Former President Donald J. Trump

[Davey the Fat Boy]

He doesn't mention sanctions - but they form the context of his statement.

I'll get around to the politico article (I scanned it when I first read your comments). But I'm still going to argue that Greenwald is at the very least hyperbolizing when he argues that Democrats have become "increasingly maniacal and militaristic hawks."

Is there honestly any Politico article on earth that could justify such a blanket statement?

[PresMuffley]

Well I never denied that he was an opinion journalist ;) Obviously that's how he feels, but I think he tends to be more trustworthy than a lot of reporters - not infallible, but in search of the truth. Whether or not that phrase is applicable to these ' foreign policy elites'
doesn't concern me, as my opinion of these people is already so low.

[Snarfyguy]

Here's a decent summary of where we're at now: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/03 ... -could-do/

[Davey the Fat Boy]

Well I never denied that he was an opinion journalist Obviously that's how he feels, but I think he tends to be more trustworthy than a lot of reporters - not infallible, but in search of the truth. Whether or not that phrase is applicable to these ' foreign policy elites'
doesn't concern me, as my opinion of these people is already so low.

I get it. I'm just not a fan of his style. I don't think it's a coincidence that the last article we discussed had him hyperbolizing some relatively minor expressions of doubt about Keith Ellison into a "vicious smear" - and now he's fanning a politico article into a "maniacal" lust for war.

He also includes a link to Lindsey Graham's bill by calling him "supreme war-monger Lindsey Graham." It's not a completely inaccurate assessment, but in this context he's clearly attempting to paint the bill's Democratic co-sponsors as supreme-war-mongers-by-association by using that loaded descriptor.

I'm not going to tell you how you should consume news. I'm simply telling you that these things cause me to distrust this guy.

[Jimbo]

I don't give a fuck anymore for milquetoast Hillary supporters. Fuck 'em. They're as fucked up as the Republicans and you are responsible for getting a MORON into to the White House. Below is a guy whom I like again. For a while I wasn't sure because he was a little too much "let's give Trump a s chance" for me. No more. Some BCBers will not even read this far let alone (eek!) open the link and read what he has to say, but fuck you. This is some hard truth motherfuckers and it is not pretty at all. Not. At. All.

Washington’s Benevolent Mask Is Disintegrating

Paul Craig Roberts

The few weeks of Trump’s presidency suffice to make clear that there will be no change this time either. Normal relations with Russia are on the back burner, if not off the stove. The material needs of the military/security complex for an enemy in order to justify its budget and police state powers, and the ideological needs of the neoconservatives for US world hegemony, are deemed to be more important than trust between thermo-nuclear powers. As for the liberal/progressive/left, they regard working to preserve life on earth as merely a pretext for being soft on Russians and those who commit treason by favoring friendly relations with Russia.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/03 ... g-roberts/

[Davey the Fat Boy]

I know you are ignoring me Jimbo, but I'm gonna say this anyhow:

You have to be dumber than a stick to think that Donald Trump is gonna be the guy to solve US/ Russian relations. The fact that you continue to frame this in breathless "save the world from nuclear disaster" rhetoric only serves to make the stick's IQ appear larger.

So once and for all you dumbfuck...I realize that you don't do nuance, but see if you can get this through your skull: Wanting some answers as to what the Trump campaign's relationship with Russia was IS NOT tacit approval for nuclear war.

We aren't making this shit up. 17 US intelligence agencies agree its a real question. Meanwhile different members of the Trump administration keep getting caught in the same lie (a lie they didn't have to tell in the first place if they had nothing to hide). If their goal was truly to advance peace between our nations, wouldn't it have made sense for the Trump folks to have cooled their jets and avoided even the appearance of impropriety once they knew these allegations were out there?

When it comes down to it, I don't think you truly believe any of this shit. I think it's all about team-Bernie for you. I think that if the alt-left started arguing that 9/11 was a hologram, you'd believe it.

[PresMuffley]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the last article we discussed had him hyperbolizing some relatively minor expressions of doubt about Keith Ellison into a "vicious smear" - and now he's fanning a politico article into a "maniacal" lust for war.

Haim Saban calling Ellison "clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual" at the Brookings Institute is a relatively minor expression of doubt?

[Davey the Fat Boy]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the last article we discussed had him hyperbolizing some relatively minor expressions of doubt about Keith Ellison into a "vicious smear" - and now he's fanning a politico article into a "maniacal" lust for war.

Haim Saban calling Ellison "clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual" at the Brookings Institute is a relatively minor expression of doubt?

That's one guy. We went over this.

[Jimbo]

Are you ready for VAULT 7?

HOLY FUCK lovers of liberty!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7

The first batch of documents to be released consisted of 7,818 web pages with 943 attachments, purportedly from the Center for Cyber Intelligence,[3] which already contains more pages than Edward Snowden's NSA release.

Re the current discussion about how a FISA warrant couldn't touch Trump, a US citizen, well, according to Lionel (I'll call him a free thinker), the CIA (and Obama) wanted to spy on Trump so they made out the FISA warrant to ostensibly spy on the foreign entity, Russia. Not only that, thanks to the release of Vault 7 I learned "According to WikiLeaks, these techniques and software are used to confuse forensic investigators by masking the origin of the agency's cyberattacks[2] with the agency purportedly disguising its own cyber attacks as the work of other groups." Could Russian hackers been CIA hackers? Yes they could have.

Oh boy, watch how the bullshitters spin this baby!

It's exciting. It really is. (Whistling: It's the end of the world as we know it …) I mean, just when things couldn't get crazier they get a whole lot crazier. Hollywood … can't touch this!

[Diamond Dog]

Am I right in saying that the latest Wikileaks exposure is all in html format - i.e easily edited/altered?

[Jimbo]

Am I right in saying that the latest Wikileaks exposure is all in html format - i.e easily edited/altered?

I read you need to open a torrent account.

[PresMuffley]

That's one guy. We went over this.

One guy, but as Greenwald writes:
one would have to be indescribably naïve about the ways of Washington to believe that such a vicious denunciation by one of the party’s most influential billionaire funders had no effect at all.

[PresMuffley]

Here's a decent summary of where we're at now: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/03 ... -could-do/

That piece does a great job of highlighting my biggest concern - a terrorist attack. Nothing better could happen for this administration.

[...]

Are you ready for VAULT 7?

HOLY FUCK lovers of liberty!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7

The first batch of documents to be released consisted of 7,818 web pages with 943 attachments, purportedly from the Center for Cyber Intelligence,[3] which already contains more pages than Edward Snowden's NSA release.

Re the current discussion about how a FISA warrant couldn't touch Trump, a US citizen, well, according to Lionel (I'll call him a free thinker), the CIA (and Obama) wanted to spy on Trump so they made out the FISA warrant to ostensibly spy on the foreign entity, Russia. Not only that, thanks to the release of Vault 7 I learned "According to WikiLeaks, these techniques and software are used to confuse forensic investigators by masking the origin of the agency's cyberattacks[2] with the agency purportedly disguising its own cyber attacks as the work of other groups." Could Russian hackers been CIA hackers? Yes they could have.

Oh boy, watch how the bullshitters spin this baby!

It's exciting. It really is. (Whistling: It's the end of the world as we know it …) I mean, just when things couldn't get crazier they get a whole lot crazier. Hollywood … can't touch this!

Is that by any chance the same Wikipedia you were denouncing as being a leading distributor of false news a couple of pages back? Boy, they cleaned up their act pretty quickly!

[...]

I don't give a fuck anymore for milquetoast Hillary supporters. Fuck 'em. They're as fucked up as the Republicans and you are responsible for getting a MORON into to the White House. Below is a guy whom I like again. For a while I wasn't sure because he was a little too much "let's give Trump a s chance" for me. No more. Some BCBers will not even re...

Could this by any chance be the same Donald Trump whose election you yourself were hailing not so very long ago and whose presidency you yourself were telling everyone here "to give a chance" to? Why, I do believe it is...

[PresMuffley]

I'm watching a hearing held yesterday by the Senate Appropriations State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee on 'Russian Influence in Central & Eastern Europe'. Roy Blunt claims it is "widely believed" Russia has interfered with not only U.S. elections, but also those of Germany & France. The committee is questioning the ambassadors of Estonia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Poland... Unsurprisingly all are on board with ramping up pressure on Russia via NATO. As the hearing comes to a close, Lindsey Graham acknowledges the sacrifice & praises the bravery of the ambassadors who have appeared before the subcommittee.

[PresMuffley]

He also includes a link to Lindsey Graham's bill by calling him "supreme war-monger Lindsey Graham." It's not a completely inaccurate assessment, but in this context he's clearly attempting to paint the bill's Democratic co-sponsors as supreme-war-mongers-by-association by using that loaded descriptor.

'
This reads to me as: I'm basically ok with Graham being described as such, but how dare he be equated with Dems who possess essentially the same destructive worldview.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

He also includes a link to Lindsey Graham's bill by calling him "supreme war-monger Lindsey Graham." It's not a completely inaccurate assessment, but in this context he's clearly attempting to paint the bill's Democratic co-sponsors as supreme-war-mongers-by-association by using that loaded descriptor.

'
This reads to me as: I'm basically ok with Graham being described as such, but how dare he be equated with Dems who possess essentially the same destructive worldview.

Then you read it wrong.

It should read like, "I'm fine with a guy on a message board describing Graham (and the Democrats) in that way, but I'd prefer that those who put forth their words as journalism refrain from such manipulations."

[Davey the Fat Boy]

That's one guy. We went over this.

One guy, but as Greenwald writes:
one would have to be indescribably naïve about the ways of Washington to believe that such a vicious denunciation by one of the party’s most influential billionaire funders had no effect at all.

Even if it did, Greenwald is still guilty of overstating the case.

I'll remind you again: Ellison won 200 out of 435 votes after forcing a second round of ballotting. So whatever effect the issue had, it clearly didn't cause mass shunning. Perhaps he would have won otherwise. Perhaps he wouldn't. But it frankly isn't worth the conjecture as it was a legitimate issue, based on things he actually said.

[PresMuffley]

Then you read it wrong.

It should read like, "I'm fine with a guy on a message board describing Graham (and the Democrats) in that way, but I'd prefer that those who put forth their words as journalism refrain from such manipulations."

As we have established, he is an opinion journalist. I like to think the majority of his readers are savvy enough to realize when he is reporting news and when he is expressing his personal view.