Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[Gandalf]

Sorry for the slow reply, marking got in the way.

Did you actually read my post? I said "My point is that this is totally fine, as long as the BBC keeps up a reasonable level of journalistic neutrality and restricts itself to reporting verifiable facts, and refrains from deliberately trying to engineer election outcomes in someone else's country."

This isn't about following US broadcasting standards. It's a basic minimum of ethical journalism, and abstaining from "yellow journalism" crap of the William Randolph Hearst "you supply the photos, and I'll supply the war" level.

Journalism is supposed to report things that happen, not make shit up or try to engineer a coup attempt. Journalism is not the same as propaganda. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether the journalists talking about Country A are in Country A itself, or in Country B, or anything else.

...

The difference is that propagandists promoting political causes within a given country can be a part of that country's own internal political process. When foreign propagandists who are not citizens of the country get involved, that's not appropriate.

Journalism is way more than "reporting things that happen." There's interpretive issues from deciding what stories are told to what language to use. Even raw recitations of statistics can be difficult. Read any economics journalism to see that.

Deciding on which story gets the top billing, second, and after the sports is a choice reflective of the values of whomever makes the choice. Does one tell the story which has the greater societal relevance, or the one which gets the best ratings? Propaganda is a mushy as fuck definition, especially when it comes down to someone who isn't making up anything, but rather promoting specific stories. I could probably create a 24 hour news channel called "Violence Against Minorities in America" and wouldn't have to make up a damn thing.

And the Soviets were within their rights to try and jam the Voice of America, insofar as it was broadcasting subversive content.

What, are you shocked to hear me say this?

Because the thing is, the Soviet government was (in my book) within its rights to block foreign attempts to influence their internal politics, but was NOT within their rights to do the much larger amount of silencing of internal dissent and political discussion they got up to.

Not shocked at all, but was the US right to broadcast into those areas?

[Simon_Jester]

Sorry for the slow reply, marking got in the way.

Did you actually read my post? I said "My point is that this is totally fine, as long as the BBC keeps up a reasonable level of journalistic neutrality and restricts itself to reporting verifiable facts, and refrains from deliberately trying to engineer election outcomes in someone else's country."

This isn't about following US broadcasting standards. It's a basic minimum of ethical journalism, and abstaining from "yellow journalism" crap of the William Randolph Hearst "you supply the photos, and I'll supply the war" level.

Journalism is supposed to report things that happen, not make shit up or try to engineer a coup attempt. Journalism is not the same as propaganda. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether the journalists talking about Country A are in Country A itself, or in Country B, or anything else.

...

The difference is that propagandists promoting political causes within a given country can be a part of that country's own internal political process. When foreign propagandists who are not citizens of the country get involved, that's not appropriate.

Journalism is way more than "reporting things that happen." There's interpretive issues from deciding what stories are told to what language to use. Even raw recitations of statistics can be difficult. Read any economics journalism to see that.

Deciding on which story gets the top billing, second, and after the sports is a choice reflective of the values of whomever makes the choice. Does one tell the story which has the greater societal relevance, or the one which gets the best ratings? Propaganda is a mushy as fuck definition, especially when it comes down to someone who isn't making up anything, but rather promoting specific stories. I could probably create a 24 hour news channel called "Violence Against Minorities in America" and wouldn't have to make up a damn thing.

My point here is not that ethical journalism is easy. It's that ethical journalism is a thing, and that it's the right way for journalists to behave. Specifically constructing a news instrument for the sole purpose of talking about a single subject from a single political viewpoint all the time, and then calling this journalism, is wrong.

...

If someone creates the "Defend the Reputation of Law Enforcement" channel on which police are constantly hailed and praised, and any mistake by police is denied or never mentioned, and if a story turns out to be falsified in the police's favor no retraction goes out... That's not journalism. It's a carefully curated collection of 'facts' presented for the purpose of altering public opinion, not for the purpose of informing the public and then letting them interpret the evidence freely. It's propaganda.

If someone creates the "Violence Against Minorities" channel on which only violence by the establishment against minorities is ever mentioned, and the establishment is painted as uniformly wanting to destroy those minorities, and where nobody ever retracts a story that appears to be about violence against minorities, just because that story is later found to be at best shaky and at worst factually incorrect (e.g. the Duke lacrosse case)... Well, that's not journalism either, that's propaganda again.

And propaganda masquerading as journalism is, on the whole, bad. Its political motives should be openly acknowledged, so as not to betray the public trust. Because constant betrayal of the public trust by propaganda masquerading as journalism eventually destroys the public trust, creating a system where the public just takes for granted that there is no such thing as real news, only carefully crafted and curated collections of selectively chosen 'facts' intended to persuade them to act in certain ways.

In the US, this process is pretty far gone already, for precisely this reason. We've had unethical journalism for decades, largely from the right in my opinion, but in a few ways also from the left sometimes. But even if the unethical journalism were all coming from one side, even that has done a lot of damage.

...

Now, some amount of propaganda is inevitable in the internal politics of a country. Even if the news agencies don't (unethically) create propaganda, the political parties and other interested factions will. Because they have direct interest in the political outcomes of their country, and they have a right to a say in those outcomes.

By contrast, as a foreigner I have no right to a say in political outcomes in, say, Brazil or France. I have no valid reasons to engage in propaganda to influence the course of Brazilian or French elections. And vice versa. If I DO carry out journalism on Brazilian or French politics, I owe it to everyone involved to be extra-careful to engage in journalism, not propaganda.

And vice versa.

And the Soviets were within their rights to try and jam the Voice of America, insofar as it was broadcasting subversive content.

What, are you shocked to hear me say this?

Because the thing is, the Soviet government was (in my book) within its rights to block foreign attempts to influence their internal politics, but was NOT within their rights to do the much larger amount of silencing of internal dissent and political discussion they got up to.

Not shocked at all, but was the US right to broadcast into those areas?

Also yes.

The thing is, you have a right to talk. Legitimate governments have a right to prevent foreigners from interfering in their politics. This can result in conflicts where both sides are within their rights to do exactly as they are doing, and are nonetheless in conflict. Rights are like that. Think about lawsuits. I have a right to an attorney who will do their best to argue my side of the case, my opponent has a right to an attorney who will do their best to argue the other side. None of that is wrong or a problem.

The real point I've been trying to make here is that journalistic ethics are a thing. Journalists should always be ethical. Journalists who are talking about foreign politics in a way that is intended to be heard by foreigners should be extra-super-plus ethical.

That doesn't mean they should lie, or selectively report or withhold facts. It means the opposite.

[Gandalf]

My point here is not that ethical journalism is easy. It's that ethical journalism is a thing, and that it's the right way for journalists to behave. Specifically constructing a news instrument for the sole purpose of talking about a single subject from a single political viewpoint all the time, and then calling this journalism, is wrong.

An if that's a viewpoint not being represented in the mainstream media, are they to remain silent?

Now, some amount of propaganda is inevitable in the internal politics of a country. Even if the news agencies don't (unethically) create propaganda, the political parties and other interested factions will. Because they have direct interest in the political outcomes of their country, and they have a right to a say in those outcomes.

By contrast, as a foreigner I have no right to a say in political outcomes in, say, Brazil or France. I have no valid reasons to engage in propaganda to influence the course of Brazilian or French elections. And vice versa. If I DO carry out journalism on Brazilian or French politics, I owe it to everyone involved to be extra-careful to engage in journalism, not propaganda.

And vice versa.

And what of those who have a direct interest in a country's internal politics, but live outside of it? I'm thinking of those who might be shot at by US armed forces (or whoever runs the drones), have the CIA overturn an election, or whatever euphemism the US State Department is using to justify violence against foreigners. I would wager that smartphones and Youtube existed during the US' imperial misadventures in Vietnam, footage from locals might have ended the war a little sooner. My basic point is that a people's right to know about their society outweighs their government's concerns about how the people are informed. To use an Australian example, if the current events on Manus Island were only being reported by some foreign news agency, I'd be fucking thrilled that at least someone was bothering to try.

Also yes.

The thing is, you have a right to talk. Legitimate governments have a right to prevent foreigners from interfering in their politics. This can result in conflicts where both sides are within their rights to do exactly as they are doing, and are nonetheless in conflict. Rights are like that. Think about lawsuits. I have a right to an attorney who will do their best to argue my side of the case, my opponent has a right to an attorney who will do their best to argue the other side. None of that is wrong or a problem.

The real point I've been trying to make here is that journalistic ethics are a thing. Journalists should always be ethical. Journalists who are talking about foreign politics in a way that is intended to be heard by foreigners should be extra-super-plus ethical.

That doesn't mean they should lie, or selectively report or withhold facts. It means the opposite.

I never denied ethics are a thing. I just don't see why borders change the requirements.

[Simon_Jester]

My point here is not that ethical journalism is easy. It's that ethical journalism is a thing, and that it's the right way for journalists to behave. Specifically constructing a news instrument for the sole purpose of talking about a single subject from a single political viewpoint all the time, and then calling this journalism, is wrong.

An if that's a viewpoint not being represented in the mainstream media, are they to remain silent?

Could you please use more words to cover the word "that?" At the moment I can only guess what "that" means, with some confidence but not much.

My best guess is that by "that," you mean "the single subject and single viewpoint that is the sole purpose for existence of this news instrument." And my response to that, IF I am interpreting your use of the word 'that' correctly, is:

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. No, seriously. Read complete sentences, not just whichever parts vaguely justify you in attributing nasty viewpoints to people.

My statement was "Specifically constructing a news instrument for the sole purpose of talking about a single subject from a single political viewpoint all the time, and then calling this journalism, is wrong."

Now, let us analyze how to avoid committing wrong actions here. My options for not being in the wrong under this rule are:

1) Technically, "talk about many subjects from a single viewpoint and call this journalism." That was an unintended loophole in my wording. I would consider that unethical.
2) Alternatively, talk about a single subject from a set of viewpoints, recognizing or at least acknowledging information that is inconvenient, not just the information that is carefully calculated to make other people think you're right 100% of the time. And call this journalism.
3) Alternatively, talk about a single subject from a single viewpoint, carefully curating the information you send to make yourself look maximally right. And do not call this journalism. Because it isn't.

I consider option (2) to be perfectly honorable journalism, and option (3) to be... well, not journalism but at least having the grim honesty of the committed revolutionary. What is grossly unethical is to spend all one's time lying by omission, selectively leaving out all the inconvenient facts, and to then call this journalism.

You might argue that ignoring this ethical rule is beneficial if it gets more exposure for "the right point of view." But it isn't. Because your enemies can do this just as well as you can. You can create a single-issue Internet media channel devoted to left-wing issues. They can create one dedicated to right-wing issues. You hire Cenk Uygur, they hire Sean Hannity. They get secret backing from Vladimir Putin, you get it from, uh... somebody.

And after this has been going on long enough, the propaganda masquerading as journalism starts to choke out the actual journalism. Even the political movements you once supported may veer off course and disappoint you, as the Tea-Trump lunacy of the present Republican Party is disappointing many of the establishment Republicans of 10-20 years ago. Because once the followers of your political movement stop listening to inconvenient facts, they won't restrict themselves to doing what is sane. And in the end, nobody has control over what they think or will do. Not for long.

The US has already fallen halfway down the well on this issue. It is not a good place for us to be. Every time people listen harder to propaganda we end up worse off. And we'd all have been much better off if everyone insisted on ethical journalism.

The lesson is pretty clear, in my opinion. Namely, don't assume that the good people with good opinions that you like will be better at lying, cheating, and tricking people than the bad people with bad opinions that you hate. You're better off with a system that punishes all the lying, and you're definitely better off not promoting the value set of "Truth, fairness, and diversity of opinion? Who cares about that stuff? I've got a message to expound!"

Now, some amount of propaganda is inevitable in the internal politics of a country. Even if the news agencies don't (unethically) create propaganda, the political parties and other interested factions will. Because they have direct interest in the political outcomes of their country, and they have a right to a say in those outcomes.

By contrast, as a foreigner I have no right to a say in political outcomes in, say, Brazil or France. I have no valid reasons to engage in propaganda to influence the course of Brazilian or French elections. And vice versa. If I DO carry out journalism on Brazilian or French politics, I owe it to everyone involved to be extra-careful to engage in journalism, not propaganda.

And vice versa.

And what of those who have a direct interest in a country's internal politics, but live outside of it? I'm thinking of those who might be shot at by US armed forces (or whoever runs the drones), have the CIA overturn an election, or whatever euphemism the US State Department is using to justify violence against foreigners.

If they are genuinely threatened directly, and not just in some abstract "interests may be undermined" sense? Then you might argue that they have cause to commit unethical journalism in self-defense, just as they might, say, commit murder in self-defense.

On the other hand, the same argument might also justify the CIA overturning the election in the first place, say because it believes that having 'the wrong guy' win the election would result in half the continent becoming a series of totalitarian dystopias. So this is an area where you should be careful before passing out the licenses to behave unethically. As mentioned above, people you don't like may win that fight.

I would wager that smartphones and Youtube existed during the US' imperial misadventures in Vietnam, footage from locals might have ended the war a little sooner. My basic point is that a people's right to know about their society outweighs their government's concerns about how the people are informed. To use an Australian example, if the current events on Manus Island were only being reported by some foreign news agency, I'd be fucking thrilled that at least someone was bothering to try.

Reporting a limited number of basic facts that would otherwise not be mentioned at all is not the same as the propaganda-masquerading-as-journalism I just described. Therefore, nothing you said in these three sentences is germane to my point.

Also yes.

The thing is, you have a right to talk. Legitimate governments have a right to prevent foreigners from interfering in their politics. This can result in conflicts where both sides are within their rights to do exactly as they are doing, and are nonetheless in conflict. Rights are like that. Think about lawsuits. I have a right to an attorney who will do their best to argue my side of the case, my opponent has a right to an attorney who will do their best to argue the other side. None of that is wrong or a problem.

The real point I've been trying to make here is that journalistic ethics are a thing. Journalists should always be ethical. Journalists who are talking about foreign politics in a way that is intended to be heard by foreigners should be extra-super-plus ethical.

That doesn't mean they should lie, or selectively report or withhold facts. It means the opposite.

I never denied ethics are a thing. I just don't see why borders change the requirements.

Borders reduce the list of valid excuses that justify playing fast and loose with one's ethics, which is equivalent to making the ethical rules a bit stricter.

[Elfdart]

I see Trump has now endorsed a child molester for the Senate.

[The Romulan Republic]

Why not? He's already endorsed Nazis as good people.

Plus, you know, he's probably a child molester himself.

[LaCroix]

Classic 'birds of a feather' situation...

I can't wait to see when the cat finally comes. Miller has been stalking for ages, it feels.

[The Romulan Republic]

You mean Mueller?

Far as I know, he's not investigating the sexual harassment/assault allegations against Trump.

Though, I can easily imagine the thorough investigation of Trump's life and the lives of his associates turning up things not directly related to Russia that he'd rather stay buried. For example, they're looking into his finances. Who wants to bet that (like Dennis Hastert, though in his case it was boys) there are some off-the-books pay-offs to underage victims to keep quiet?

[Thanas]

https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/ ... 7236235266

Mike Flynn is "prepared to testify" against Trump, his family, & the campaign, including Trump ordering him to talk to Russians

#LOCKHIMUP

[Khaat]

This statement is a summary, made for the purpose of providing the Court with a factual basis for my guilty plea to the charge against me. It does not include all the facts known to me regarding this offense.

While I am willing to hope for serious and damning details against the remaining hold-outs of the transition team and infant's misAdministration in his testimony, I expect a repeat of Oliver North's "it was all me" theater of lies. He'll wrap himself in the flag, and dry-hump a Bible and play to the conservative (and alt-right) crowd, who will of course forgive him because all he wanted was to "defend 'Murica from them dirty Mooslims!"

In that he has failed to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, I would hope that he is stripped of his rank. I expect nothing of the kind (same as North wasn't).

[The Romulan Republic]

God damn, I needed some good news today.

So, not to ruin the moment by being an asshole, but are any of our local brigade of Russian collusion deniers ready to eat crow yet?

This statement is a summary, made for the purpose of providing the Court with a factual basis for my guilty plea to the charge against me. It does not include all the facts known to me regarding this offense.

While I am willing to hope for serious and damning details against the remaining hold-outs of the transition team and infant's misAdministration in his testimony, I expect a repeat of Oliver North's "it was all me" theater of lies. He'll wrap himself in the flag, and dry-hump a Bible and play to the conservative (and alt-right) crowd, who will of course forgive him because all he wanted was to "defend 'Murica from them dirty Mooslims!"

In that he has failed to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, I would hope that he is stripped of his rank. I expect nothing of the kind (same as North wasn't).

I can understand if you don't want to get your hopes up yet, but I don't think that Mueller is stupid, or incompetent. Certainly his reputation, and his actions in this investigation thus far, suggest that he is not. The analysis I heard from someone on CNN today amounted to "There's no way Flynn would get a deal this good if he wasn't giving them stuff they could use to prosecute someone more important than him."

Basically the only way your scenario works is if a) Flynn has successfully conned Mueller, or b) Mueller himself is trying to sweep things under the rug. I've seen nothing to indicate that either is likely.

[Patroklos]

Lying to the FBI is wrong.

However, relevant to your conspiracy theories TRR, what exactly is Flynn accused of lying about and how does it support your hyterics?

[The Romulan Republic]

Lying to the FBI is wrong.

However, relevant to your conspiracy theories TRR, what exactly is Flynn accused of lying about and how does it support your hyterics?

I know that accusing me of "hysterics" is the default ad hominem used whenever anyone disagrees with me on this board, but to answer your rhetorical question as if it were actually a serious one:

In addition to the loooong list of associations between Trump campaign/administration members and Kremlin-linked individuals (which they initially tried to avoid disclosing), and the emails from multiple high-ranking campaign officials discussing meeting with the Russians to get dirt on Clinton, there's the thing Thanas posted today:

Mike Flynn is "prepared to testify" against Trump, his family, & the campaign, including Trump ordering him to talk to Russians

But yes, let's pretend this is just about Flynn lying to the FBI.

[Vendetta]

Lying to the FBI is wrong.

However, relevant to your conspiracy theories TRR, what exactly is Flynn accused of lying about and how does it support your hyterics?

The established MO of major investigations like this is to get the small fish to plea bargain on minor things in exchange for reduced sentence and information on the bigger fish. Mike Flynn is small fish, but he can testify to things that can fry the big ones.

[The Romulan Republic]

Exactly.

But then, the apologists were never about facts. They're about ideology. Some defend Trump because he is on the Right and his opponents are on the Left, or because they support his agenda, in full or in part. Others deny collusion because they want to put all the blame for Trump on the American populace, and/or dismiss any charges against Russia as "Western propaganda". Others probably just do it because they are themselves committed conspiracy theorists, and see any allegations supported by the mainstream media or intelligence community as self-evidently fraudulent.

Facts don't matter. If forced to concede on a single point, they attack the character of their opponents, and try to pretend that only that point matters-and that its existence disproves the existence of any other points. First it was "Oh, its just Manafort and Gates and Papadopolous on lying and financial crimes, so that proves that no collusion happened and Trump is innocent." Now, "Okay, its Flynn too, but he just lied-clearly nothing else happened, and Mueller is just offering him a plea deal to testify against Trump for no reason." The excuses are running out, and becoming more and more ridiculous.

This is not only stupid, and dishonest- it is morally indefensible. Because by doing so, they are unjustly undermining the credibility of the investigation, and of the free press, and of the justice system, and directly providing political cover for a narcissistic criminal who is waging war against the free press and the rule of law. And, frankly, increasing the risk of a violent backlash from Trump supporters when Trump does go down, since they will have been convinced that any evidence is fraudulent.

Edit: Honestly, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. But unfortunately, it largely is. And I find it deeply concerning that supporting the investigation of highly credible allegations of collusion between a President's campaign and a foreign adversary is now widely considered a partisan conspiracy theory. Because that means that the two sides in American can no longer agree on something so basic as the integrity of our democratic system, and the rule of law.

[Patroklos]

For someone who spends so much of their time tinfoiling around this topic, you seem woefully behind the headlines.

We already know who told him to contact the Russians and about what. It was Jared Kushner concerning a UN vote regatding Israel in the main instance. This is neither illegal or odd relevant to other incoming administrations. Unless he lied about it happening too, which would be stupid. Just like it was stupid for Flynn to lie about completely legal actions.

You, however, claimed this helped you "collusion" fantasy, so again ask you what about this that we know of does so?

A note before you get to ahead of yourself, what they asked Russia to do was support Israel because Obama was about to reverse US standard policy since 1980 and not vote down a clearly antisemetic UN resolution, with less than a month in office. Russia did not do what was asked.

[The Romulan Republic]

For someone who spends so much of their time tinfoiling around this topic, you seem woefully behind the headlines.

Further substanceless ad hominems.

We already know who told him to contact the Russians and about what. It was Jared Kushner concerning a UN vote regatding Israel in the main instance. This is neither illegal or odd relevant to other incoming administrations. Unless he lied about it happening too, which would be stupid. Just like it was stupid for Flynn to lie about completely legal actions.

Please provide a source that this is the entirety of the contact Thanas's source referred to.

And for the claim that the actions Flynn lied about where "completely legal".

You, however, claimed this helped you "collusion" fantasy, so again ask you what about this that we know of does so?

I will not reiterate a point I already explained, simply because your argument is built on broken-record debating and personal attacks.

[Patroklos]

What a pushover you are. Some resistance ....

For the latest news on what you claim is the crime of the century and the death of democracy or maybe the trigger for WWIII yet can't be bothered to inform yourself about:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... act-russia

At the time, the U.N. Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements was a big deal. Even though the Obama administration had less than a month left in office, the president instructed his ambassador to the United Nations to abstain from a resolution, breaking a precedent that went back to 1980 when it came to one-sided anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.

This was the context of Kushner’s instruction to Flynn last December. One transition official at the time said Kushner called Flynn to tell him he needed to get every foreign minister or ambassador from a country on the U.N. Security Council to delay or vote against the resolution. Much of this appeared to be coordinated also with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose envoys shared their own intelligence about the Obama administration’s lobbying efforts to get member stats to support the resolution with the Trump transition team.

As for the legality and precedent question, I found a source suitable biased to your tastes:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... ormal.html

[The Romulan Republic]

Of course can make an article appear to support your position when you quote it selectively.

Here's another section from the Bloomberg article that you neglected to quote:

ABC News reported Friday that Flynn is prepared to tell Mueller's team that Trump had instructed him to make contact with Russia during the campaign itself. If those contacts involved the emails the U.S. intelligence community charges Russia stole from leading Democrats, then Mueller will have uncovered evidence of actual collusion between the president and a foreign adversary during the election. Impeachment could then be in the cards.

That's certainly nothing definite as far as Trump's guilt is concerned, but it sounds as though the instructions Flynn allegedly received from Trump himself to communicate with Russia, which both ABC and Thanas's source referred to, are distinct from any instructions he subsequently received from Kushner regarding the Israel vote.

You are falsely attempting to conflate the two, in order to defend a likely traitor.

You were either sloppy, and posted without reading the whole article, assuming it validated your position... or you are a liar and a Quisling.

[Vympel]

Of course can make an article appear to support your position when you quote it selectively.

Here's another section from the Bloomberg article that you neglected to quote:

ABC News reported Friday that Flynn is prepared to tell Mueller's team that Trump had instructed him to make contact with Russia during the campaign itself. If those contacts involved the emails the U.S. intelligence community charges Russia stole from leading Democrats, then Mueller will have uncovered evidence of actual collusion between the president and a foreign adversary during the election. Impeachment could then be in the cards.

That's certainly nothing definite as far as Trump's guilt is concerned, but it sounds as though the instructions Flynn allegedly received from Trump himself to communicate with Russia, which both ABC and Thanas's source referred to, are distinct from any instructions he subsequently received from Kushner regarding the Israel vote.

You are falsely attempting to conflate the two, in order to defend a likely traitor.

You were either sloppy, and posted without reading the whole article, assuming it validated your position... or you are a liar and a Quisling.

"Quisling"

Note everyone how TRR thinks its normal to denounce people who disagrees with him as foreign collaborators based off his confidence in his own wild, unproven speculation based on evidence free inferences drawn from anonymously-sourced news articles.

You're such a disgusting little McCarthyite grub. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Patroklos is right, of course. There's no evidence whatsoever that Flynn's 'Russia' contacts had anything to do with 'collusion', and most hilariously, one of them is at the instigation of Israel (Kushner allegedly asked Flynn to contact all the Security Council about this, not just Russia - i.e. normal diplomatic back channelling).

As with the Papadopoulos hysterics, the fantasy being indulged is that these people have some secret information about "collusion" with Russia. And it is a fantasy - because there's no evidence for it. Zero.

Notwithstanding that, TRR and his ilk repeatedly say shit like "likely traitor", depsite there not being a single iota of evidence that this is the case.

Exactly.

But then, the apologists were never about facts. They're about ideology. Some defend Trump because he is on the Right and his opponents are on the Left, or because they support his agenda, in full or in part. Others deny collusion because they want to put all the blame for Trump on the American populace, and/or dismiss any charges against Russia as "Western propaganda". Others probably just do it because they are themselves committed conspiracy theorists, and see any allegations supported by the mainstream media or intelligence community as self-evidently fraudulent.

Facts don't matter. If forced to concede on a single point, they attack the character of their opponents, and try to pretend that only that point matters-and that its existence disproves the existence of any other points. First it was "Oh, its just Manafort and Gates and Papadopolous on lying and financial crimes, so that proves that no collusion happened and Trump is innocent." Now, "Okay, its Flynn too, but he just lied-clearly nothing else happened, and Mueller is just offering him a plea deal to testify against Trump for no reason." The excuses are running out, and becoming more and more ridiculous.

This is not only stupid, and dishonest- it is morally indefensible. Because by doing so, they are unjustly undermining the credibility of the investigation, and of the free press, and of the justice system, and directly providing political cover for a narcissistic criminal who is waging war against the free press and the rule of law. And, frankly, increasing the risk of a violent backlash from Trump supporters when Trump does go down, since they will have been convinced that any evidence is fraudulent.

Edit: Honestly, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. But unfortunately, it largely is. And I find it deeply concerning that supporting the investigation of highly credible allegations of collusion between a President's campaign and a foreign adversary is now widely considered a partisan conspiracy theory. Because that means that the two sides in American can no longer agree on something so basic as the integrity of our democratic system, and the rule of law.

Is it possible to overdose on revolting, unjustified sanctimony being vomited out by a moron?

1. Note how the concept of there being "no evidence" for a thing is morphed into "therefore proves no collusion and Trump is innocent". It also never occurs to the imbecile that Trump could well be guilty of all sorts of crimes that have nothing to do with his absurd spy novel fantasy.

2. The absurd argument that it is a moral imperative to not belittle his conspiratorial ravings because it undermines "the credibility of the investigation, and of the free press, and of the justice system, and providing cover to Trump". The thing about the 'free press' is especially hilarious, because only a schmuck firmly nestled inside the inspid McResistance echo chamber - the clowns wasting all their energy clicking refresh on Louise Mensch and Claude Taylor's websites - could actually believe that the free press hasn't done plenty to undermine itself in relation to this ridiculous Russia hysteria all fucking year:

Yet another major Russia story faslls apart. Is skepticism permissible yet?

But what it does demonstrate is that an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards.

Seeing Putin lurking behind and masterminding every western problem is now religious dogma – it explains otherwise-confounding developments, provides certainty to a complex world, and alleviates numerous factions of responsibility – so media outlets and their journalists are lavishly rewarded any time they publish accusatory stories about Russia (especially ones involving the U.S. election), even if they end up being debunked.

Why Putin's foes deplore the US fixation on election meddling

Ultimately, they say, Americans are using Russia as a scapegoat to explain the deep political discord in the United States. That has left many westward-leaning Russians, who have long looked to America for their ideals, in bitter disappointment that the United States seems to be mimicking some of their own country’s least appealing traits.

The hunt for a hidden Russian hand behind President Trump’s election victory has caused particular disquiet among liberal-minded Russian journalists.

“The image of Putin’s Russia constructed by Western and, above all, American media outlets over the past 18 months shocks even the most anti-Putin reader in Russia,” Oleg V. Kashin, a journalist critical of the Kremlin, wrote last week in Republic, a Russian news site. He complained that the American media has consistently misconstrued the way Russia works, presenting marginal opportunists and self-interested businessmen with no real link to the Kremlin as state-controlled agents working on orders from Mr. Putin.

As for the rest of it:

- Your evidence free beliefs about what Mueller's actually doing are not equivalent to 'the justice system'. No one's undermining the justice system, just your foolish arguments.
- The belief that anything is permitted so long as it doesn't 'provide cover' to Trump is intensely damaging. Democrats have been playing cuddly-winks with Bush-era neocons and disgusting right wing shills all year simply if they say a bad word about Trump. That's far worse than refusing to believe an insane spy novel conspiracy in the absence of any actual evidence, but you don't say a word about that, do you?

The supposed 'left wing' party in US politics is being eaten alive by neocon hawkish bullshit, and you're too blind to notice.

[The Romulan Republic]

Of course can make an article appear to support your position when you quote it selectively.

Here's another section from the Bloomberg article that you neglected to quote:

ABC News reported Friday that Flynn is prepared to tell Mueller's team that Trump had instructed him to make contact with Russia during the campaign itself. If those contacts involved the emails the U.S. intelligence community charges Russia stole from leading Democrats, then Mueller will have uncovered evidence of actual collusion between the president and a foreign adversary during the election. Impeachment could then be in the cards.

That's certainly nothing definite as far as Trump's guilt is concerned, but it sounds as though the instructions Flynn allegedly received from Trump himself to communicate with Russia, which both ABC and Thanas's source referred to, are distinct from any instructions he subsequently received from Kushner regarding the Israel vote.

You are falsely attempting to conflate the two, in order to defend a likely traitor.

You were either sloppy, and posted without reading the whole article, assuming it validated your position... or you are a liar and a Quisling.

"Quisling"

Note everyone how TRR thinks its normal to denounce people who disagrees with him as foreign collaborators based off his confidence in his own wild, unproven speculation based on evidence free inferences drawn from news articles.

Whereas you apparently consider it normal to denounce people who disagree with you as McCarthyist bigots and conspiracy theorists.

I did not call him a Quisling because he disagrees with me. I called him a Quisling (or alternatively a sloppy idiot) because he has blatantly conflated two unrelated issues in order to defend a white nationalist who, it appears increasingly likely, sold out his country's democracy to take power.

You may deny even the possibility of Trump colluding with Russia, no matter how much the evidence stacks up, but do you deny that the way he presented his source was at best blatantly misleading?

I will also note that I have at least cited sources repeatedly in this thread, while you have not, and Patroklos has cited them in a blatantly selective and deceptive manner.

You're such a disgusting little McCarthyite grub. You should be ashamed of yourself.

This is a blatant ad hominem, since almost your entire post consists of attacking me personally, rather than my arguments.

You (and others) have, repeatedly I believe, attempted to frame me as an anti-Russian bigot in order to discredit my arguments, which are directed jointly at the Russian and American governments, and not at the Russian people. While entirely in keeping with the standard rhetoric of Kremlin apologists, I regard this as an unjustified and inexcusable defamation, based primarily on your own political prejudices, and not on any argument that I have made.

Edit: I wish to note that I began writing this post before Vympel had edited his post, and did not observe that he had edited his post until after I posted it. It was not my intention to ignore or selectively quote his arguments.

[Vympel]

Whereas you apparently consider it normal to denounce people who disagree with you as McCarthyist bigots and conspiracy theorists.

You are a McCarthyite! You just called someone on an internet forum a Quisling in an argument. If you called him a racial slur, I'd be equally justified in calling you a racist.

I did not call him a Quisling because he disagrees with me.

Yes, you fucking did. Because you're a McCarthyite, you apparently cannot concieve that anyone could possibly disagree with you unless they have nefarious foreign motives. It's super fucking gross.

You may deny even the possibility of Trump colluding with Russia, no matter how much the evidence stacks up, but do you deny that the way he presented his source was at best blatantly misleading?

There's nothing blatantly misleading about what he said. The part of the Bloomberg article you quoted is naked speculation. It's a fucking hypothetical. It does nothing to undermine his point.

I will also note that I have at least cited sources repeatedly in this thread, while you have not, and Patroklos has cited them in a blatantly selective and deceptive manner.

Speculative editorialising is not a "source".

This is a blatant ad hominem

You just called someone a quisling! Do you have any self awareness at all, you self-righteous ass? That's not an ad hominem, that's me denouncing you and expressing my disgust, by the way.

You (and others) have, repeatedly I believe, attempted to frame me as an anti-Russian bigot in order to discredit my arguments, which are directed jointly at the Russian and American governments, and not at the Russian people. While entirely in keeping with the standard rhetoric of Kremlin apologists, I regard this as an unjustified and inexcusable defamation, based primarily on your own political prejudices, and not on any argument that I have made.

I much prefer McCarthyite, because that accusation is quite self-evidently true.

[The Romulan Republic]

Whereas you apparently consider it normal to denounce people who disagree with you as McCarthyist bigots and conspiracy theorists.

You are a McCarthyite! You just called someone on an internet forum a Quisling in an argument. If you called him a racial slur, I'd be equally justified in calling you a racist.

I did not call him a Quisling because he disagrees with me.

Yes, you fucking did. Because you're a McCarthyite, you apparently cannot concieve that anyone could possibly disagree with you unless they have nefarious foreign motives. It's super fucking gross.

You may deny even the possibility of Trump colluding with Russia, no matter how much the evidence stacks up, but do you deny that the way he presented his source was at best blatantly misleading?

There's nothing blatantly misleading about what he said. The part of the Bloomberg article you quoted is naked speculation. It's a fucking hypothetical. It does nothing to undermine his point.

I will also note that I have at least cited sources repeatedly in this thread, while you have not, and Patroklos has cited them in a blatantly selective and deceptive manner.

Speculative editorialising is not a "source".

This is a blatant ad hominem

You just called someone a quisling! Do you have any self awareness at all, you self-righteous ass? That's not an ad hominem, that's me denouncing you and expressing my disgust, by the way.

You (and others) have, repeatedly I believe, attempted to frame me as an anti-Russian bigot in order to discredit my arguments, which are directed jointly at the Russian and American governments, and not at the Russian people. While entirely in keeping with the standard rhetoric of Kremlin apologists, I regard this as an unjustified and inexcusable defamation, based primarily on your own political prejudices, and not on any argument that I have made.

I much prefer McCarthyite, because that accusation is quite self-evidently true.

So, no real arguments: just repeat your ad hominem, assert that it is self-evidently/by definition correct, throw on some more personal attacks and false presumptions about my views and motives, and call it a day.

And yes, Patroklos absolutely was misleading. While the hypothetical Trump impeachment resulting from collusion is indeed speculative, it appears that the alleged instructions from Trump (true or false) to which both Thanas's source and ABC are referring, and the instructions from Kushner about the Israel vote, are two distinct things. While Patroklos is treating them as one and the same.

[Vympel]

So, no real arguments: just repeat your ad hominem, assert that it is self-evidently/by definition correct, throw on some more personal attacks and false presumptions about my views and motives, and call it a day.

Nowhere do you explain how I'm wrong. It is self-evidently correct, and it will continue being so until you stop with the absurd accusations of nefarious foreign sympathies.

And yes, Patroklos absolutely was misleading. While the hypothetical Trump impeachment resulting from collusion is indeed speculative, it appears that the alleged instructions from Trump (true or false) to which both Thanas's source and ABC are referring, and the instructions from Kushner about the Israel vote, are two distinct things. While Patroklos is treating them as one and the same.

He didn't do any such thing. He expressly said "We already know who told him to contact the Russians and about what. It was Jared Kushner concerning a UN vote regatding Israel in the main instance. This is neither illegal or odd relevant to other incoming administrations. Unless he lied about it happening too, which would be stupid. Just like it was stupid for Flynn to lie about completely legal actions."

He linked the article himself - there was no deception implied or intended. Your jumping up and down asserting 'dishonesty' is bizarre, and assumes that Patroklos' evil plan was entirely based on you not reading an article, as opposed to (incorrectly) assuming you could tell the difference between a substantive allegation and editorial speculation based entirely off of a claim by ABC.

[Vympel]

ROFLMAO:

https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/ ... 9083751424

ABC News spokesperson tells me that “World News” will clarify that this should be president-elect Trump, not candidate Trump.

So much for that. The credibility of the free* press is being undermined by ... the free press!

*Disclaimer:The "free" press is owned by a highly concentrated cross-section of the mega rich and their reporting serves those interests. Reporting that favors international conspiracy boogeymen over things that would galvanise support for left-wing causes that the mega rich hate is to be expected. "Free" press is beholden to power and collectively hasn't failed to advocate the launch of a single US war in many decades.