cult is not understandable.  

[RoofGardener]

20 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

....Just one example, seemingly small but very telling: 

At the begging of his 'presidency', Trump already had to attempt sowing discord within NATO. He went that far to openly ask for protection money from NATO members or he'll withdraw the US from NATO. 

It was so surreal I kept wondering who on Earth told that man that NATO is an US organisation that collects extortion money in exchange for protection. People said he's just ignorant while had watched too many gangster movies. 

 

Jeez Loise you're indefatigable, aren't  you ? 

Trump asked that NATO members should pay their dues, and contribute more fully to the alliance. The target goal is 2% of GDP.. and apparantly MANY countries (at the time he made the comment) where WAY below this. Meanwhile, the US was paying 22% of the infrastructure costs of NATO, and a HUGE proportion of its military strength. (consider the occasions when NATO has undertaken military actions: the USA tends to provide the bulk of the high-tech military units, especially aircraft and aircraft carriers).

Trumps comments where classic: not entirely accurate, but with a strong underlying point. 

And where do you get this notion of "protection money" from ? The President was just threatening to reduce the US funding/military contributions to NATO, unless other NATO states spent more on their military contributions. How is that 'protection money' ? 

Edited April 12, 2019 by RoofGardener

[Helen of Annoy]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Jeez Loise you're indefatigable, aren't  you ? 

Trump asked that NATO members should pay their dues, and contribute more fully to the alliance. The target goal is 2% of GDP.. and apparantly MANY countries (at the time he made the comment) where WAY below this. Meanwhile, the US was paying 22% of the infrastructure costs of NATO, and a HUGE proportion of its military strength. (consider the occasions when NATO has undertaken military actions: the USA tends to provide the bulk of the high-tech military units, especially aircraft and aircraft carriers).

Trumps comments where classic: not entirely accurate, but with a strong underlying point. 

And where do you get this notion of "protection money" from ? The President was just threatening to reduce the US funding/military contributions to NATO, unless other NATO states spent more on their military contributions. How is that 'protection money' ? 

Not true. The bolded part is what he was told, by the sane officials from NATO countries. Yet he persisted. Because in his mind, apparently, Russians know better. 

Now, you apparently forgot, but I will never, that his blunders were all about 'owing US money'. It can't be interpreted in any other way. 

Here's a nice article, randomly, first, from where you can start reading and weeping: 

  https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_america_the_mercenary_trump_plan_to_bill_nato

Quote

 

“Germany,” Trump tweeted in March 2017, “owes ... vast sums of money to NATO & the United States must be paid more for the powerful, and very expensive, defense it provides to Germany!” When German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited the White House that month, he reportedly presented her with an invoice for $300 billion in back payments due to the United States (plus interest). The Germans dismissed the idea as outrageous – and the US denied the incident ever happened – but it hasn’t gone away.

 

 

And he still has seizures during which he's seeing bills and invoices for NATO members. 

So what you wish to present as an excuse in which you'd explain what he must have meant with his deranged demands is not what he demanded and still wants to demand. 

 

His words and actions are clear enough. Any attempt to present them as something that was meant to mean something completely else, only to be totally the opposite tomorrow and so on, is just underestimating the intelligence of the sane people you are trying to gaslight. 

You can't brainwash me. 

That man is trying to wreck the NATO, among other things. Is it out of grave ignorance or he's forced to do it, I don't know and in the words of his 'wife' 'I don't really care'.  

[RoofGardener]

2 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

 

Here's a nice article, randomly, first, from where you can start reading and weeping: 

  https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_america_the_mercenary_trump_plan_to_bill_nato

Yeah.. except.. that's not true, is it ? 

Both the US and the Germans denied that any such thing had happened. 

[Helen of Annoy]

2 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Yeah.. except.. that's not true, is it ? 

Both the US and the Germans denied that any such thing had happened. 

Let me repeat the part you obviously didn't read, or you're unable to understand: 

2 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

The Germans dismissed the idea as outrageous – and the US denied the incident ever happened – but it hasn’t gone away.

So, which part you'll claim you didn't understand? 

The US denied. As usual, because Trump keeps spouting so destructive horrors they can only be denied. But to no avail, because note it hasn't gone away. We, the sane people around the world, have memories that cannot be erased on cult command. The more you act like you can't remember, the less credibility you have left.  

[RAyMO]

20 hours ago, aztek said:

a Russian sleeps in my bed, lol 

In that case definitely check under it

[RavenHawk]

20 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

When you talk about MSM though, I think you need to include all MSM, and in that case views and opinions are split.  FOX news has more than double the viewership of CNN and is equal to or greater than CNN + MSNBC according to the 2018 numbers I found. 

For a long time, I would have disagreed with you.  But I have recently noticed a difference at FOX of late.  It isn’t something that I can clearly point to.  It is basically only a sense of a change.  My guess is that since the Mueller report and the Nunes referrals, FOX is going on offense and the numbers support that.  People are getting tired of the Progressive B.S.  FOX is offering an additional pincher arm to the Trump full court press.  Trump policies are paying dividends and that has people excited.  Something they haven’t felt under the Progressive Plantation for a very long time.  This movement is truth speaking to tyranny and people are jumping on the bandwagon.

 

Our opinions vary on this but it would make me nervous to have a Trump Broadcasting Network as it would be uncomfortably close to a state network. 

We’ve had a Progressive Broadcasting (state) Network for years.  That never made you uncomfortable?

 

He may not speak French, but I believe President Trump is in full agreement with Louis XIV  .

 l'état, c'est moi. : I myself am the nation.  

For this analogy, Obama was fluent in French.

 

Who benefits from our weakness and division? 

Progressives.

 

If the US is fractured, all of our trading partners will think advantage has shifted and will seek to renegotiate. 

Our so-called trading partners were taking advantage of us without being fractured.  Too many of the Prog leadership allowed us to be sodomized.

 

As you have pointed out many times before, it may already have gone too far.  Many citizens who have been fed on hate and division will not want to walk back.  There seem to be a number of people who want the government to collapse so that they can institute the rule of might makes right.  There will be no Constitution then either.

This is direct from the Progressive playbook.  Anything they can do to get rid of the Constitution so that they can construct a new Socialist utopia.

[Doc Socks Junior]

3 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Not true. The bolded part is what he was told, by the sane officials from NATO countries. Yet he persisted. Because in his mind, apparently, Russians know better. 

Now, you apparently forgot, but I will never, that his blunders were all about 'owing US money'. It can't be interpreted in any other way. 

The amount 'owed' was the amount that German spending had fallen below 2% for the last 12 years, plus interest.  If the other NATO countries actually spent what they agreed to on their own fracking defense, this would be a moot point.  But they don't, so it isn't.

[RAyMO]

14 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

The amount 'owed' was the amount that German spending had fallen below 2% for the last 12 years, plus interest.  If the other NATO countries actually spent what they agreed to on their own fracking defense, this would be a moot point.  But they don't, so it isn't.

The fact is they owed the US and NATO nothing. The fact that their spend on defense in their own budgets was less than target does not translate to monies owed. Besides govts could tart anything like 'shoring up its military industrial complex' as defense if it so determined. 

Edited April 12, 2019 by RAyMO

[Doc Socks Junior]

Just now, RAyMO said:

The fact is they owed the US and NATO nothing.

Sure, that's a fact.  Another fact is that they agreed to commit 2 percent to defense.  Another fact is that the US shoulders a disproportionate cost for NATO compared with the Europeans countries therein.

Another fact is that this has been brought up by Obama (2016), Robert Gates (2011), and John Foster Dulles (1953).  People credulously convinced that Trump is an agent of the Russian boogeyman because he wants NATO members to pay their share are simply ignorant of history.

 

[RAyMO]

9 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Sure, that's a fact.  Another fact is that they agreed to commit 2 percent to defense

This is not news - it wasn't even news when trump said it, they have been committed to that target since 2014 (or there abouts) with  a due compliance date in the early 20's. None of these things changed as as result of Trump. despite what he may have claimed in the press. In fact when he claimed it the European leaders were quick to point it was an already standing agreement which had not be changed in anyway.

I think if you do your analysis you will find that no European NATO country owes NATO or the US any monies in respect of NATO activities. That the US commits more than others is an issue for the US. But I do seem to remember the UK and others getting dragged into at least 1 totally unjustified war to keep the US happy.

Edited April 12, 2019 by RAyMO

[Doc Socks Junior]

Just now, RAyMO said:

This is not news - it wasn't even news when trump said it, they have been committed to that target since 2014 (or there abouts) with  a due date in the early 20's. None of these things changed as as result of Trump. despite what he may have claimed in the press. In fact when he claimed it the European leaders were quick to point it was an already standing agreement which had not be changed in anyway.

They were actually committed since the early 2000s.  But since it was non-binding, they just cheerfully ignored it.  Trump is simply being consistent with rhetoric seen from the US since 2011, under the Obama administration.  Was Obama a Russian puppet? 

 

[+and-then]

22 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It is only "cartoonishly unlikely" because you've wrapped up so much in what you think is the truth.

To which, I blame the 24/7/365 news requirement to create news. It is no wonder so many people on both, sides believe so much of the crap.

THIS^

Those who believe the media reports of his guilt - pounded literally daily for over two years - are so invested in that belief now that they cannot walk away from it.  No evidence to the contrary will ever convince them.  Even if Barr were to flip one of the players in this "investigative coup" and they gave up all the details of how it began and who planned it, they'd still say Trump's DoJ was dirty and this is proof of his totalitarian bent.

That reality is all the proof one should need for the power of the media.  Those corporate owners push propaganda now.  They have become spinmasters who take factual events and use wordcraft and infotainers to create drama for their consumers.  When there has never been any proof of Trump committing crimes, yet his coverage is 95% negative since before he was inaugurated, it is clear that there is a coordinated effort to take him down.  It is sedition and the 5th column needs to be held accountable for it.

[RAyMO]

1 minute ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

They were actually committed since the early 2000s.  But since it was non-binding, they just cheerfully ignored it.  Trump is simply being consistent with rhetoric seen from the US since 2011, under the Obama administration.  Was Obama a Russian puppet? 

 

Trump perhaps was being consistent - but it was clear from his early rants that he thought the money was owed to the US or NATO, it took a while for his aides to get the message over to him.

Russian puppet? Not my ball game.

[Helen of Annoy]

11 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

They were actually committed since the early 2000s.  But since it was non-binding, they just cheerfully ignored it.  Trump is simply being consistent with rhetoric seen from the US since 2011, under the Obama administration.  Was Obama a Russian puppet? 

 

Obama sent no freaking invoices for the money the actual freaking countries (not characters in a movie) do not owe to anyone. Not even to themselves, because 2% is desired investment into defence.

Trump did that and makes noises again, like he forgot that he was told to stop with that bizarre racketeering nonsense.

 

Puppet or no puppet, he certainly manages to accidentally regurgitate Russian propaganda. 

[Doc Socks Junior]

8 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

Trump perhaps was being consistent - but it was clear from his early rants that he thought the money was owed to the US or NATO, it took a while for his aides to get the message over to him.

Good point.  It certainly convinced you.  And it seems, from record increases in defense spending, that it also convinced our NATO allies.

1 minute ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Obama sent no freaking invoices for the money the actual freaking countries (not characters in a movie) do not owe to anyone. Not even to themselves, because 2% is desired investment into defence.

Trump did that and makes noises again, like he forgot that he was told to stop with that bizarre racketeering nonsense.

I appreciate your fixation on this hypothetically true story.  Looks like, miracle of miracles, Trump's somewhat blundering negotiating tactics worked.

I suppose even a blind squirrel is right twice a day.

Really can't see the forest for the trees, can you?

1 minute ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Puppet or no puppet, he certainly manages to accidentally regurgitate Russian propaganda. 

As do you.