Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

nan said:

Yes, they print work they consider worth reading.  And what do they consider worth reading?  Stuff they agree with.  Unless it gets a bad reception, then they can cite the boilerplate disclaimer.  None of this is obscure, secret information.  

So mainstream newspapers all the way from The New York Times to The Wilmington News-Journal print only copy that the editors agree with, with a ready excuse of no, not really, when it causes a stir? That’s an interesting take, even if the information it’s based on is so plain to see.

But back to “for legal purposes.” Unless you’re withholding an explanation, it doesn’t sound like they run the boilerplate for that reason.

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

Yes, they print work they consider worth reading.  And what do they consider worth reading?  Stuff they agree with.  Unless it gets a bad reception, then they can cite the boilerplate disclaimer.  None of this is obscure, secret information.  

So mainstream newspapers all the way from The New York Times to The Wilmington News-Journal print only copy that the editors agree with, with a ready excuse of no, not really, when it causes a stir? That’s an interesting take, even if the information it’s based on is so plain to see.
But back to “for legal purposes.” Unless you’re withholding an explanation, it doesn’t sound like they run the boilerplate for that reason.

Yes, pretty much the mainstream papers print stuff the owners agree with.  This is one of the problems with only watching mainstream news--you only get the establishment view.  It may appear to be superficially different, but basically, you are not going read much that rocks the boat.  You will rarely see major advertisers criticized, especially at the Washington Post (which has big government contracts so you will not see any call for decreased military funding).  You hear little about American imperialism, the war in Yemen and similar. 

Frequent pundit on MSNBC.

nan said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

Yes, they print work they consider worth reading.  And what do they consider worth reading?  Stuff they agree with.  Unless it gets a bad reception, then they can cite the boilerplate disclaimer.  None of this is obscure, secret information.  

So mainstream newspapers all the way from The New York Times to The Wilmington News-Journal print only copy that the editors agree with, with a ready excuse of no, not really, when it causes a stir? That’s an interesting take, even if the information it’s based on is so plain to see.
But back to “for legal purposes.” Unless you’re withholding an explanation, it doesn’t sound like they run the boilerplate for that reason.

Yes, pretty much the mainstream papers print stuff the owners agree with.  This is one of the problems with only watching mainstream news--you only get the establishment view.  It may appear to be superficially different, but basically, you are not going read much that rocks the boat.  You will rarely see major advertisers criticized, especially at the Washington Post (which has big government contracts so you will not see any call for decreased military funding).  You hear little about American imperialism, the war in Yemen and similar. 

 And your alternate non-MSM news sources are. . . . . . ?

nan said:

You will rarely see major advertisers criticized, especially at the Washington Post (which has big government contracts so you will not see any call for decreased military funding).

The Post gets big money from the government that silences calls for military cuts? That’s another interesting take, given this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-defense-spending-should-be-cut/2011/08/03/gIQAsRuqsI_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3d1aa69d050e

Or, more recently, this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/07/12/what-america-could-do-with-european-levels-military-spending/?utm_term=.68f060704330

For the record, the current editor of The Post led The Boston Globe during its investigation (depicted in the movie “Spotlight”) of sexual abuse in a rather powerful establishment.

Trump’s ties to the Russian mafia go back 3 decades

Longtime journalist Craig Unger opens his new book, House of Trump, House of Putin, with this anecdote. The book is an impressive attempt to gather up all the evidence we have of Trump’s numerous connections to the Russian mafia and government and lay it all out in a clear, comprehensive narrative.

The book claims to unpack an “untold story,” but it’s not entirely clear how much of it is new. One of the hardest things to accept about the Trump-Russia saga is how transparent it is. So much of the evidence is hiding in plain sight, and somehow that has made it harder to accept.

But make no mistake: Trump’s ties to shady Russian figures stretch back decades, and Unger diligently pieces them together in one place.

Just some light reading for a Saturday morning.

I think Paul has made it clear that he doesn't care about Trump's past Russia connections.  He's more focused on Hillary, thus the thread title.

jamie said:
I think Paul has made it clear that he doesn't care about Trump's past Russia connections.  He's more focused on Hillary, thus the thread title.

 There's a word for that.

nohero said:

jamie said:
I think Paul has made it clear that he doesn't care about Trump's past Russia connections.  He's more focused on Hillary, thus the thread title.

 There's a word for that.

 "usefulidiot"

sbenois said:

nohero said:

jamie said:
I think Paul has made it clear that he doesn't care about Trump's past Russia connections.  He's more focused on Hillary, thus the thread title.

 There's a word for that.

 "usefulidiot"

That's not what I was thinking of, but who am I to dispute your choice?

jamie said:
I think Paul has made it clear that he doesn't care about Trump's past Russia connections.  He's more focused on Hillary, thus the thread title.

 The thread title focuses more on Hillary than Trump? How did you reach that conclusion?

jamie said:
I think Paul has made it clear that he doesn't care about Trump's past Russia connections.  He's more focused on Hillary, thus the thread title.

I don’t think Paul is more focused on Clinton. If someone brings up Y to argue that X is an obsession, he’s using Y as a comparison, not as a marker of his own obsession. And if that were Paul’s only argument, the thread title would still work just fine.

Paul, however, has gone on to argue that any attention at this point to X is a danger, so I don’t really see a dispute (in my mind, or in Paul’s reply) over your first sentence.

Jamie reached his conclusion because he can read (not only the plain meaning of the title, but especially the first post in the thread from July 11, 2017).

paulsurovell said:
So we have a NYT "bombshell" story that Donald Jr. met with a Russian lawyer who provided no information.
On the other hand, we have stories that

(a) Hillary supporters paid for dirt on Trump from alleged Russian officials and

(b) the Ukrainian government provided dirt on Trump to Hillary's campaign.
Who colluded more?

sbenois said:

nohero said:

jamie said:
I think Paul has made it clear that he doesn't care about Trump's past Russia connections.  He's more focused on Hillary, thus the thread title.

 There's a word for that.

 "usefulidiot"

Another misfire from the genius who equated Julian Assange with the NY Times and then equated himself with me.

Stick with the cowboys, you're better off.

Paul once again making **** up in the hope that I will bite.  I won't.

Ouch!

DaveSchmidt said:

jamie said:
I think Paul has made it clear that he doesn't care about Trump's past Russia connections.  He's more focused on Hillary, thus the thread title.

I don’t think Paul is more focused on Clinton. If someone brings up Y to argue that X is an obsession, he’s using Y as a comparison, not as a marker of his own obsession. And if that were Paul’s only argument, the thread title would still work just fine.
Paul, however, has gone on to argue that any attention at this point to X is a danger, so I don’t really see a dispute (in my mind, or in Paul’s reply) over your first sentence.

 I think I've said that Trump's past connections are fair game, but not as evidence of collusion in the 2016 election with the Russian government.

Can anyone tell us how Trump's past Russia connections affected the 2016 election, the transition or his Presidency?

I look forward to your responses.

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
I think Paul has made it clear that he doesn't care about Trump's past Russia connections.  He's more focused on Hillary, thus the thread title.

 The thread title focuses more on Hillary than Trump? How did you reach that conclusion?

 Sorry i meant the overall purpose of the thread was to normalize Trump’s Russia connections by showing that Hillary was much worse.  See the OP, which is old and tired news that went absolutely nowhere, except as a solid base for RT reporting.

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

jamie said:
I think Paul has made it clear that he doesn't care about Trump's past Russia connections.  He's more focused on Hillary, thus the thread title.

I don’t think Paul is more focused on Clinton. If someone brings up Y to argue that X is an obsession, he’s using Y as a comparison, not as a marker of his own obsession. And if that were Paul’s only argument, the thread title would still work just fine.
Paul, however, has gone on to argue that any attention at this point to X is a danger, so I don’t really see a dispute (in my mind, or in Paul’s reply) over your first sentence.

 I think I've said that Trump's past connections are fair game, but not as evidence of collusion in the 2016 election with the Russian government.
Can anyone tell us how Trump's past Russia connections affected the 2016 election, the transition or his Presidency?
I look forward to your responses.

 Is Vladi giving you extra Plaid Stamps for this newest attempt to help him?

You do know that the redemption centers in the USA closed 50 years ago right?  Are they still operating over there?

paulsurovell said:

 I think I've said that Trump's past connections are fair game, but not as evidence of collusion in the 2016 election with the Russian government.
Can anyone tell us how Trump's past Russia connections affected the 2016 election, the transition or his Presidency?
I look forward to your responses.

Are they fair game under the special counsel’s mandate to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”? Or are you interested in details about Trump’s past Russia connections only if they’re disclosed through other means?

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

 I think I've said that Trump's past connections are fair game, but not as evidence of collusion in the 2016 election with the Russian government.
Can anyone tell us how Trump's past Russia connections affected the 2016 election, the transition or his Presidency?
I look forward to your responses.

Are they fair game under the special counsel’s mandate to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”? Or are you interested in details about Trump’s past Russia connections only if they’re disclosed through other means?

You are correct that if Mueller wanted to subpoena Dave Schmidt for saying "we don't know" if Russia hacked the DNC (as reported by @nohero) he has a mandate to do so.

I'm interested in anything about Trump, regardless of how they're disclosed.

But I don't think details about Trump's past Russia connections are evidence of collusion between his campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

Since we're talking about it, can you or anyone else specify what they mean by "Trump's past Russia connections?" It would be helpful to know what we're talking about.

sbenois said:
Paul once again making **** up in the hope that I will bite.  I won't.


Ouch!

 Not really. You've been defanged.

paulsurovell said:

sbenois said:
Paul once again making **** up in the hope that I will bite.  I won't.


Ouch!

 Not really. You've been defanged.

 Now there you go again. 

Poor  Paul.

sbenois said:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

jamie said:
I think Paul has made it clear that he doesn't care about Trump's past Russia connections.  He's more focused on Hillary, thus the thread title.

I don’t think Paul is more focused on Clinton. If someone brings up Y to argue that X is an obsession, he’s using Y as a comparison, not as a marker of his own obsession. And if that were Paul’s only argument, the thread title would still work just fine.
Paul, however, has gone on to argue that any attention at this point to X is a danger, so I don’t really see a dispute (in my mind, or in Paul’s reply) over your first sentence.

 I think I've said that Trump's past connections are fair game, but not as evidence of collusion in the 2016 election with the Russian government.
Can anyone tell us how Trump's past Russia connections affected the 2016 election, the transition or his Presidency?
I look forward to your responses.

 Is Vladi giving you extra Plaid Stamps for this newest attempt to help him?

You do know that the redemption centers in the USA closed 50 years ago right?  Are they still operating over there?

True Fact:

Your hero (who is no-hero) Netanyahu is helping Trump whitewash SBM over the Kashoggi murder.

Still on his team?

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israeli-defense-of-saudis-aims-to-avert-fall-of-trump-and-bibi-s-mideast-strategy-1.6679291

nohero said:
Jamie reached his conclusion because he can read (not only the plain meaning of the title, but especially the first post in the thread from July 11, 2017).

paulsurovell said:
So we have a NYT "bombshell" story that Donald Jr. met with a Russian lawyer who provided no information.
On the other hand, we have stories that

(a) Hillary supporters paid for dirt on Trump from alleged Russian officials and

(b) the Ukrainian government provided dirt on Trump to Hillary's campaign.
Who colluded more?

 

Why are you pushing your Hillary 2016 obsession here, when there's an excellent thread devoted to that subject (that you created) in Soapbox All Politics?  There are a number of excellent comments there that need your response. And Sbenouch can Ouch! them.

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/arsonist-s-new-book-i-can-put-out-the-fire?page=next&limit=0#discussion-replies-3431238

sbenois said:

paulsurovell said:

sbenois said:
Paul once again making **** up in the hope that I will bite.  I won't.


Ouch!

 Not really. You've been defanged.

 Now there you go again.

Poor  Paul.

 I rest my case.

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

 I think I've said that Trump's past connections are fair game, but not as evidence of collusion in the 2016 election with the Russian government.
Can anyone tell us how Trump's past Russia connections affected the 2016 election, the transition or his Presidency?
I look forward to your responses.

Are they fair game under the special counsel’s mandate to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”? Or are you interested in details about Trump’s past Russia connections only if they’re disclosed through other means?

You are correct that if Mueller wanted to subpoena Dave Schmidt for saying "we don't know" if Russia hacked the DNC (as reported by @nohero) he has a mandate to do so.
I'm interested in anything about Trump, regardless of how they're disclosed.
But I don't think details about Trump's past Russia connections are evidence of collusion between his campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.
Since we're talking about it, can you or anyone else specify what they mean by "Trump's past Russia connections?" It would be helpful to know what we're talking about.

 Being paid 60 million over what Trump paid 4 years earlier for his Florida property only to tear it down.  

Trying to secure a Trump Moscow hotel deal - during the campaign.

Eric T saying this: "Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.’"

Don Jr saying this: "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

Trump refusing to share tax returns - so we have no clue.

Here's a good source in regards to Russian connections:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-trump-putin-russia-ties-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868

I'll add to this list - this is what I came up with in 2 minutes.

paulsurovell said:

sbenois said:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

jamie said:
I think Paul has made it clear that he doesn't care about Trump's past Russia connections.  He's more focused on Hillary, thus the thread title.

I don’t think Paul is more focused on Clinton. If someone brings up Y to argue that X is an obsession, he’s using Y as a comparison, not as a marker of his own obsession. And if that were Paul’s only argument, the thread title would still work just fine.
Paul, however, has gone on to argue that any attention at this point to X is a danger, so I don’t really see a dispute (in my mind, or in Paul’s reply) over your first sentence.

 I think I've said that Trump's past connections are fair game, but not as evidence of collusion in the 2016 election with the Russian government.
Can anyone tell us how Trump's past Russia connections affected the 2016 election, the transition or his Presidency?
I look forward to your responses.

 Is Vladi giving you extra Plaid Stamps for this newest attempt to help him?

You do know that the redemption centers in the USA closed 50 years ago right?  Are they still operating over there?

True Fact:

Your hero (who is no-hero) Netanyahu is helping Trump whitewash SBM over the Kashoggi murder.
Still on his team?

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israeli-defense-of-saudis-aims-to-avert-fall-of-trump-and-bibi-s-mideast-strategy-1.6679291

 True Fact: you are sitting in the sub dungeon of MOL because of your endless punching in the dark in order to connect the dots in your bizarro view of the world.  This is just another failed attempt.  

Poor Paul.  

paulsurovell said:

sbenois said:

paulsurovell said:

sbenois said:
Paul once again making **** up in the hope that I will bite.  I won't.


Ouch!

 Not really. You've been defanged.

 Now there you go again.

Poor  Paul.

 I rest my case.

You should just rest.  But your case won't be closed until Vladi says so.

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

 I think I've said that Trump's past connections are fair game, but not as evidence of collusion in the 2016 election with the Russian government.
Can anyone tell us how Trump's past Russia connections affected the 2016 election, the transition or his Presidency?
I look forward to your responses.

Are they fair game under the special counsel’s mandate to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”? Or are you interested in details about Trump’s past Russia connections only if they’re disclosed through other means?

You are correct that if Mueller wanted to subpoena Dave Schmidt for saying "we don't know" if Russia hacked the DNC (as reported by @nohero) he has a mandate to do so.
I'm interested in anything about Trump, regardless of how they're disclosed.
But I don't think details about Trump's past Russia connections are evidence of collusion between his campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.
Since we're talking about it, can you or anyone else specify what they mean by "Trump's past Russia connections?" It would be helpful to know what we're talking about.

 Being paid 60 million over what Trump paid 4 years earlier for his Florida property only to tear it down.  
Trying to secure a Trump Moscow hotel deal - during the campaign.
Eric T saying this: "Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.’"
Don Jr saying this: "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."
Trump refusing to share tax returns - so we have no clue.
Here's a good source in regards to Russian connections:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-trump-putin-russia-ties-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868

I'll add to this list - this is what I came up with in 2 minutes.

 OK, you've given three examples of Trump's real estate dealings with Russians.

Now what has been discovered that relates these dealings to the allegation that Trump colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

Keep in mind that rich Russians have been buying lots of NY and London real estate for years --  and not only from Trump:

https://ny.curbed.com/maps/where-the-russians-live-with-their-billions-in-new-york-city

https://ny.curbed.com/2017/10/20/16511458/bill-de-blasio-russia-real-estate-buzzfeed

sbenois said:

paulsurovell said:

sbenois said:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

jamie said:
I think Paul has made it clear that he doesn't care about Trump's past Russia connections.  He's more focused on Hillary, thus the thread title.

I don’t think Paul is more focused on Clinton. If someone brings up Y to argue that X is an obsession, he’s using Y as a comparison, not as a marker of his own obsession. And if that were Paul’s only argument, the thread title would still work just fine.
Paul, however, has gone on to argue that any attention at this point to X is a danger, so I don’t really see a dispute (in my mind, or in Paul’s reply) over your first sentence.

 I think I've said that Trump's past connections are fair game, but not as evidence of collusion in the 2016 election with the Russian government.
Can anyone tell us how Trump's past Russia connections affected the 2016 election, the transition or his Presidency?
I look forward to your responses.

 Is Vladi giving you extra Plaid Stamps for this newest attempt to help him?

You do know that the redemption centers in the USA closed 50 years ago right?  Are they still operating over there?

True Fact:

Your hero (who is no-hero) Netanyahu is helping Trump whitewash SBM over the Kashoggi murder.
Still on his team?

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israeli-defense-of-saudis-aims-to-avert-fall-of-trump-and-bibi-s-mideast-strategy-1.6679291

 True Fact: you are sitting in the sub dungeon of MOL because of your endless punching in the dark in order to connect the dots in your bizarro view of the world.  This is just another failed attempt.  

Poor Paul.  

Sbenouch equates NY Times to Assange, equates himself to me, now he calls Haaretz bizarro, because it exposes the truth about his no-hero Netanyahu. Not a pretty profile.