"somehow she pulls it off"
 

vicious imps can be alluring: succubi

WTF it's almost like you people WANT to be torn apart limb from limb by some dude wielding nothing but a garage door frame and genius use of ratchet tie-downs and straps.

Clod talks about Trump. We talk about Clod. You talk about us.

To each his own. :p:

I do like me a bit of the grindhouse, yeah.
 

:thumbsup:

I convinced the Russians and their buddies in former Soviet states, fucked with our election in favor of trump because they wanted to deal with him rather than butt heads with Hillary. It was my understanding Mueller was investigating whether they had or had not, done exactly that.

So far all I'm hearing is someone who has seen the report says it doesn't prove Trump made a deal with Putin to make it happen. Isn't that a red herring? Aren't we missing the point of election interference and working to prevent it in the Future?

If there's a continuing investigation into that, they wouldn't be free to discuss it. It wouldn't be prudent.

Some election interference is not illegal. What is illegal collusion does not address other collusion.

We know the Russians got the president they wanted. And that so many Trump officials repeatedly tried to obstruct justice.

Report suggests Trump tried to obstruct justice. Unfortunately Giuliani is not Butterfield.

:lol:

It's a known fact that the Russians fucked with our election in favor of Trump. It's quite reasonable to assume that they'd choose someone they preferred over someone they didn't, whatever their logic for that preference might be. The Mueller investigation wasn't questioning the interference; it was only asking whether Trump had knowingly and actively participated in/encouraged the interference at the time.

According to Barr (the Attorney General just recently appointed by Trump, who had already said before his appointment that he thought the investigation was partisan and unnecessary), Mueller says there's no evidence of said participation/encouragement. Also according to Barr, Mueller has presented all the evidence he has that Trump potentially "obstructed justice" by trying to stop the various investigations once they had begun. Mueller left the question of whether the evidence rises to the level of a crime to Congress, which is what he was supposed to do. Barr has decided, and announced, that it doesn't.

Congress hasn't seen the evidence, and neither have we, because Mitch McConnell is currently blocking the report from becoming public.

"the Russians...fucked with our election"
 

How?

That is: what did Russians do to hack, interfere with, subvert, or redirect the 50 elections, the tabulation of results, the presentation of results.

And -- please -- no links, no citations: just tell me, in your own words, what the Russians did to futz things up.

Some ads were political. Others just wanted to sow discord. Amplifying hate was the whole point of the ads. I don't understand why everyone doesn't see this.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/10/ru...nce-full-list/

Interesting to see there were anti-Trump ads in the set they bought. That doesn't fit our narrative. They would do things like place ads for both a pro-Trump rally and an anti-Trump rally at the same time. Why?

Just think. You want to create a campaign to sow discord. You buy 3500 ads. You know political ads work best to sow discord, so that's what you buy. It hardly matters which side. PICK THE MORE DIVISIVE SIDE.

Then, as a direct result of your work, the US press proceeds to fly into a panic, and for two years, uses every narrative possible to discredit the Presidency.

What a wild success. That is money well spent. Mission fucking accomplished.

The Russians used targeted social media to manipulate the emotions of the populace and convince them of lies, which affected their voting decisions. They created false narratives and movements such as "pizzagate" and the supposed "secession of Texas" which caused people to behave differently than they would have when armed with facts.

They also manipulated early online polling results during the Republican primaries to help ensure he was the nominee. People are herd animals, and it's been demonstrated time and again that people in later-primary states are influenced by the results of early-primary states.

I don't think they wanted Trump, necessarily, which is why I believe it's entirely possible that Trump was too dumb to realize that they were helping him, or that such a thing might be illegal. I think Putin wanted chaos and infighting to destabilize America as a whole. He got it, and continues to get it, and will for a long time to come.

"The Russians used targeted social media to manipulate the emotions of the populace and convince them of lies, which affected their voting decisions. They created false narratives and movements such as "pizzagate" and the supposed "secession of Texas" which caused people to behave differently than they would have when armed with facts."

In other words: they did what all advertisers and sellers do, what all governments and politicians do, what all 'journalists' (as opposed to 'reporters') do, what all men do when they want pussy, what all women do when they give the pussy up.

meh...I thought it was sumthin' bigger, more coercive, but instead: it's the same old shit (sellin' and buyin' [hence: buyer beware ]).

#

"They also manipulated early online polling results during the Republican primaries to help ensure he was the nominee. People are herd animals, and it's been demonstrated time and again that people in later-primary states are influenced by the results of early-primary states."

Marketing and propaganda, movin' the tribe: nuthin' new.

#

"I don't think they wanted Trump, necessarily, which is why I believe it's entirely possible that Trump was too dumb to realize that they were helping him, or that such a thing might be illegal. I think Putin wanted chaos and infighting to destabilize America as a whole. He got it, and continues to get it, and will for a long time to come."

He didn't want Trump: he just didn't want Clinton.

As for 'destabilizing': for the past two years, the culprits have been domestic, not Russian.

As for Trump 'dumbness': He's the prez, he ain't goin' to jail, his enemies are on the ropes, and things just keep gettin' better overall...yeah, he's a moron.

#

So, the great worry about election interference is just falderol about features of human interaction that've been with us since before we fell out of the trees and that will be with us till extinction: gullibility and opportunism.

The solution is simple: don't take 'candy' from strangers and before panicking about a falllin' sky; go outside and see for yourself.

Much ado 'bout nuthin'... :cry:

"the US press proceeds to fly into a panic"
 

Well, I think there was far more 'calculation' there than 'panic'.

Either way (calculation, panic): tell me why I should take anything *they say with less than a chunk of salt?









*and by 'they' I mean ALL of 'em...no exceptions

Onion...

In an ape suit.

"In an ape suit"
 

that's racist...you racist... :thumbsup:

Ah; but, having put Hillary out there as the alternative created a conditional mitigation.

They should make the Mueller report pay-per-view to raise money for the wall. :litebulb:

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. :lol2:

Trump Corporation will somehow pocket a service fee - maybe a $million. After all, the purpose of a business is to enrich top management.

Who gets the movie rights?

movie rights go to michael bay...transformers, all the way 'round
 

:robot:

Trump Corporation has already sucked more than a million out of his campaign contributions for 2020.

Which Trump non-profit Charity did that?

So I downloaded the audio book ofor the Mueller Report and I've been listening to it. It's very dense, stultifying. I wanted to go to the source material and draw my own conclusions. I am on Volume I,Section IV, Chapter 4, Subsection b. It's a grind.

Please let me pointo you to another production of the material:

https://www.insider.com/mueller-repo...-archer-2019-7

This is a summary, with pictures! Trump's graphic crimes rendered in a graphic novel. How apropos.

bad link, for me anyway

My apologies.

No problem dwellar, The Post Police can take corrective action; so, you need not exhaust yourself through self-correction.

Thanks for the correct link.

Or it's a demonstration of how ". . . the way of the wicked [really] is doomed."

How to get mass movements dedicated to evildoing: convince them they are doing some great, if difficult, good. Advertise it relentlessly.

Individual possession of a capacity for critical thinking -- as a rule absent in both socialists and leftwingers -- becomes the best, if not the only, defense against such folly.

with apologies to Shelly
 

I met a traveller from an antique land who said:

Two vast and trunkless legs of stone stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand, half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, and wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, tell that its sculptor well those passions read which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, the hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed.

And on the pedestal these words appear: My name is Mueller (or Nadler, or Schiff), king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare the lone and level sands stretch far away.

Another failed casino Mr Trump?

Right over yer head, yeah?
 

:drool:

One fact is apparent from the Mueller report. Trump did not commit impeachable crimes because his subordinates repeatedly ignored or obstructed his orders; or destroyed evidence. We can only thank subordinates for averting disasters such as a Pearl Harbor style attack on Iran. Another example of a president who gleefully massacres American servicemen on lies and personal glory.

Did we not learn from Nixon or George Jr? Only moderates do.

This clearly is a criticism of the problem: Trump supporters who post extremist (anti-American) rhetoric even here.

"One fact is apparent from the Mueller report. Trump did not commit impeachable crimes because his subordinates repeatedly ignored or obstructed his orders; or destroyed evidence."

Sumthin' neither Nadler or Schiff thought enough of to press Mueller on while they had him in the hot seat.

Pick better inquisitors.

Also: the 'press' apparently doesn't think enough of Trump's subordinates repeatedly ignoring or obstructing his orders to give it much play either.

Pick better propagandists.

One fact is apparent from the Mueller report as reported / demonstrated by so many honest news sources (including foreign ones). Trump did not commit impeachable crimes because his subordinates repeatedly ignored or obstructed his orders; or destroyed evidence."

Trump did not commit impeachable crimes because his subordinates repeatedly ignored or obstructed his orders; or destroyed evidence.

Sumthin' neither Nadler or Schiff thought enough of to press Mueller on while they had him in the hot seat.

Pick better inquisitors.

Also: the 'press' apparently doesn't think enough of Trump's subordinates repeatedly ignoring or obstructing his orders to give it much play either.

Pick better propagandists.

Fox News, Drudge Report, etc would not report it. Honesty harms propaganda. Meanwhile others, who are not pretenders, did report it. Communist propaganda type sources are not new sources. Pravda also would not report it.

"Fox News, Drudge Report, etc would not report it."

Pretty sure they did (so they could poo-poo it). But you pay more attention to Fox & Drudge than me, so mebbe you're right.

#

"others, who are not pretenders, did report it."

Indeed they did: MSNBC, for example, banged that drum when it was expedient. My point: they ain't bangin' it 'now'. Seems to me: the 'honest' media (the folks you like), after Ozymandias's lackluster performance, made no effort to salvage him or his report.

This: 'Trump did not commit impeachable crimes because his subordinates repeatedly ignored or obstructed his orders; or destroyed evidence.' you'd think would be trumpeted over & over (especially if the whole point of Ozymandias testifyin' was to more clearly put the report in the public square, as Schiff & Nadler claimed).

No, your ilk swung & struck out, and most them know it. Only Nadler, Schiff, and you wanna keep lookin' for a pot of collusion/obstruction at the end of the rainbow.

#

"Pravda also would not report it."

Yeah, I'm thinkin' they probably did, but -- again -- you pay more attention to Pravda than me, so mebbe you're right.

There are the conspiracy theorists -- and there are the beyond conspiracy theorists.

Along with the ones who couldn't tell scalp massage from mental masturbation. You need to be shaky on the point to qualify for the position of senior anti-Trumpkin.

It is distasteful. Though well massaged.

I paid more attention to Radio Moscow in 1960. Back then I was trying to learn. I'm done listening long to Fox News, Radio Havana, et al. Obvious lies followed by lies are quite fatiguing. They manipulated facts to then poo-poo them. That is called propaganda.

What protected Trump? So many subordinates that ignored his commands, so many lesser subordinates whose work was stifled, obstructed or just ignored, and some (ie Don, Jr) who were even sidetracked his brother-in-law Jared.

We were only ten minutes from another Vietnam or Mission Accomplished. What we do not yet know is why bomber and troops, fully loaded to attack, were only called off in the last ten minutes. That Pearl Harbor attack on Iran would have only massacred American servicemen for no purpose. A question remains - what Trump subordinate stopped / averted that inevitable disaster.

Another example of why Trump is not currently subject to impeachment and removal. His people keep blocking, impeding, or not implemented his commands - from someone who only works for himself even at the expense of America.

Even Paul Manafort (Trump's campaign manager) routinely conspired with Russian spies Why do we know? Manafort's second in command (Gates) said so. Manafort demonstrates the integrity of Trump's senior staff. You don't violate the laws he wants violated. Your fired. So many were fired for simply protecting The Don (a business school graduate) from his own evil self.

"Another example of why Trump is not currently subject to impeachment and removal. His people keep blocking, impeding, or not implemented his commands - from someone who only works for himself even at the expense of America."

Seems to me: if Ozymandias had actually gotten anything conclusive, impeachment would be a done deal no matter who blocked for Trump.

But, no, the best Ozymandias could dredge up (after two years of investigation, spending millions) was a handful of events which, if placed in a certain context, might (not are, just might) be seen as obstructive on Trump's part.

Ozymandias had nuthin', you got nuthin'.

But, please, keep goin'...your extremism is instructive.

Never ceases to amaze me how entrenched extremists are. You cannot even learn something as simple as the quote feature. Apparently the central committee of the communist party (or their disciple Trump) has not yet ordered you to learn it.

I know the feature: I just don't like it.

What amazes me: how deeply you lie to yourself, truly believin' you're a unicorn just cuz you taped a cardboard tube to your forehead.

You're just like me: an ogre, a monster.

An extremist.

Another example of an extremists. Rather than post facts, an extremist post insults. Explains why extremists so love The Don. Other extremists are then quick to believe those lies justified only by insult.

"Send her back" is popular with wacko extremists. Does not matter that it is all based in lies. It is what they were told to believe. So it must be true.

Same was also demonstrated by Sander's supporters. Did you know the Federal Reserve is independent of government? So it must be a private corporation. They were also ordered what to believe and therefore knew it was true.

At least those extremists do not get violent and insult others. Or need assault rifles to fix America.

"Another example of an extremists. Rather than post facts, an extremist post insults."

Indeed: look here what this extremist wrote...

make of this what you will
 

https://www.scottadamssays.com/2019/...bout-politics/

As the 2020 presidential election approaches, two distinct versions of so-called “reality” have emerged, similar to what happened in 2016. I call this effect “two movies on one screen.”

In Movie One, President Trump is absolutely, definitely a racist, and any honest person can see it in the way he talks, the people who support him, and his policy proposals. For the viewers of this movie, Trump’s alleged racism is a fact, not an opinion. Therefore, logically, all Trump supporters must be racists because they support a racist president. This view of reality is promoted by CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, NPR, and essentially all of the left-leaning press.

In Movie Two, President Trump promised the country he would not be politically correct if elected, and sure enough, he is not. He goes hard at all critics, with uncautious language, and that makes it easy for his political foes to cherry pick the times he criticizes women and people of color, framing those instances as some sort of pattern. Viewers of Movie Two are confused about whether the viewers of Movie One are lying, stupid, brainwashed, or mentally ill.

Those two realities are starkly different. How can any of us tell which is the true one? After all, there are millions of otherwise intelligent and sane people watching both movies. Given the stakes, we sure wouldn’t want to be wrong. My suggestion, which works for any situation in which reality seems ambiguous, is to compare how well each version of reality predicts what happens next. The reality that predicts the best is the “true” one, assuming reality has any objective qualities at all.

So let’s see how well the movies have predicted the future so far. We’ve been watching some version of these same movies since 2016, so we have about three years of track record to review.

Which movie predicted that Israel would name a settlement after President Trump, or that Trump would be the most popular American president in Israel?

Answer: Only Movie 2

Which movie predicted that President Trump would have about the same number of black supporters as any other Republican President.

Answer: Only Movie 2

Which movie predicted President Trump’s words would be continuously taken out of context to change their meaning from ordinary to racist?

Answer: Only Movie 2

Example 1: When President Trump said white nationalists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville should be “condemned totally,” the press reported that he called them “fine people.” Don’t believe me? See for yourself here and here.

Example 2: When Trump referred to “shithole countries,” talking about the education and economic situation in some nations, the press and pundits reported that he called the people in those countries “shithole people.”

Example 3: When Trump referred to the rodent infestation in Baltimore, the press and pundits reported that he was calling the people vermin.

For more examples, see my prior blog post on why only one side hears the racist dog whistle and the other does not.

Which movie predicts President Trump would continuously brag about how low black and Hispanic unemployment is under his administration?

Answer: Only Movie 2

Which movie predicted President Trump would be the president to champion prison reform with a bipartisan coalition?

Answer: Only Movie 2

Which movie predicted President Trump would be tough on immigration, including the detention centers at the border?

Answer: Both (but for different reasons)

In Movie One, it’s all motivated by racism. In Movie Two, it’s all motivated by nationalism, as in protecting current citizens from crime and job loss.

Which movie predicted that racists would favor Trump over Democrats?

Answer: Both (but for different reasons)

In Movie One, white supremacists see Trump as one of their own, trying to stop people of color from entering the country. In Movie Two, Trump is simply doing his job, like every president before him, and protecting the border for the benefit of all citizens, especially black and Hispanic citizens. In Movie Two, racists and Democrats are united in their confusion because they believe the mainstream press when it reports that Movie One is reality.

Which movie predicts the press would find endless “evidence” of President Trump’s alleged racism?

Answer: Both (but for different reasons)

In Movie One, Trump is doing all kinds of racist things and the press is calling him out every time. In Movie Two, confirmation bias, mental illness (Trump Derangement Syndrome), and politics are behind all the accusations what are little more than fever dreams about Hitler being under the bed.

Which movie predicts that 47%(ish) of the country would support the president — a number similar to President Obama’s favorability at the same time?

Answer: Movie Two

If the evidence of Trump’s racism were as obvious as Movie One’s script alleges, you would predict Trump’s popularity to be closer to 10%. Apparently there are tens of millions of women and ethnic minorities who don’t notice all the racism and sexism that the press tells us is glaringly obvious.

Which movie predicted that President Trump would be successful with the economy and also make the world safer in military terms?

Answer: Movie Two

In Movie One, Trump is not only a racist, but he is also a Russian puppet, mentally unstable, and too impulsive and stupid to manage either the economy or international affairs. Movie Two predicted Trump would boost the economy and move the country away from war. So far, that seems to be the case.

Which movie predicted that in our world of secret recordings and non-stop leaking, no “smoking gun” of racism has been produced about ANYONE in the entire Trump administration?

Answer: Movie Two

If Movie One were predictive, we would expect lots of reports of private conversations in the administration that are obviously racist. The government is a leaky place, so if the president and his close advisors were racists, we’d have plenty of credible reports about it from insiders. We have nothing credible of the sort.

Movie One, in which the president is an obvious racist, didn’t do a good job of predicting our current situation, except in cases where it makes the same prediction as Movie Two. But Movie Two successfully explains all observations over the past three years.

Given the subjectivity of reality, the viewers of Movie One won’t be able to read this blog post without being triggered into cognitive dissonance.

Naming a settlement after Trump is a very Movie One thing.

take it up with adams
 

okay

Take it up with Adams? No, you brought it here you own it.

It falls apart because there are more than two movies, trying to divide the country into two camps is "fer us or agin us" bullshit.
Telling people they are not allowed to agree with some Liberal ideas and some conservatives ideas, is the most un-American thing possible.

Adams is torturing his own, original "two movies" metaphor. In the original metaphor, a single event would be interpreted in two very different ways by two different tribes. That is an interesting way to describe our reactions to events. You often see this happening.

But he has apparently now expanded it to include not just one event, but the entire, bigger picture. It's not just an interpretation, but the entire narrative. IOW it's now about the movie that people play in their heads, not the movie they just watched.

I don't like how he broke his own metaphor. It's not a clear line of thinking from point A to point B.

"No, you brought it here you own it."
 

Gonna be interesting to see how you're gonna make that stick.

Easy, if you can't or don't wish to elaborate on it, then it's just meaningless static, no help to your cause.

mailman delivers bills to bruce...bruce has a conniption...mailman shrugs, sez...
 

...don't blame the messenger

#

"your cause"

what cause?

No problem with the mailman, he brings bills I created, as a matter of fact I thank him and reward him at Christmas.

Your cause is to wreck shit, which would be fine if it was just your shit.

channelin' tw
 

No. He's channeling humanity.

We can just change the channel. Got a remote, don't even have to get up.

"He's channeling humanity."
 

So: humanity is a schizophrenic mix of milquetoast & rabidity?

"We can just change the channel."
 

or: turn the set off