Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 235

Thread: Trump's Russia Connections

  1. #1
    Senior Member Chip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 876 Times in 515 Posts
    Rep Power
    3

    Default Trump's Russia Connections

    Starting a fresh thread for this article. I shared it as a gift, which should lower the paywall.

    Here's a brief excerpt:

    The Untold Story of ‘Russiagate’ and the Road to War in Ukraine

    Russia’s meddling in Trump-era politics was more directly connected to the current war than previously understood.


    Credit...Photo illustration by Anthony Gerace

    Jim Rutenberg
    Nov. 7, 2022

    On the night of July 28, 2016, as Hillary Clinton was accepting the Democratic presidential nomination in Philadelphia, Donald J. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, received an urgent email from Moscow. The sender was a friend and business associate named Konstantin Kilimnik. A Russian citizen born in Soviet Ukraine, Kilimnik ran the Kyiv office of Manafort’s international consulting firm, known for bringing cutting-edge American campaign techniques to clients seeking to have their way with fragile democracies around the world.

    Kilimnik didn’t say much, only that he needed to talk, in person, as soon as possible. Exactly what he wanted to talk about was apparently too sensitive even for the tradecraft the men so fastidiously deployed — encrypted apps, the drafts folder of a shared email account and, when necessary, dedicated “bat phones.” But he had made coded reference — “caviar” — to an important former client, the deposed Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, who had fled to Russia in 2014 after presiding over the massacre of scores of pro-democracy protesters. Manafort responded within minutes, and the plan was set for five days later.

    Kilimnik cleared customs at Kennedy Airport at 7:43 p.m., only 77 minutes before the scheduled rendezvous at the Grand Havana Room, a Trump-world hangout atop 666 Fifth Avenue, the Manhattan office tower owned by the family of Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Shortly after the appointed hour, Kilimnik walked onto a perfectly put-up stage set for a caricature drama of furtive figures hatching covert schemes with questionable intent — a dark-lit cigar bar with mahogany-paneled walls and floor-to-ceiling windows columned in thick velvet drapes, its leather club chairs typically filled by large men with open collars sipping Scotch and drawing on parejos and figurados. Men, that is, like Paul Manafort, with his dyed-black pompadour and penchant for pinstripes. There, with the skyline shimmering through the cigar-smoke haze, Kilimnik shared a secret plan whose significance would only become clear six years later, as Vladimir V. Putin’s invading Russian Army pushed into Ukraine.

    Known loosely as the Mariupol plan, after the strategically vital port city, it called for the creation of an autonomous republic in Ukraine’s east, giving Putin effective control of the country’s industrial heartland, where Kremlin-armed, -funded and -directed “separatists” were waging a two-year-old shadow war that had left nearly 10,000 dead. The new republic’s leader would be none other than Yanukovych. The trade-off: “peace” for a broken and subservient Ukraine.

    The scheme cut against decades of American policy promoting a free and united Ukraine, and a President Clinton would no doubt maintain, or perhaps even harden, that stance. But Trump was already suggesting that he would upend the diplomatic status quo; if elected, Kilimnik believed, Trump could help make the Mariupol plan a reality. First, though, he would have to win, an unlikely proposition at best. Which brought the men to the second prong of their agenda that evening — internal campaign polling data tracing a path through battleground states to victory. Manafort’s sharing of that information — the “eyes only” code guiding Trump’s strategy — would have been unremarkable if not for one important piece of Kilimnik’s biography: He was not simply a colleague; he was, U.S. officials would later assert, a Russian agent.

    Their business concluded, the men left by separate routes to avoid detection, though they continued to text deep into the night, according to federal investigators. In the weeks that followed, operatives in Moscow and St. Petersburg would intensify their hacking and disinformation campaign to damage Clinton and help turn the election toward Trump, which would form the core of the scandal known as Russiagate. The Mariupol plan would become a footnote, all but forgotten. But what the plan offered on paper is essentially what Putin — on the dangerous defensive after a raft of strategic miscalculations and mounting battlefield losses — is now trying to seize through sham referendums and illegal annexation. And Mariupol is shorthand for the horrors of his war, an occupied city in ruins after months of siege, its hulking steelworks spectral and silenced, countless citizens buried in mass graves.

    Putin’s assault on Ukraine and his attack on American democracy have until now been treated largely as two distinct story lines. Across the intervening years, Russia’s election meddling has been viewed essentially as a closed chapter in America’s political history — a perilous moment in which a foreign leader sought to set the United States against itself by exploiting and exacerbating its political divides.

    Yet those two narratives came together that summer night at the Grand Havana Room. And the lesson of that meeting is that Putin’s American adventure might be best understood as advance payment for a geopolitical grail closer to home: a vassal Ukrainian state. Thrumming beneath the whole election saga was another story — about Ukraine’s efforts to establish a modern democracy and, as a result, its position as a hot zone of the new Cold War between Russia and the West, autocracy and democracy. To a remarkable degree, the long struggle for Ukraine was a bass note to the upheavals and scandals of the Trump years, from the earliest days of the 2016 campaign and then the presidential transition, through Trump’s first impeachment and into the final days of the 2020 election. Even now, some influential voices in American politics, mostly but not entirely on the right, are suggesting that Ukraine make concessions of sovereignty similar to those contained in Kilimnik’s plan, which the nation’s leaders categorically reject.

    This second draft of history emerges from a review of the hundreds of pages of documents produced by investigators for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and for the Republican-led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; from impeachment-hearing transcripts and the recent crop of Russiagate memoirs; and from interviews with nearly 50 people in the United States and Ukraine, including four hourlong conversations with Manafort himself.

    For Trump — who today is facing legal challenges involving the cache of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort, his finances and his role in efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat — the Russia investigation was the original sin, the first of many politically motivated “witch hunts,” since repurposed into weapons in his expansive arsenal of grievance. The Russia investigation and its offshoots never did prove coordination between the Trump campaign and Moscow, though they did document numerous connections. But to view the record left behind through the blood-filtered lens of Putin’s war, now in its ninth month, is to discover a trail of underappreciated signals telegraphing the depth of his Ukrainian obsession — and the life-or-death stakes that America’s domestic travails would have for some 45 million people nearly 5,000 miles away.

    Among the episodes that emerge is the Grand Havana Room meeting, along with the persistent, surreptitious effort to bring the Mariupol plan to life. The plan was hardly the only effort to trade peace in Ukraine for concessions to Putin; many obstacles stood in its way. And its provenance remains unclear: Was it part of a Putin long game or an attempt by his ally, Yanukovych, to claw back power? Either way, the prosecutors who uncovered the plan would come to view it as potential payoff for the Russian president’s election meddling.

    The examination also brings into sharper relief the tricks of Putin’s trade as he pressed his revanchist mission to cement his power by restoring the Russian empire and weakening democracy globally. He pursued that goal through the cunning co-optation of oligarchs and power brokers in the countries in his sights, while applying ever-evolving disinformation techniques to play to the fears and hatreds of their people.

    No figure in the Trump era moved more adroitly through that world than Manafort, a political operative known for treating democracy as a tool as much as an idea. Though he insists that he was trying to stanch Russian influence in Ukraine, not enable it, he had achieved great riches by putting his political acumen to work for the country’s Kremlin-aligned oligarchs, helping install a government that would prove pliant in the face of Putin’s demands. Then he helped elect an American president whose open admiration of the Russian strongman muddied more than a half-century of policy promoting democracy.

    In the end, Putin would not get out of a Trump presidency what he thought he had paid for, and democracy would bend but not yet break in both the United States and Ukraine. But that, as much as anything, would set the Russian leader on his march to war.


    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/m...e=articleShare

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,435
    Thanks
    1,751
    Thanked 1,885 Times in 1,220 Posts
    Rep Power
    14

    Default Re: Trump's Russia Connections

    Ah, Manafort. I haven't thought about that slimeball in months. In the Havana room, selling out a sovereign nation....

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    4,438
    Thanks
    510
    Thanked 777 Times in 585 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Trump's Russia Connections

    Manafort should be on anyone's engaged radar. LOL!!

  4. #4
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    3,676
    Thanks
    1,559
    Thanked 1,371 Times in 817 Posts
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Re: Trump's Russia Connections

    Is this part of the "mountain of evidence" you claimed existed? A NYT piece that reads like a Tom Clancy novel?

    Fine. I see your NYT piece and raise you a

    Breitbart piece: New York Times Admits ‘We Built Our Newsroom’ Around Russia Collusion Hoax

    Federalist piece: New FBI Notes Re-Debunk Major NYT Story, Highlight Media Collusion To Produce Russia Hoax

    or Fox piece: NY Times columnist admits he was 'wrong' about Trump's supporters, says Russian collusion story was a 'hoax'

    Now what? Do we just call the others sources biased, or even propaganda? The New York Times won't fare well, if you've read Ashley Rindsberg's The Gray Lady Winked

    Instead, how about we use actual evidence. Like the FEC fine. Like Hillary's campaign manager's testimony in court? I'd cite then AG William Barr, but your type vacillates between calling him a Trump stooge and honest broker, depending on what he says.

    How about we use the DOJ's Inspector General's investigation of Crossfire Hurricane?

    Maybe even we could look at the Mueller Report itself?

    ...the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities
    That conclusion took 3 years and cost $30 million or so.

    I jokingly called you a blue-anon kook, but if your OP is your "evidence"; I'm not joking, and you look like a full-blown conspiracy theorist.

    Paraphrasing The Princess Bride "Evidence? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"
    Last edited by dneal; November 19th, 2022 at 07:29 AM. Reason: fixed link, corrected AG Barr’s first name.

    It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.
    - Thomas Sowell

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to dneal For This Useful Post:

    724Seney (November 18th, 2022)

  6. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,435
    Thanks
    1,751
    Thanked 1,885 Times in 1,220 Posts
    Rep Power
    14

    Default Re: Trump's Russia Connections

    dneal, you spend a lot of time trying to smear the Times here. Why not just say your point in a couple of sentences, or include a thesis? Is your point that the NYT is not a quality publication? And how is that even relevant to whether or not Manafort was engaged in wheeling and dealing over Ukraine? You think Manafort wasn't? The article's point is that those early dealings over Ukraine may have been part of a longer game that Putin has been playing, including plans to annex part of that sovereign country. You disagree?

  7. #6
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    3,676
    Thanks
    1,559
    Thanked 1,371 Times in 817 Posts
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Re: Trump's Russia Connections

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    dneal, you spend a lot of time trying to smear the Times here. Why not just say your point in a couple of sentences, or include a thesis? Is your point that the NYT is not a quality publication? And how is that even relevant to whether or not Manafort was engaged in wheeling and dealing over Ukraine? You think Manafort wasn't? The article's point is that those early dealings over Ukraine may have been part of a longer game that Putin has been playing, including plans to annex part of that sovereign country. You disagree?
    A lot of the posts here are just a link to a NYT (or WashPost) article. No commentary, just some text and a link. They're left-leaning, so I take what they say with a grain of salt just like I do right-leaning publications. I started a tongue in cheek thread on the WashPost, pointing out their convenient contradictions. Very little of my time is spent reading mainstream media, other than to keep track of each side's narrative - which I find interesting.

    There is also a proclivity (especially from Chip) to commit the "shoot the messenger" fallacy. A little hyperbolic, but not much; but his sources are gospel and "right-wing" sources are propaganda. A lot of my criticism of the NYT is just to point out the double standard among some posters, and that it's evidence of echo-chambers.

    A couple of weeks ago, I was getting ready to mow the yard one last time. It takes 2-3 hours, and I usually listen to a long-format podcast. I went to Lex Fridman's, to see what was new; and was astonished that there was an 8 hour conversation with Balaji Srinivasan. It was titled "How to Fix Government, Twitter, Science, and the FDA." That piqued my interest, but there was no way I was going to invest 8 hours into anyone (particularly someone I never heard of).

    It's a long story, but I had to take my son to the airport (on short notice) on a Tuesday and pick him up on a Saturday. It's a 2-hour drive each way from me to St Louis. I broke that 8 hours up, and listened. Mind. Blown. The guy is wicked smart, and much of it was at the limit of my comprehension, and many times beyond.

    One thing he started talking about was the NYT's history. Claiming Poland attacked Nazi Germany, and other Goebbles propaganda. Denying (really squelching) holocaust reports from Eastern European sources. Publishing propaganda that invigorated Fidel's rise to power. Ignoring famine in Ukraine. Covering for Stalin's show-trials. The list goes on.

    I thought, there's no way all that's true; so I read the book he was referring to - mentioned above. Some of it is somewhat unfair characterizations, but generally it's damning, and it mainly references the articles still maintained on the NYT's "Times Machine". The NYT keeps all the evidence right there for anyone to see (if they want to pay for it). One can draw their own conclusions, but it's a pretty solid effort.

    Regarding this thread though - everything pertinent is in my post and the links. Chip made a claim in the other thread, which I refuted with fact. Now he starts this one. You, I, Chip and a whole bunch of folks can believe all sorts of things and cite left or right leaning media to support it. I choose not to (other than to illustrate a point). I simply went with the actual investigations. It's the same thing I do with characterizations of legal rulings. I read the ruling. I don't know what Manafort does, did, didn't or doesn't do. I don't trust media with political leanings to be honest about it. They're too embedded in the political world (see Victor Davis Hanson's comments on the 'nepotism' of sorts - Chris Matthews and George Stephanopoulus being obvious examples, but VDH points out journalists and producers married to politicians and lobbyists). Narratives of all flavors are abundant and rampant. They are designed to influence/persuade.

    I'll gift you a copy of Ashley Rindsberg's The Gray Lady Winked if you like. Apple iBooks, Kindle, or even paperback. Just shoot me a PM.
    Last edited by dneal; November 18th, 2022 at 10:03 PM. Reason: Correct spelling of Srinivasan

    It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.
    - Thomas Sowell

  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,435
    Thanks
    1,751
    Thanked 1,885 Times in 1,220 Posts
    Rep Power
    14

    Default Re: Trump's Russia Connections

    Thanks, dneal. I'll get back to this when I am at a keyboard (not my phone)

  9. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    4,438
    Thanks
    510
    Thanked 777 Times in 585 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Trump's Russia Connections

    Russians have admitted to interference(s).

  10. #9
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    3,676
    Thanks
    1,559
    Thanked 1,371 Times in 817 Posts
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Re: Trump's Russia Connections

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    Russians have admitted to interference(s).
    That's not the question though.

    From the other thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Hillary's "Russian collusion" narrative, which prompted a 3-year, $30million investigation, which turned up essentially nothing. After the fact, we discovered the material prompting it was false and paid for by democrat operatives (i.e.: Steele Dossier).
    This is false. If you don't know that, you're disregarding a mountain of evidence. I've posted numerous sources and links demonstrating that there was collusion. Several Trump henchmen have been convicted of lying about it. You pay no attention to anything that contradicts your delusions or undercuts your sense of superior judgement.

    It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.
    - Thomas Sowell

  11. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    4,438
    Thanks
    510
    Thanked 777 Times in 585 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Trump's Russia Connections

    Then, I guess you agree with me that Russia did and continues involve themselves into American politics?

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Chuck Naill For This Useful Post:

    TSherbs (November 19th, 2022)

  13. #11
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    3,676
    Thanks
    1,559
    Thanked 1,371 Times in 817 Posts
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Re: Trump's Russia Connections

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    Then, I guess you agree with me that Russia did and continues involve themselves into American politics?
    It's a statement of the obvious, and in the Mueller Report. Why wouldn't I agree with it? It's not limited to the Russians.

    If you look up at the thread title, you'll find a little more context for what this thread is about.

    It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.
    - Thomas Sowell

  14. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,435
    Thanks
    1,751
    Thanked 1,885 Times in 1,220 Posts
    Rep Power
    14

    Default Re: Trump's Russia Connections

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post

    That's not the question though.
    It's part of it: that going back to before and then during the 2016 election, Putin has been executing a multi-prong plan to influence American politics and nudge the election such that the figure whom he perceived to be more open to influence (Trump) and to broker a kind of deal on Ukraine with Trump's influence-pedaling operative (Manafort), etc, etc. The election-influencing is part of the thesis. It's not final proof, nor is it irrelevant. And, as all of us acknowledge now, it has been established as fact.

  15. #13
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    3,676
    Thanks
    1,559
    Thanked 1,371 Times in 817 Posts
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Re: Trump's Russia Connections

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post

    That's not the question though.
    It's part of it: that going back to before and then during the 2016 election, Putin has been executing a multi-prong plan to influence American politics and nudge the election such that the figure whom he perceived to be more open to influence (Trump) and to broker a kind of deal on Ukraine with Trump's influence-pedaling operative (Manafort), etc, etc. The election-influencing is part of the thesis. It's not final proof, nor is it irrelevant. And, as all of us acknowledge now, it has been established as fact.
    I'm not going to entertain any deflections or six degrees of Donald Trump. Revisit post #9, which was the first link in my response to Chip. He said there's a mountain of evidence, so there should be a lot more than one NYT article.

    If you want to concede the Russia-Collusion thing was a hoax invented by Hillary and her campaign, we can talk about Manafort and all sorts of people who deal with other countries for profit (and include Hunter). We can talk about all sorts of Ukraine nonsense (and include Hunter). We can talk about other nations attempts to influence American politics, like China (and include Hunter). We can talk about people in a Presidential circle and potential compromised positions (and include Hunter).

    Otherwise, I'm going to have to play the "whataboutism" card.

    It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.
    - Thomas Sowell

  16. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    4,438
    Thanks
    510
    Thanked 777 Times in 585 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Trump's Russia Connections

    Play whatever card you want. The Russians admit and continue to admit their interference.

  17. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,435
    Thanks
    1,751
    Thanked 1,885 Times in 1,220 Posts
    Rep Power
    14

    Default Re: Trump's Russia Connections

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    dneal, you spend a lot of time trying to smear the Times here. Why not just say your point in a couple of sentences, or include a thesis? Is your point that the NYT is not a quality publication? And how is that even relevant to whether or not Manafort was engaged in wheeling and dealing over Ukraine? You think Manafort wasn't? The article's point is that those early dealings over Ukraine may have been part of a longer game that Putin has been playing, including plans to annex part of that sovereign country. You disagree?
    A lot of the posts here are just a link to a NYT (or WashPost) article. No commentary, just some text and a link. They're left-leaning, so I take what they say with a grain of salt just like I do right-leaning publications. I started a tongue in cheek thread on the WashPost, pointing out their convenient contradictions. Very little of my time is spent reading mainstream media, other than to keep track of each side's narrative - which I find interesting.

    There is also a proclivity (especially from Chip) to commit the "shoot the messenger" fallacy. A little hyperbolic, but not much; but his sources are gospel and "right-wing" sources are propaganda. A lot of my criticism of the NYT is just to point out the double standard among some posters, and that it's evidence of echo-chambers.

    A couple of weeks ago, I was getting ready to mow the yard one last time. It takes 2-3 hours, and I usually listen to a long-format podcast. I went to Lex Fridman's, to see what was new; and was astonished that there was an 8 hour conversation with Balaji Srinivasan. It was titled "How to Fix Government, Twitter, Science, and the FDA." That piqued my interest, but there was no way I was going to invest 8 hours into anyone (particularly someone I never heard of).

    It's a long story, but I had to take my son to the airport (on short notice) on a Tuesday and pick him up on a Saturday. It's a 2-hour drive each way from me to St Louis. I broke that 8 hours up, and listened. Mind. Blown. The guy is wicked smart, and much of it was at the limit of my comprehension, and many times beyond.

    One thing he started talking about was the NYT's history. Claiming Poland attacked Nazi Germany, and other Goebbles propaganda. Denying (really squelching) holocaust reports from Eastern European sources. Publishing propaganda that invigorated Fidel's rise to power. Ignoring famine in Ukraine. Covering for Stalin's show-trials. The list goes on.

    I thought, there's no way all that's true; so I read the book he was referring to - mentioned above. Some of it is somewhat unfair characterizations, but generally it's damning, and it mainly references the articles still maintained on the NYT's "Times Machine". The NYT keeps all the evidence right there for anyone to see (if they want to pay for it). One can draw their own conclusions, but it's a pretty solid effort.

    Regarding this thread though - everything pertinent is in my post and the links. Chip made a claim in the other thread, which I refuted with fact. Now he starts this one. You, I, Chip and a whole bunch of folks can believe all sorts of things and cite left or right leaning media to support it. I choose not to (other than to illustrate a point). I simply went with the actual investigations. It's the same thing I do with characterizations of legal rulings. I read the ruling. I don't know what Manafort does, did, didn't or doesn't do. I don't trust media with political leanings to be honest about it. They're too embedded in the political world (see Victor Davis Hanson's comments on the 'nepotism' of sorts - Chris Matthews and George Stephanopoulus being obvious examples, but VDH points out journalists and producers married to politicians and lobbyists). Narratives of all flavors are abundant and rampant. They are designed to influence/persuade.

    I'll gift you a copy of Ashley Rindsberg's The Gray Lady Winked if you like. Apple iBooks, Kindle, or even paperback. Just shoot me a PM.
    I am at a keyboard now...

    I appreciate the lengthy reply, and it helps me to understand. I am not going to get bogged down in the details because that serves nothing except the friction of debate (which, as I said, I am not particularly interested in). Disagreement is of course, fine. I would assume it, actually.

    First, yes, we all cite sources that are not objectively reliable 100% of their time, and certainly not through 100% of their history. I don't find this surprising or worth my energy to investigate or care much about (I have limited energy). Chip, you, me, Chuck....we each do this, as you say of yourself, "to make a point." Sometimes I do it, especially from the AP, just to highlight an occurance (event that makes the news). Sometimes it is for the thesis of a piece (not just news, but some level of interpretation). Sometimes I post something that is basically an opinion piece that I agree with. I TRY always to post at least a sentence or two on what kind of piece it is and why I am posting it so that no one is caught off guard (always bothers me when people post something with no explainer at all. I rarely click on those.) I, too, ALWAYS read things with grains of salt between many teeth, no matter what the media outlet or platform is, be it print news, broadcast news, podcasts, videocasts, vlogs, whatever (I am not naming them all). I don't trust my own brain or certinly not my various feeds that are watching my activity and filtering the offerings that are put in front of my eyes. SO I read a few things, think a little about them, and get back to the other more important stuff in my day. You seem to read and consume a lot of media/material in a day, dneal. Much more than I do, for sure. Awesome. I couldn't do that, nor am I interested in it. Your book on the NYT looks interesting, for someone who wants to explore that kind of thing, and I really appreciate your offer. But I will decline because I devote my reading time each day to what I am working on in Buddhism and Christianity (mystical) and one other book each month that I am reading with a church group (Unitarian Universalist, wouldn't ya know!). I also join in on a poetry lectio divina group each week and I join a local Buddhist sangha each week (readings come out of this too). That puts me at my max. When I had to drive to Pennsylvania to see my father, I did listen to a few chapters of an audio book (novel) but I find it very distracting from my focus on driving: I do not multitask well. And as I sit at home like right now I prefer my house to be silent, so all I can hear is the drone of a prop plane, the tapping of my keys, the thrum of the fridge compressor, and the contented snore of the foster dog at my feet. I would never (nor have I ever) filled this kind of luxurious quiet with the words of an audio book, podcast, whatever. I have thought about noise-cancelling headphones to listen to music while I mow (my yard takes 75 minutes on the tractor), but they are expensive and that means that I would not spend that time doing all the thinking that I do then (and sometimes singing and practicing songs I'm working on). I also have ear damage from poor rocknroll choices in college, so I am careful of what kind of sounds and at what volume I put through headphones. I will, at times, play meditation music in the background to enter certain relaxed states while I write.

    The relevance of all this is to explain why, in my case, I am not interested in combing through dozens of sources, having each one knock off pieces of the other one, to build a platform in order to reach some greater height of objectivity...supposedly. Several of us don't, here. Most people don't. Which, apparently, is what you want to point out to us, repeatedly. And you seem to be suggesting that because no single media source is entirely reliable, that they are equally unreliable. I certainly disagree with that, although you seem mostly to make suggestions like that in order to make some other point about bias. But again, I would suggest, that because an outlet is not 100% reliable does not mean that it is as unreliable as the least reliable. And if your point is to say that none of this can be accurately assessed....well....there goes the baby with the bathwater. You do get your info from media platforms. We all do, even those of us who read more original sources.

    Do you believe in an objective truth out there somewhere that these efforts will guide you closer to? Or maybe your purpose is more societal, maybe you think that you will be LESS prone to dangerous conspiracy thinking (or just wrong thinking and wrong behaviors) because you do this. And that perhaps other people, if you show them, will be thus less prone. If yes, have you found this to be working for you?

    All these questions are just part of a conversation that we seem to be having, I don't mean them as a challenge or criticism.

    Thanks again for the offer.

  18. #16
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    3,676
    Thanks
    1,559
    Thanked 1,371 Times in 817 Posts
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Re: Trump's Russia Connections

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck Naill View Post
    Play whatever card you want. The Russians admit and continue to admit their interference.
    Yes Chuck. I agree. They don't collude with Trump to do it though, as the results of the Mueller investigation clearly states.

    It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.
    - Thomas Sowell

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to dneal For This Useful Post:

    TSherbs (November 19th, 2022)

  20. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,435
    Thanks
    1,751
    Thanked 1,885 Times in 1,220 Posts
    Rep Power
    14

    Default Re: Trump's Russia Connections

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post

    That's not the question though.
    It's part of it: that going back to before and then during the 2016 election, Putin has been executing a multi-prong plan to influence American politics and nudge the election such that the figure whom he perceived to be more open to influence (Trump) and to broker a kind of deal on Ukraine with Trump's influence-pedaling operative (Manafort), etc, etc. The election-influencing is part of the thesis. It's not final proof, nor is it irrelevant. And, as all of us acknowledge now, it has been established as fact.
    I'm not going to entertain any deflections or six degrees of Donald Trump. Revisit post #9, which was the first link in my response to Chip. He said there's a mountain of evidence, so there should be a lot more than one NYT article.

    If you want to concede the Russia-Collusion thing was a hoax invented by Hillary and her campaign, we can talk about Manafort and all sorts of people who deal with other countries for profit (and include Hunter). We can talk about all sorts of Ukraine nonsense (and include Hunter). We can talk about other nations attempts to influence American politics, like China (and include Hunter). We can talk about people in a Presidential circle and potential compromised positions (and include Hunter).

    Otherwise, I'm going to have to play the "whataboutism" card.
    ??

    I thought that we were responding to the article that Chip posted in the OP. That is what I was referring to, anyway.

  21. #18
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    3,676
    Thanks
    1,559
    Thanked 1,371 Times in 817 Posts
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Re: Trump's Russia Connections

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs
    ??

    I thought that we were responding to the article that Chip posted in the OP. That is what I was referring to, anyway.
    There is context to Chip's posting of this thread, in the first link of my reply and quoted again in post #9.

    I'm happy to discuss credibility of media, discerning "truth" through the aggregate, what I believe regarding "wokism" (referenced in a different thread), or all sorts of other topics on what we do or don't believe. I'm just not going to do it in this thread. A "what you/we believe" sort of thread could be fun, if you would like to start one. The NYT question you posed in post #5 was fair, since I did mention credibility of sources and accusations that go on with them; so I responded.

    It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.
    - Thomas Sowell

  22. #19
    Senior Member Chip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 876 Times in 515 Posts
    Rep Power
    3

    Default Re: Trump's Russia Connections

    Your memory is buggered.

    I've posted numerous pieces on the Mueller inquiry, the impeachment hearings, the political chickenshittery of Barr and the Senate Republicans, the Durham investigations, and related topics.

    In every case, you insult, ignore, deflect, or post alternative facts from trashy sources.

    You are welcome to your version of reality. Or condemned to it.

  23. #20
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    3,676
    Thanks
    1,559
    Thanked 1,371 Times in 817 Posts
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Re: Trump's Russia Connections

    I guess Chip's "mountain" of evidence was just a molehill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip View Post
    Your memory is buggered.

    I've posted numerous pieces on the Mueller inquiry, the impeachment hearings, the political chickenshittery of Barr and the Senate Republicans, the Durham investigations, and related topics.

    In every case, you insult, ignore, deflect, or post alternative facts from trashy sources.

    You are welcome to your version of reality. Or condemned to it.
    Curious that you start with an insult, and then accuse me of it.

    Your unprompted post from the other thread, again, with pertinent portions bolded:

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Hillary's "Russian collusion" narrative, which prompted a 3-year, $30million investigation, which turned up essentially nothing. After the fact, we discovered the material prompting it was false and paid for by democrat operatives (i.e.: Steele Dossier).
    This is false. If you don't know that, you're disregarding a mountain of evidence. I've posted numerous sources and links demonstrating that there was collusion. Several Trump henchmen have been convicted of lying about it. You pay no attention to anything that contradicts your delusions or undercuts your sense of superior judgement.
    Who starts with the insults again? I told you if you won't be an ass, I won't either. You can't seem to help yourself though. I have a hypothesis about that too. A 6', 200lb somebody who found it necessary to point out he was intimidating is conditioned to behave like an ass. You're just digits here though (not that I would be intimidated by you in person).

    Snipes aside, I posted the Mueller Report. I posted the DOJ IG results. These are alternate facts from trashy sources?

    Yes, somebody is delusional. Somebody ignores and deflects.

    It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.
    - Thomas Sowell

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •