ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

AldarisGrave wrote:

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

ALL worldwide intelligence agencies agree that Putin ran an attack to assist Trump. Putin himself ADMITTED to doing it when questioned in Helsinki. Stop being lazy.

It's funny how you tell people to stop being lazy and yet you keep on falling for the muh russian collusion lie.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Sorry, you stated that incorrectly.

The Mueller report said it was clear that Putin himself directed a systematic and consistent effort to help Trump win the election. That is not debatable. What is debatable is what factor that played in the election versus Hillary being a weak candidate. My guess is that both were important factors.

The Mueller probe found jack shit, Trump knew it for two years, anyone with a brain knew the same and yet all of a sudden the democrats are now turning on Mueller and espouse conspiracy theories.

Sorry, your post was not really understandable except the first statement in your post "The Mueller probe found jack shit". So I'll try to respond to that part.

You should read the Mueller report and speak from a foundation of facts. On this one point though, the following articles are much shorter. You need only read one but I'll link multiple to let you pick.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/opinion/mueller-report-trump-russia.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/russia-investigation-will-outlast-muellers-report/588628/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/18/mueller-report-says-trump-campaign-eager-benefit-russias-interference-collusion-investigation/3379332002/

More humor from the excellent Stately McDaniel Manor blog:

https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2019/05/25/sunday-funnies-05-26-19/













=^[.]^=

Or you could just read the report itself and read what it says.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Turtledove wrote:

The Mueller report said it was clear that Putin himself directed a systematic and consistent effort to help Trump win the election. That is not debatable.

False. The report talks a lot more about the GRU and the IRA than about Putin.

I genuinely believe you haven't read the entire thing, but push people to read it out of a hubristic confidence that it actually says what corporatist media tells you it says. We already know you earlier had no issue repeating secondhand accounts in this thread when you incorrectly believed the report was not publicly available.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Putin himself ADMITTED to doing it when questioned in Helsinki.

False: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/07/putin-trump-election-translation/565481/

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

The perception of her being weak has a lot to do with the Russian government's attack. That so many feel that way is proof that Putin's efforts to help Trump and damage Hillary was indeed a success.

Again, the WikiLeaks dumps were DKIM-verifiable. What that means is you show the information from the email file to gmail.com YOURSELF and it responds AUTOMATICALLY that yes, that sender sent that email verbatim. There is no reasonable doubting the FACT that these WikiLeaks "attacks" on the Clinton campaign were truthful.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

The Mueller report said it was clear that Putin himself directed a systematic and consistent effort to help Trump win the election. That is not debatable.

False. The report talks a lot more about the GRU and the IRA than about Putin.

I genuinely believe you haven't read the entire thing, but push people to read it out of a hubristic confidence that it actually says what corporatist media tells you it says. We already know you earlier had no issue repeating secondhand accounts in this thread when you incorrectly believed the report was not publicly available.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Putin himself ADMITTED to doing it when questioned in Helsinki.

False: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/07/putin-trump-election-translation/565481/

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

The perception of her being weak has a lot to do with the Russian government's attack. That so many feel that way is proof that Putin's efforts to help Trump and damage Hillary was indeed a success.

Again, the WikiLeaks dumps were DKIM-verifiable. What that means is you show the information from the email file to gmail.com YOURSELF and it responds AUTOMATICALLY that yes, that sender sent that email verbatim. There is no reasonable doubting the FACT that these WikiLeaks "attacks" on the Clinton campaign were truthful.

Sorry, I misspoke, it has been common knowledge for years that Putin knew about it. He admitted in Helsinki that he, of course, wanted Trump to win.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cyber-idUSKBN1441RS

I don't remember saying the report wasn't publicly available when it was. I do maybe remembering something about not knowing that a less redacted version was available for reading by congressman but Barr would not allow copies to be made so it had to be read at the DOJ or wherever it is.

Let my try to address some potential unspoken problems you may have with me? I did see a post from you a few days back where you expressed some interest in investigating the Trump lies question and difference of opinion between us on how extensive the lying is. I didn't have time to read that whole post. I have given it some thought though. If you're interested perhaps we could explore the Washington Post list of false and misleading statements? I've poked around with it a very little bit and they have a pretty nice interface provided to access the data base. I also have an idea of the first place I'd look to try to find some entries in the list that maybe shouldn't be there?

Another potential unspoken problem is a few days ago I caught you posting something that I thought was a Trump lie. I don't even remember what it was but I should have also stated in my response that it is extremely rare for you to post things that are not factual. I know that you try hard not to and you are amazingly successful at not repeating President Trump's false and misleading statements. I apologize for not putting that in my response. I can only hope to be as accurate as you have proven yourself to be.

edit: P.S. In Helsinki, a reporter asked Putin a double question, "Did you want Trump to win and did you try to help Trump win in 2016?" Putin answered "Yes, yes" and then expanded on why he wanted Trump to win. Perhaps that is what The_Impeacher is referring to?

edit2: P.P.S. Sorry I didn't click on your link until after I added edit 1. :-)

Trump during campaign:
"No more wars, our people will not die in meaningless wars, blah blah blah, we will not escalate conflicts blah blah blah"

After 2 years:
"Lets fuck up Iran as hard as we can and possibly trigger the chain of events that will lead to WW III"

YEA, as always, the president that posed as anti-establishment is nothing more than next puppet of the establishment.


Not mentioning the hypocrisy that is obvious when you look at recent ban of Huawei. They banned them for putting spyware on their devices, but google is doing exactly the same thing with every single Android device. So I understand, that only USA can spy, yea? XD

"

Letmeliveeee wrote:

Trump during campaign:
"No more wars, our people will not die in meaningless wars, blah blah blah, we will not escalate conflicts blah blah blah"

After 2 years:
"Lets fuck up Iran as hard as we can and possibly trigger the chain of events that will lead to WW III"

And yet, there's no boots on the ground. Tough words are just words, and they're a natural part of foreign relations. You have to wave your big stick even if -- especially if -- you do not intend to ever use it.

"

Letmeliveeee wrote:

Not mentioning the hypocrisy that is obvious when you look at recent ban of Huawei. They banned them for putting spyware on their devices, but google is doing exactly the same thing with every single Android device. So I understand, that only USA can spy, yea? XD

... Where's the hypocrisy? Huawei is an extension of the Chinese state, and the US obviously has a vested interest in disallowing Chinese spying, among other crimes like repeated IP theft.

Google is a primarily American company that the US has tons of leverage over and they're not trying to hide their intentions. If they try to weaponize their data collection against American citizens, then the US would absolutely counterattack.

You can watch this in real time, actually, as Google (via Youtube) acts as an illegitimate publisher and is now careening toward regulation.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

The Mueller report said it was clear that Putin himself directed a systematic and consistent effort to help Trump win the election. That is not debatable.

False. The report talks a lot more about the GRU and the IRA than about Putin.

I genuinely believe you haven't read the entire thing, but push people to read it out of a hubristic confidence that it actually says what corporatist media tells you it says. We already know you earlier had no issue repeating secondhand accounts in this thread when you incorrectly believed the report was not publicly available.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

Putin himself ADMITTED to doing it when questioned in Helsinki.

False: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/07/putin-trump-election-translation/565481/

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

The perception of her being weak has a lot to do with the Russian government's attack. That so many feel that way is proof that Putin's efforts to help Trump and damage Hillary was indeed a success.

Again, the WikiLeaks dumps were DKIM-verifiable. What that means is you show the information from the email file to gmail.com YOURSELF and it responds AUTOMATICALLY that yes, that sender sent that email verbatim. There is no reasonable doubting the FACT that these WikiLeaks "attacks" on the Clinton campaign were truthful.

LMAO Putin absolutely agreed he helped Trump win. The reporter in the story linked didn't even get the questioner correctly. It was Jonathan Lemire.

There was nothing bad in the emails themselves. The promise that the info was going to be bad was the thing that hurt her. This is the Trump campaign willfully encouraging the help of a foreign entity to affect an election. It's a crime. "Russia, if you're listening"

"

Turtledove wrote:

The Mueller report said it was clear that Putin himself directed a systematic and consistent effort to help Trump win the election. That is not debatable.

This is correct. Putin directed Yevgeny Prigozhin to coordinate hackers in the GRU and the IRA to help Trump.

(starting on page 12 of the Mueller report pdf)

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

There was nothing bad in the emails themselves.

False. The emails contained evidence of intent and strategy to rig both Democrat and Republican primaries, confirmation of the existence of a Democrat-media alliance to include giving Clinton debate questions I advance, an acknowledgement that staff consider groups they openly received donations from to be terrorists, proof that the Clinton campaign chief's brother Tony was trying to rope John into a Thelemic (Crowley occultist) ceremony, and that John would sometimes email other people in a "pizza code" (although what this code actually meant was never determined).

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

The Mueller report said it was clear that Putin himself directed a systematic and consistent effort to help Trump win the election. That is not debatable.

This is correct. Putin directed Yevgeny Prigozhin to coordinate hackers in the GRU and the IRA to help Trump.

(starting on page 12 of the Mueller report pdf)

Wow. Everyone, go look at Page 4 of Volume I of the Mueller Report (the 12th page in most PDFs of the report) and contrast what Impeacher gets out of a text with the text itself.

Impeacher, the Mueller report says "The [Internet Research Agency] was based in St. Petersburg and received funding from Russian oligarch Yevgeniy Prigozhin and companies he controlled. Prigozhin is widely reported to have ties to Russia President Vladimir Putin."

That is NOT a direct claim of ANY of the following:
- Putin directed the IRA
- The IRA received funding from Putin
- The IRA received the majority of its funding from Prigozhin
- Prigozhin directed the IRA
- Prigozhin influenced the IRA (although this is suggested)
- Prigozhin has close ties to Putin
- Prigozhin has ties to Putin (although this is suggested)
- Putin had knowledge of IRA social media activity
- Prigozhin had knowledge of IRA social media activity
- Prigozhin had anything whatsoever to do with the GRU, mentionied in the next section starting on the bottom of the same page.

Impeacher please believe me when I say this comes from a place of love: you have become so biased that you've basically destroyed your reading comprehension skills. While this is strange, it isn't THAT strange — occasionally even I misread things due to bias. Slow down, stop assuming that reality will consistently agree with you, and take a moment to figure out what it is people are actually saying.