Сделаем Америку снова великой! Trump - Russia megathread

[kalm]

And that annex from the Durham report suggests the Clinton plan intel was likely Russian disinformation.

Nevermind the timing of the Obama and Clinton allegations. Anything to keep Epstein out of the news.

Now…you were mumbling something about having no clue. Please go on….

No it doesn't. The fact you'd double down and try to say it was still the Rooskies shows you need new sources. You didn't read the annex did you?

Epstein Yes. The Dems had four years and didn't do anything and NOW it's because it was full of Trump! Are you actually reading what you are typing?

Oopsie! Someone doesn’t have very good sources.

[SeattleGriz]

No it doesn't. The fact you'd double down and try to say it was still the Rooskies shows you need new sources. You didn't read the annex did you?

Epstein Yes. The Dems had four years and didn't do anything and NOW it's because it was full of Trump! Are you actually reading what you are typing?

Oopsie! Someone doesn’t have very good sources.

Someone didn't read the annex.

[kalm]

Oopsie! Someone doesn’t have very good sources.

Someone didn't read the annex.

Nope. And neither did you. But a number of MAGA influencers are pushing it and a number of actual reporters have.

[SeattleGriz]

Someone didn't read the annex.

Nope. And neither did you. But a number of MAGA influencers are pushing it and a number of actual reporters have.

I read it. It's only 29 pages and the bottom half is footnotes, so it's really around 15.

The only thing I could find that was close to what you are saying, was when Durham states the emails were authentic through his investigation, but adds at the very end of that discussion point that some analysts believe it could be Russian disinformation. Whoever is telling you the wording indicated the Russians planted this is being disingenuous or straight up stupid.

The absolute best part is how throughout they admit they have no proof Russia did the hacking. All this Russian influence, but they cant prove any of it.

Lastly. Grok takes an average of the internet, so if WaPo and NYT flood the zone, it's going to skew that way in it's answer. Ask AI to devise you a 10 week golf plan that will get you to win a tournament at the end. As you are very familiar with the subject, you'd probably get a real kick out of the plan...but someone who knows nothing might think it's gold. It's the average of the internet. I asked Grok if it had access to the annex and it did not.

[kalm]

Nope. And neither did you. But a number of MAGA influencers are pushing it and a number of actual reporters have.

I read it. It's only 29 pages and the bottom half is footnotes, so it's really around 15.

The only thing I could find that was close to what you are saying, was when Durham states the emails were authentic through his investigation, but adds at the very end of that discussion point that some analysts believe it could be Russian disinformation. Whoever is telling you the wording indicated the Russians planted this is being disingenuous or straight up stupid.

The absolute best part is how throughout they admit they have no proof Russia did the hacking. All this Russian influence, but they cant prove any of it.

Lastly. Grok takes an average of the internet, so if WaPo and NYT flood the zone, it's going to skew that way in it's answer. Ask AI to devise you a 10 week golf plan that will get you to win a tournament at the end. As you are very familiar with the subject, you'd probably get a real kick out of the plan...but someone who knows nothing might think it's gold. It's the average of the internet. I asked Grok if it had access to the annex and it did not.

I’ll stick with real journalists on this one. First place i think I heard it was from David Katz and then the Bulwark.

BTW…can MAGA and the Republican machine flood the zone?

[SeattleGriz]

I read it. It's only 29 pages and the bottom half is footnotes, so it's really around 15.

The only thing I could find that was close to what you are saying, was when Durham states the emails were authentic through his investigation, but adds at the very end of that discussion point that some analysts believe it could be Russian disinformation. Whoever is telling you the wording indicated the Russians planted this is being disingenuous or straight up stupid.

The absolute best part is how throughout they admit they have no proof Russia did the hacking. All this Russian influence, but they cant prove any of it.

Lastly. Grok takes an average of the internet, so if WaPo and NYT flood the zone, it's going to skew that way in it's answer. Ask AI to devise you a 10 week golf plan that will get you to win a tournament at the end. As you are very familiar with the subject, you'd probably get a real kick out of the plan...but someone who knows nothing might think it's gold. It's the average of the internet. I asked Grok if it had access to the annex and it did not.

I’ll stick with real journalists on this one. First place i think I heard it was from David Katz and then the Bulwark.

BTW…can MAGA and the Republican machine flood the zone?

Fuck off. Read the thing.

MAGA could flood the zone, especially with AI. Have AI just crank out a shit ton of shit stories and bam! It's a big ethical question right now. AI's the wild West right now. Lol

[kalm]

I’ll stick with real journalists on this one. First place i think I heard it was from David Katz and then the Bulwark.

BTW…can MAGA and the Republican machine flood the zone?

Fuck off. Read the thing.

MAGA could flood the zone, especially with AI. Have AI just crank out a shit ton of shit stories and bam! It's a big ethical question right now. AI's the wild West right now. Lol

Potty mouth.

But, but, but FAKE NEWS! DEEP STATE! BENGHAZI! JFK JR. IS ALIVE!!!

But if her crusade was aimed at proving that Obama embarked on a “treasonous conspiracy” to falsely show that Russia intervened in the 2016 presidential election to help Trump, Gabbard made a mistake. A previously classified annexe to a report by another special counsel, John Durham – appointed towards the end of Trump’s first presidency – has further undermined Gabbard’s case.

It was a quixotic enterprise from the start.

After all, the 2019 report from Robert Mueller, the original special counsel appointed to investigate the Russia allegations, and a bipartisan five-volume report the following year from the Senate intelligence committee – then chaired by Marco Rubio, now Trump’s secretary of state – both affirmed the offending January 2017 intelligence community assessment, which expressed “high confidence” in Russian interference.

Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, seemed to validate the intelligence’s premise in 2018 when, standing beside Trump at a news conference in Helsinki, he admitted wanting him to win.

The newly unclassified 29-page document from Durham, made public this week, contains a deflating conclusion for Gabbard. It confirms that Russian spies were behind the emails that were originally released as the result of a Russian cyber-hack of internal Democratic information channels and which Trump supporters believed showed the campaign of Hillary Clinton, his 2016 opponent, conspiring to accuse him of colluding with Moscow.

“The office’s best assessment is that the July 25 and July 27 emails that purport to be from Benardo were ultimately a composite of several emails that were obtained through Russian intelligence hacking of the US-based thinktanks,” Durham writes. He is referring to Leonard Benardo, of the Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros, a philanthropist and bete noire of Trump’s Maga base.

One of the emails purportedly from Benardo proposes a plan “to demonize Putin and Trump” and adds: “Later the FBI will put more oil on the fire.”

That message and others, including from a Clinton foreign policy aide, Julianne Smith, became part of the so-called “Clinton Plan intelligence”. Benardo and Smith disputed ever writing such emails.

In his 2023 report annexe, released on Thursday in heavily redacted form, Durham at least upholds Benardo’s disavowal – concluding that it has been cobbled together from other individuals’ emails to produce something more incriminating than the actuality.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... SApp_Other

[SeattleGriz]

Fuck off. Read the thing.

MAGA could flood the zone, especially with AI. Have AI just crank out a shit ton of shit stories and bam! It's a big ethical question right now. AI's the wild West right now. Lol

Potty mouth.

But, but, but FAKE NEWS! DEEP STATE! BENGHAZI! JFK JR. IS ALIVE!!!

But if her crusade was aimed at proving that Obama embarked on a “treasonous conspiracy” to falsely show that Russia intervened in the 2016 presidential election to help Trump, Gabbard made a mistake. A previously classified annexe to a report by another special counsel, John Durham – appointed towards the end of Trump’s first presidency – has further undermined Gabbard’s case.

It was a quixotic enterprise from the start.

After all, the 2019 report from Robert Mueller, the original special counsel appointed to investigate the Russia allegations, and a bipartisan five-volume report the following year from the Senate intelligence committee – then chaired by Marco Rubio, now Trump’s secretary of state – both affirmed the offending January 2017 intelligence community assessment, which expressed “high confidence” in Russian interference.

Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, seemed to validate the intelligence’s premise in 2018 when, standing beside Trump at a news conference in Helsinki, he admitted wanting him to win.

The newly unclassified 29-page document from Durham, made public this week, contains a deflating conclusion for Gabbard. It confirms that Russian spies were behind the emails that were originally released as the result of a Russian cyber-hack of internal Democratic information channels and which Trump supporters believed showed the campaign of Hillary Clinton, his 2016 opponent, conspiring to accuse him of colluding with Moscow.

“The office’s best assessment is that the July 25 and July 27 emails that purport to be from Benardo were ultimately a composite of several emails that were obtained through Russian intelligence hacking of the US-based thinktanks,” Durham writes. He is referring to Leonard Benardo, of the Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros, a philanthropist and bete noire of Trump’s Maga base.

One of the emails purportedly from Benardo proposes a plan “to demonize Putin and Trump” and adds: “Later the FBI will put more oil on the fire.”

That message and others, including from a Clinton foreign policy aide, Julianne Smith, became part of the so-called “Clinton Plan intelligence”. Benardo and Smith disputed ever writing such emails.

In his 2023 report annexe, released on Thursday in heavily redacted form, Durham at least upholds Benardo’s disavowal – concluding that it has been cobbled together from other individuals’ emails to produce something more incriminating than the actuality.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... SApp_Other

The Guardian, NYT and WaPo have been your sources. All three are embarrassment. You're too lazy to read 10 pages.

[kalm]

Potty mouth.

But, but, but FAKE NEWS! DEEP STATE! BENGHAZI! JFK JR. IS ALIVE!!!



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... SApp_Other

The Guardian, NYT and WaPo have been your sources. All three are embarrassment. You're too lazy to read 10 pages.

You should apply for a journalism gig right after you get tired of your careers in epidemiology and modern warfare.

[Baldy]

Potty mouth.

But, but, but FAKE NEWS! DEEP STATE! BENGHAZI! JFK JR. IS ALIVE!!!



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... SApp_Other

The Guardian, NYT and WaPo have been your sources. All three are embarrassment. You're too lazy to read 10 pages.

It's no coincidence that the NYT, WaPoop, The Guardian, along with Politico and CNN are the very outlets that the Obama administration leaked the collusion hoax to, so...

[SeattleGriz]

The Guardian, NYT and WaPo have been your sources. All three are embarrassment. You're too lazy to read 10 pages.

You should apply for a journalism gig right after you get tired of your careers in epidemiology and modern warfare.

You should actually take the time to read, instead of parroting some guy in journalism that has no understanding of what they are writing. Too lazy to read 10 pages and think for yourself.

[SeattleGriz]

The Guardian, NYT and WaPo have been your sources. All three are embarrassment. You're too lazy to read 10 pages.

It's no coincidence that the NYT, WaPoop, The Guardian, along with Politico and CNN are the very outlets that the Obama administration leaked the collusion hoax to, so...

Well I would have say all of them lack reading comprehension skills as well, because it's pretty obvious reading the annex that the preponderance of evidence pointed to the emails being authentic.

[kalm]

You should apply for a journalism gig right after you get tired of your careers in epidemiology and modern warfare.

You should actually take the time to read, instead of parroting some guy in journalism that has no understanding of what they are writing. Too lazy to read 10 pages and think for yourself.

I have better things to read rather than MAGA goose hunts. But yes…I’m sure you’re better at investigative journalism than actual trained journalists just like you’re better at stopping spread of disease than epidemiologists.

I’ll make you a deal. Read either of these, report back your findings, and I’ll read your 10 pages.

[SeattleGriz]

You should actually take the time to read, instead of parroting some guy in journalism that has no understanding of what they are writing. Too lazy to read 10 pages and think for yourself.

I have better things to read rather than MAGA goose hunts. But yes…I’m sure you’re better at investigative journalism than actual trained journalists just like you’re better at stopping spread of disease than epidemiologists.

I’ll make you a deal. Read either of these, report back your findings, and I’ll read your 10 pages.

Yes, journalists that have degrees in journalism know everything about everything!

Check the facts. You're just bitter I was right all through Covid and did the responsible thing for my health and community. Why? Once again because I have been paying attention throughout the years on pandemics and vaccines.

[kalm]

I have better things to read rather than MAGA goose hunts. But yes…I’m sure you’re better at investigative journalism than actual trained journalists just like you’re better at stopping spread of disease than epidemiologists.

I’ll make you a deal. Read either of these, report back your findings, and I’ll read your 10 pages.

Yes, journalists that have degrees in journalism know everything about everything!

Check the facts. You're just bitter I was right all through Covid and did the responsible thing for my health and community. Why? Once again because I have been paying attention throughout the years on pandemics and vaccines.

Present better “facts” once you learn how to apply critical thinking.

Your Covid take was a dime a dozen and had more to do with lost faith in institutions (and science) than reality. If you got vaccinated, limited exposure to your family, and employed social distancing while the it was still killing thousands of people a day, then good for you.

[SeattleGriz]

Yes, journalists that have degrees in journalism know everything about everything!

Check the facts. You're just bitter I was right all through Covid and did the responsible thing for my health and community. Why? Once again because I have been paying attention throughout the years on pandemics and vaccines.

Present better “facts” once you learn how to apply critical thinking.

Your Covid take was a dime a dozen and had more to do with lost faith in institutions (and science) than reality. If you got vaccinated, limited exposure to your family, and employed social distancing while the it was still killing thousands of people a day, then good for you.

If it was a dime a dozen and correct, as it was, why do you keep pushing the failed version?

There was no need to get a vax as the risk was far greater than the reward. Government stats showed not a single one of my family was even close to any sort of risk.

I debunked your false claim of spread in the Covid thread as well, but I'll give you a quick recap. The media, and gullible people like you, stated the asymptomatic spread rate was around 50-60%. This was based on modeling-one of the most unreliable forms of proof. The actual rate was around 4% as validated with real world contact tracing, which the US for some reason stopped doing.

You wouldn't understand secondary attack rates, so I won't bother educating you more on the topic.

[kalm]

Present better “facts” once you learn how to apply critical thinking.

Your Covid take was a dime a dozen and had more to do with lost faith in institutions (and science) than reality. If you got vaccinated, limited exposure to your family, and employed social distancing while the it was still killing thousands of people a day, then good for you.

If it was a dime a dozen and correct, as it was, why do you keep pushing the failed version?

There was no need to get a vax as the risk was far greater than the reward. Government stats showed not a single one of my family was even close to any sort of risk.

I debunked your false claim of spread in the Covid thread as well, but I'll give you a quick recap. The media, and gullible people like you, stated the asymptomatic spread rate was around 50-60%. This was based on modeling-one of the most unreliable forms of proof. The actual rate was around 4% as validated with real world contact tracing, which the US for some reason stopped doing.

You wouldn't understand secondary attack rates, so I won't bother educating you more on the topic.

Unsubstantiated data points, anecdotal tales of hey, it didn’t kill me, ignoring how many it did kill…

All seems like a powerful argument!

Agree to disagree. You and I don’t need to rehash this one.

[SeattleGriz]

If it was a dime a dozen and correct, as it was, why do you keep pushing the failed version?

There was no need to get a vax as the risk was far greater than the reward. Government stats showed not a single one of my family was even close to any sort of risk.

I debunked your false claim of spread in the Covid thread as well, but I'll give you a quick recap. The media, and gullible people like you, stated the asymptomatic spread rate was around 50-60%. This was based on modeling-one of the most unreliable forms of proof. The actual rate was around 4% as validated with real world contact tracing, which the US for some reason stopped doing.

You wouldn't understand secondary attack rates, so I won't bother educating you more on the topic.

Unsubstantiated data points, anecdotal tales of hey, it didn’t kill me, ignoring how many it did kill…

All seems like a powerful argument!

Agree to disagree. You and I don’t need to rehash this one.

Agreed. I was just going through the motions. No heart. No energy.

[Caribbean Hen]

You should actually take the time to read, instead of parroting some guy in journalism that has no understanding of what they are writing. Too lazy to read 10 pages and think for yourself.

I have better things to read rather than MAGA goose hunts. But yes…I’m sure you’re better at investigative journalism than actual trained journalists just like you’re better at stopping spread of disease than epidemiologists.

I’ll make you a deal. Read either of these, report back your findings, and I’ll read your 10 pages.

Only a spoiled rotten little stupid self centered bitch would think these are turbulent times

[Baldy]

You should actually take the time to read, instead of parroting some guy in journalism that has no understanding of what they are writing. Too lazy to read 10 pages and think for yourself.

I have better things to read rather than MAGA goose hunts. But yes…I’m sure you’re better at investigative journalism than actual trained journalists just like you’re better at stopping spread of disease than epidemiologists.

I’ll make you a deal. Read either of these, report back your findings, and I’ll read your 10 pages.

From an "actual trained" journalist.

[kalm]

I have better things to read rather than MAGA goose hunts. But yes…I’m sure you’re better at investigative journalism than actual trained journalists just like you’re better at stopping spread of disease than epidemiologists.

I’ll make you a deal. Read either of these, report back your findings, and I’ll read your 10 pages.

Only a spoiled rotten little stupid self centered bitch would think these are turbulent times

Compared to when? And I agree on the stupid self centered bitches…who occupy both sides of the aisle.

[kalm]

I have better things to read rather than MAGA goose hunts. But yes…I’m sure you’re better at investigative journalism than actual trained journalists just like you’re better at stopping spread of disease than epidemiologists.

I’ll make you a deal. Read either of these, report back your findings, and I’ll read your 10 pages.

From an "actual trained" journalist.

Yes…although a clearly biased one. From a fellow rightie...

I’ve written quite a bit about the right’s fake news problem. Influencers who just make stuff up have built massive followings. But there’s another kind of analyst that is many ways more annoying, and perhaps more pernicious because this type tends to get taken seriously by those who should know better.

In the minds of many critics of the left, Michael Shellenberger is the answer to the mainstream media. He is the CBR Chair of Politics, Censorship, and Free Speech at the University of Austin. As Jesse Singal recently showed in a two-part series, Shellenberger often plays fast and loose with the facts, and is hesitant to correct his mistakes. Even setting that aside, there’s a kind of hollowness to his enterprise that reflects quite poorly on the current state of right-wing and anti-establishment discourse.

There are many things that might be said about Trump’s recent cabinet appointments. Matt Gaetz, Tulsi Gabbard, and Robert F Kennedy, Jr are quite unusual picks. How to make sense of them, especially in light of more conventional selections like Rubio for Secretary of State? According to Shellenberger, though, you don’t need to worry about any of the issues involved. As he wrote on Twitter at the beginning of a recent thread,

Trump's nominees are weird, say elites. But it was the elites’ weird ideas that caused wars, addiction/OD crisis, Covid lockdowns, trans madness, censorship, and worse. Trump's nominees trigger the covert narcissism of elites who are rightly defensive at their appalling record.

https://www.richardhanania.com/p/the-ri ... llenberger

[Caribbean Hen]

Only a spoiled rotten little stupid self centered bitch would think these are turbulent times

Compared to when? And I agree on the stupid self centered bitches…who occupy both sides of the aisle.

Compared to yesterday… the entitlement mentality has become the bedrock of the USA and only gets worse every day

Yes it’s on both sides of the isle because they would never get elected if they started taking away what we can’t afford

The lack of Mojo with the younger generation is not going to work well for them when they get older

But make no mistake, the entitlement mentality runs much deeper on the Donk side …. It’s just who they are

Just look at how the left cried about work requirements for SNAP cards

[kalm]

Compared to when? And I agree on the stupid self centered bitches…who occupy both sides of the aisle.

Compared to yesterday… the entitlement mentality has become the bedrock of the USA and only gets worse every day

Yes it’s on both sides of the isle because they would never get elected if they started taking away what we can’t afford

The lack of Mojo with the younger generation is not going to work well for them when they get older

But make no mistake, the entitlement mentality runs much deeper on the Donk side …. It’s just who they are

Just look at how the left cried about work requirements for SNAP cards

I’ll leave it at both sides. And this doesn’t address the entitlement that that the wealthy feel. Again… on both sides.

The survey measured 1,000 Americans’ “appetite for government.” What it found was the average Republican is hungry for more federal government solutions — or at least unwilling to remove anything from their current diet.

While Republicans were more likely to have unfavorable views of Washington, D.C., and to prefer rhetoric about lower taxes and smaller government, they showed strong support for expanding or maintaining entitlement programs — Social Security and Medicare — at the core of Congress’ spiraling deficit spending.

Well over half of Republicans (56%) would like to see the federal government do more to support the elderly through Medicare health insurance and Social Security benefits, the poll found. Nearly 40% want the federal government to continue with current levels of support for the elderly. Only 7% would like it to do less

.

https://www.deseret.com/politics/2024/0 ... fare-cuts/

[kalm]

I can’t stand Bill Maher anymore but…facts and receipts. Putin literally admitted it. But yeah it’s a huge Obama - Hillary conspiracy.