Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
South_Mountaineer said:
dave23 said:I don't think Maureen's view of reality should be relied on.
paulsurovell said:She's the same person who spread the lie that Trump always opposed the Iraq War.
Great piece by Maureen Dowd on the Dems' embrace of neocons:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/10/opinion/sunday/dick-cheney-donald-trump-vice-movie.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/opinion/sunday/donald-the-dove-hillary-the-hawk.html?_r=0
What did she say that you disagree with? (also for @dave23)
Joe Biden confirms Maureen Dowd. Sickening:
Fortunately real Americans were protesting this obscenity (you can hear them in the background)
paulsurovell said:
What did she say that you disagree with? (also for @dave23)
She helped spread some of lies that got Trump elected: "The prime example of commander-in-chief judgment Trump offers is the fact that, like Obama, he thought the invasion of Iraq was a stupid idea."
Just because someone like Max Boot opposes Trump doesn't mean I reflexively support him.
paulsurovell said:
Joe Biden confirms Maureen Dowd. Sickening:Fortunately real Americans were protesting this obscenity (you can hear them in the background)
Yeah that's not exactly what that is.
paulsurovell said:
Great piece by Maureen Dowd on the Dems' embrace of neocons:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/10/opinion/sunday/dick-cheney-donald-trump-vice-movie.html
Yes, I posted this on another thread this morning. Not easy for an establishment writer to stand up and call out hypocrisy like that. Must give great credit, as she could have just pulled a Gail Collins and told us to shut up and vote for any Democrat, and/or not to worry about foreign policy and just protect the status quo.
I'm a bit confused by the first half of the column. Is she saying that Ken "cakewalk" Adelman and Dick "eroding/new guardians of America's authority" Cheney are busy attacking Trump and aligning with the left?
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:What did she say that you disagree with? (also for @dave23)
dave23 said:I don't think Maureen's view of reality should be relied on.
paulsurovell said:She's the same person who spread the lie that Trump always opposed the Iraq War.
Great piece by Maureen Dowd on the Dems' embrace of neocons:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/10/opinion/sunday/dick-cheney-donald-trump-vice-movie.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/opinion/sunday/donald-the-dove-hillary-the-hawk.html?_r=0
I'll just do one example. One of her earliest assertions in the column: "Only Trump could get the pussy-hat crowd to fill Times Square to protest Jeff Sessions’s firing." That's not reality. People were protesting to demand that the Mueller investigation be protected from interference. Maureen's newspaper had accurate coverage of that, and more reality-based commentary.
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:I'll just do one example. One of her earliest assertions in the column: "Only Trump could get the pussy-hat crowd to fill Times Square to protest Jeff Sessions’s firing." That's not reality. People were protesting to demand that the Mueller investigation be protected from interference. Maureen's newspaper had accurate coverage of that, and more reality-based commentary.
South_Mountaineer said:What did she say that you disagree with? (also for @dave23)
dave23 said:I don't think Maureen's view of reality should be relied on.
paulsurovell said:She's the same person who spread the lie that Trump always opposed the Iraq War.
Great piece by Maureen Dowd on the Dems' embrace of neocons:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/10/opinion/sunday/dick-cheney-donald-trump-vice-movie.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/opinion/sunday/donald-the-dove-hillary-the-hawk.html?_r=0
You're parsing your reality. Maureen is right to point out that if the worst attorney general in modern history had not been fired, none of the protesters would have been in Times Square. Liberals upset that Jeff Sessions was fired. That's a paradox that cannot be denied (unless you deny reality).
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:You're parsing your reality. Maureen is right to point out that if the worst attorney general in modern history had not been fired, none of the protesters would have been in Times Square. Liberals upset that Jeff Sessions was fired. That's a paradox that cannot be denied (unless you deny reality).
paulsurovell said:I'll just do one example. One of her earliest assertions in the column: "Only Trump could get the pussy-hat crowd to fill Times Square to protest Jeff Sessions’s firing." That's not reality. People were protesting to demand that the Mueller investigation be protected from interference. Maureen's newspaper had accurate coverage of that, and more reality-based commentary.
South_Mountaineer said:What did she say that you disagree with? (also for @dave23)
dave23 said:I don't think Maureen's view of reality should be relied on.
paulsurovell said:She's the same person who spread the lie that Trump always opposed the Iraq War.
Great piece by Maureen Dowd on the Dems' embrace of neocons:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/10/opinion/sunday/dick-cheney-donald-trump-vice-movie.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/opinion/sunday/donald-the-dove-hillary-the-hawk.html?_r=0
Maybe you have your own reality. People were protesting because Mueller is going to be reporting to Whitaker.
----------------------
https://www.trumpisnotabovethelaw.org/event/mueller-firing-rapid-response/search/
BREAKING: PROTESTS CALLED FOR THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 5 PM LOCAL TIME
Donald Trump has installed a crony to oversee the special counsel's Trump-Russia investigation, crossing a red line set to protect the investigation. By replacing Rod Rosenstein with just-named Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker as special counsel Robert Mueller's boss on the investigation, Trump has undercut the independence of the investigation. Whitaker has publicly outlined strategies to stifle the investigation and cannot be allowed to remain in charge of it. The Nobody Is Above the Law network demands that Whitaker immediately commit not to assume supervision of the investigation. Our hundreds of response events are being launched to demonstrate the public demand for action to correct this injustice. We will update this page as the situation develops.
--
Donald Trump just crossed a red line, violating the independence of the investigation pursuing criminal charges in the Trump-Russia scandal and cover-up.
Trump putting himself above the law is a threat to our democracy, and we’ve got to get Congress to stop him.
We're mobilizing immediately to demand accountability, because Trump is not above the law.
For Paul and nan and other useful idiots
paulsurovell said:
You're parsing your reality. Maureen is right to point out that if the worst attorney general in modern history had not been fired, none of the protesters would have been in Times Square. Liberals upset that Jeff Sessions was fired. That's a paradox that cannot be denied (unless you deny reality).
Do you honestly think they were out there because they thought Jeff Sessions was a great AG?
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:Do you honestly think they were out there because they thought Jeff Sessions was a great AG?
You're parsing your reality. Maureen is right to point out that if the worst attorney general in modern history had not been fired, none of the protesters would have been in Times Square. Liberals upset that Jeff Sessions was fired. That's a paradox that cannot be denied (unless you deny reality).
Good question.
DaveSchmidt said:
jamie said:How is Paul, or anyone, supposed to answer that question? Outside of the dossier, any intel provided by Steele, and whether it was refuted, is likely to be classified, isn’t it?
Paul you have yet to answer or provide proof as to why Christopher Steele's work should not be trusted? Please show past intelligence he has provided to the FBI that turned out to be false. Name a few people who have worked with him in the FBI who have said that he shouldn't be trusted.
You have such a target on the dossier, but zilch on the actual author. TIA
When it comes to the dossier itself, Paul has disputed the veracity of Steele’s report that Michael Cohen went to Prague, if I recall correctly.
He says the whole thing is a fabrication. At least, that's how I interpret his tweet: "... but the Steele Dossier is a fabrication."
South_Mountaineer said:
DaveSchmidt said:He says the whole thing is a fabrication. At least, that's how I interpret his tweet: "... but the Steele Dossier is a fabrication."
jamie said:How is Paul, or anyone, supposed to answer that question? Outside of the dossier, any intel provided by Steele, and whether it was refuted, is likely to be classified, isn’t it?
Paul you have yet to answer or provide proof as to why Christopher Steele's work should not be trusted? Please show past intelligence he has provided to the FBI that turned out to be false. Name a few people who have worked with him in the FBI who have said that he shouldn't be trusted.
You have such a target on the dossier, but zilch on the actual author. TIA
When it comes to the dossier itself, Paul has disputed the veracity of Steele’s report that Michael Cohen went to Prague, if I recall correctly.
https://twitter.com/paulsurovell/status/1062506551481692160
Glad to know that you're still obsessed with my posts on Twitter as well as here on MOL. When do you expect to post again on Twitter about my MOL posts?
Of course not everything in the Steele dossier is a fabrication. There are numerous "reports" of events that were reported previously in the public record.
But the central theme of the Steele Dossier -- that Trump is compromised by Kremlin kompromat -- clearly doesn't stand up to simple logic. Because if Mueller had such information he would be putting the country at risk by failing to disclose it.
South_Mountaineer said:
dave23 said:Good question.
paulsurovell said:Do you honestly think they were out there because they thought Jeff Sessions was a great AG?
You're parsing your reality. Maureen is right to point out that if the worst attorney general in modern history had not been fired, none of the protesters would have been in Times Square. Liberals upset that Jeff Sessions was fired. That's a paradox that cannot be denied (unless you deny reality).
I'll answer the question with several of my own:
Do you honestly think that Nan and I are criticizing the Russiagate narrative because we think Trump and/or Putin are great presidents? And that we want to support Trump and/or Putin?
Do you honestly think that Nan and I are criticizing US policy in Syria because we think that Assad is a great president? And that we want to support Assad?
dave said:
For Paul and nan and other useful idiots
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/opinion/russia-meddling-disinformation-fake-news-elections.html#one
Why did they leave out the two biggest disinformation campaigns in recent memory --
Russiagate
and this vv ?
a) The NYT admitted to its poor coverage of Iraq and the sources they shouldn't have trusted in May 2004;
b) Part of the video in this current piece that you must have missed explicitly points out our past misadventures in foreign policy; and
c) That Russia interferes with media and elections has been established by several governments.
paulsurovell said:
dave said:Why did they leave out the two biggest disinformation campaigns in recent memory --
For Paul and nan and other useful idiots
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/opinion/russia-meddling-disinformation-fake-news-elections.html#one
Russiagate
and this vv ?
Whataboutism lives.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:I'll answer the question with several of my own:
dave23 said:Good question.
paulsurovell said:Do you honestly think they were out there because they thought Jeff Sessions was a great AG?
You're parsing your reality. Maureen is right to point out that if the worst attorney general in modern history had not been fired, none of the protesters would have been in Times Square. Liberals upset that Jeff Sessions was fired. That's a paradox that cannot be denied (unless you deny reality).
That's not an answer. It was a simple yes/no question and you tried to veer off course even more than usual.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:I'll answer the question with several of my own:
dave23 said:Good question.
paulsurovell said:Do you honestly think they were out there because they thought Jeff Sessions was a great AG?
You're parsing your reality. Maureen is right to point out that if the worst attorney general in modern history had not been fired, none of the protesters would have been in Times Square. Liberals upset that Jeff Sessions was fired. That's a paradox that cannot be denied (unless you deny reality).
Do you honestly think that Nan and I are criticizing the Russiagate narrative because we think Trump and/or Putin are great presidents? And that we want to support Trump and/or Putin?
Do you honestly think that Nan and I are criticizing US policy in Syria because we think that Assad is a great president? And that we want to support Assad?
I don't think that you and Nan think either Trump, Putin, or Assad are great presidents. You obviously have other reasons for taking positions that help them.
Now you can answer the simple question you refused to answer the first time.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:Glad to know that you're still obsessed with my posts on Twitter as well as here on MOL. When do you expect to post again on Twitter about my MOL posts?
DaveSchmidt said:He says the whole thing is a fabrication. At least, that's how I interpret his tweet: "... but the Steele Dossier is a fabrication."
jamie said:How is Paul, or anyone, supposed to answer that question? Outside of the dossier, any intel provided by Steele, and whether it was refuted, is likely to be classified, isn’t it?
Paul you have yet to answer or provide proof as to why Christopher Steele's work should not be trusted? Please show past intelligence he has provided to the FBI that turned out to be false. Name a few people who have worked with him in the FBI who have said that he shouldn't be trusted.
You have such a target on the dossier, but zilch on the actual author. TIA
When it comes to the dossier itself, Paul has disputed the veracity of Steele’s report that Michael Cohen went to Prague, if I recall correctly.
https://twitter.com/paulsurovell/status/1062506551481692160
Of course not everything in the Steele dossier is a fabrication. There are numerous "reports" of events that were reported previously in the public record.
But the central theme of the Steele Dossier -- that Trump is compromised by Kremlin kompromat -- clearly doesn't stand up to simple logic. Because if Mueller had such information he would be putting the country at risk by failing to disclose it.
Calling people "obsessed" because they read what you post in a public forum, whether it's Twitter or MOL, is pretty effin' stupid.
This is the third time now that I've been subject to that insult. Here's my response from last month (also on this thread) when you did it the second time --
When you use the word "obsession", that's at least the second time you've improperly described how Twitter works. The first time you convinced @nan that following someone on Twitter "sounds like stalky and creepy". I had a long response to that about a month and a half ago, also on this thread -
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/who-colluded-more-hillary-or-trump?page=next&limit=3030#discussion-replies-3420973
As I wrote on the long response at that link, I clicked "Follow" on Twitter, so I see your posts. "Following" is not "obsession" -- it's how Twitter works. That's why they show a count of how many people are following every person who posts on Twitter.
Twitter shows how many followers each participant has, right by their name (it's not something you need secret skills to find out) Twitter says you have 195 followers, of which I am one. It says you follow 1,340 people on Twitter. I wouldn't call you "obsessed", or "creepy", or a "stalker". That just means you see their tweets on your timeline. I wish you wouldn't mislead people about how Twitter works, because they might not understand (or worse, get a really bad impression, like the one you gave @nan).
So, once more - when you post on Twitter, other people see what you post. If you don't want people to see what you post on Twitter, you probably shouldn't post on Twitter. It kind of defeats the purpose of posting.
While you write, "When do you expect to post again on Twitter about my MOL posts?", all I did was mention on Twitter that you had made similar arguments on a local message board. Meanwhile, the dumbass argument you made above ("But the central theme of the Steele Dossier -- that Trump is compromised by Kremlin kompromat -- clearly doesn't stand up to simple logic. Because if Mueller had such information he would be putting the country at risk by failing to disclose it.") was repeated by you on Twitter, responding to someone you're "obsessed" with who disagreed with your "Steele Dossier is a fabrication" comment.
https://twitter.com/paulsurovell/status/1062603741222895616
By the way, he did respond to you, so you might want to check that and tell him why Jimmy Dore or Aaron Maté or whomever knows better than he does.
dave said:
a) The NYT admitted to its poor coverage of Iraq and the sources they shouldn't have trusted in May 2004;
b) Part of the video in this current piece that you must have missed explicitly points out our past misadventures in foreign policy; and
c) That Russia interferes with media and elections has been established by several governments.
Well there was "poor coverage" and there was a campaign of lies that lasted for months.
I did see that thing about our "misadventures" because fortunately I didn't blink at that point.
On Russia, of course the government conducts espionage and interferes with media. But they aren't responsible at all for the political and cultural divisions that exist in our country. That's on us and it's absurd to blame the Russians.
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:That's not an answer. It was a simple yes/no question and you tried to veer off course even more than usual.
South_Mountaineer said:I'll answer the question with several of my own:
dave23 said:Good question.
paulsurovell said:Do you honestly think they were out there because they thought Jeff Sessions was a great AG?
You're parsing your reality. Maureen is right to point out that if the worst attorney general in modern history had not been fired, none of the protesters would have been in Times Square. Liberals upset that Jeff Sessions was fired. That's a paradox that cannot be denied (unless you deny reality).
It's an answer that addresses the hypocrisy of the question.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Whataboutism lives.
dave said:Why did they leave out the two biggest disinformation campaigns in recent memory --
For Paul and nan and other useful idiots
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/opinion/russia-meddling-disinformation-fake-news-elections.html#one
Russiagate
and this vv ?
These are glaring omissions.
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:I don't think that you and Nan think either Trump, Putin, or Assad are great presidents. You obviously have other reasons for taking positions that help them.
South_Mountaineer said:I'll answer the question with several of my own:
dave23 said:Good question.
paulsurovell said:Do you honestly think they were out there because they thought Jeff Sessions was a great AG?
You're parsing your reality. Maureen is right to point out that if the worst attorney general in modern history had not been fired, none of the protesters would have been in Times Square. Liberals upset that Jeff Sessions was fired. That's a paradox that cannot be denied (unless you deny reality).
Do you honestly think that Nan and I are criticizing the Russiagate narrative because we think Trump and/or Putin are great presidents? And that we want to support Trump and/or Putin?
Do you honestly think that Nan and I are criticizing US policy in Syria because we think that Assad is a great president? And that we want to support Assad?
Now you can answer the simple question you refused to answer the first time.
Thank you. We are almost there. I will give a simple answer after you respond to the second part of my questions:
Do you honestly think we are criticizing US the Russiagate narrative because we want to support Trump and/or Putin?
Do you honestly think we are criticizing US policy in Syria because we want to support Assad?
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:Thank you. We are almost there. I will give a simple answer after you respond to the second part of my questions:
paulsurovell said:I don't think that you and Nan think either Trump, Putin, or Assad are great presidents. You obviously have other reasons for taking positions that help them.
South_Mountaineer said:I'll answer the question with several of my own:
dave23 said:Good question.
paulsurovell said:Do you honestly think they were out there because they thought Jeff Sessions was a great AG?
You're parsing your reality. Maureen is right to point out that if the worst attorney general in modern history had not been fired, none of the protesters would have been in Times Square. Liberals upset that Jeff Sessions was fired. That's a paradox that cannot be denied (unless you deny reality).
Do you honestly think that Nan and I are criticizing the Russiagate narrative because we think Trump and/or Putin are great presidents? And that we want to support Trump and/or Putin?
Do you honestly think that Nan and I are criticizing US policy in Syria because we think that Assad is a great president? And that we want to support Assad?
Now you can answer the simple question you refused to answer the first time.
Do you honestly think we are criticizing US the Russiagate narrative because we want to support Trump and/or Putin?
Do you honestly think we are criticizing US policy in Syria because we want to support Assad?
Not intentionally.
paulsurovell said:It's an answer that addresses the hypocrisy of the question
You've gone from (deliberately?) misunderstanding the purpose of the protest to avoiding uncomfortable questions to simply not making sense. It's the Holy Trinity of interacting with you.
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:Calling people "obsessed" because they read what you post in a public forum, whether it's Twitter or MOL, is pretty effin' stupid.
South_Mountaineer said:Glad to know that you're still obsessed with my posts on Twitter as well as here on MOL. When do you expect to post again on Twitter about my MOL posts?
DaveSchmidt said:He says the whole thing is a fabrication. At least, that's how I interpret his tweet: "... but the Steele Dossier is a fabrication."
jamie said:How is Paul, or anyone, supposed to answer that question? Outside of the dossier, any intel provided by Steele, and whether it was refuted, is likely to be classified, isn’t it?
Paul you have yet to answer or provide proof as to why Christopher Steele's work should not be trusted? Please show past intelligence he has provided to the FBI that turned out to be false. Name a few people who have worked with him in the FBI who have said that he shouldn't be trusted.
You have such a target on the dossier, but zilch on the actual author. TIA
When it comes to the dossier itself, Paul has disputed the veracity of Steele’s report that Michael Cohen went to Prague, if I recall correctly.
https://twitter.com/paulsurovell/status/1062506551481692160
Of course not everything in the Steele dossier is a fabrication. There are numerous "reports" of events that were reported previously in the public record.
But the central theme of the Steele Dossier -- that Trump is compromised by Kremlin kompromat -- clearly doesn't stand up to simple logic. Because if Mueller had such information he would be putting the country at risk by failing to disclose it.
This is the third time now that I've been subject to that insult. Here's my response from last month (also on this thread) when you did it the second time --
When you use the word "obsession", that's at least the second time you've improperly described how Twitter works. The first time you convinced @nan that following someone on Twitter "sounds like stalky and creepy". I had a long response to that about a month and a half ago, also on this thread -https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/who-colluded-more-hillary-or-trump?page=next&limit=3570#discussion-replies-3427096
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/who-colluded-more-hillary-or-trump?page=next&limit=3030#discussion-replies-3420973
As I wrote on the long response at that link, I clicked "Follow" on Twitter, so I see your posts. "Following" is not "obsession" -- it's how Twitter works. That's why they show a count of how many people are following every person who posts on Twitter.
Twitter shows how many followers each participant has, right by their name (it's not something you need secret skills to find out) Twitter says you have 195 followers, of which I am one. It says you follow 1,340 people on Twitter. I wouldn't call you "obsessed", or "creepy", or a "stalker". That just means you see their tweets on your timeline. I wish you wouldn't mislead people about how Twitter works, because they might not understand (or worse, get a really bad impression, like the one you gave @nan).
So, once more - when you post on Twitter, other people see what you post. If you don't want people to see what you post on Twitter, you probably shouldn't post on Twitter. It kind of defeats the purpose of posting.
While you write, "When do you expect to post again on Twitter about my MOL posts?", all I did was mention on Twitter that you had made similar arguments on a local message board. Meanwhile, the dumbass argument you made above ("But the central theme of the Steele Dossier -- that Trump is compromised by Kremlin kompromat -- clearly doesn't stand up to simple logic. Because if Mueller had such information he would be putting the country at risk by failing to disclose it.") was repeated by you on Twitter, responding to someone you're "obsessed" with who disagreed with your "Steele Dossier is a fabrication" comment.
https://twitter.com/paulsurovell/status/1062603741222895616
By the way, he did respond to you, so you might want to check that and tell him why Jimmy Dore or Aaron Maté or whomever knows better than he does.
You don't just follow me on Twitter you comment obsessively on my Tweets. What are we up to now 90? 100? By the way, this is not a complaint. Keep them coming.
Do you think it's "dumbass" to assume that if Christopher Steele had evidence that Trump was compromised by Putin and is under his influence that Steele has given that evidence to Mueller?
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
I don't think Maureen's view of reality should be relied on.