Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

hill16bhoy

Deleted User wrote: »

And hill16bhoy, you called his post nonsense when it was perfectly reasonable.

Maybe point out how his post was nonsensical instead of going for an overarching argument against the poster. As I say, it was logical and part of a natural discussion as opposed to your what can only be described as rants at this stage.

Calling a nonsensical point "nonsense" is perfectly reasonable.

Calling my posts "rants" is simply attacking the poster.

hill16bhoy

I'd be interested to know if people think Trump's anti-press rhetoric is in any way a causal factor in this.

I think the answer is obvious. Isn't it?

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/18/714625907/the-u-s-now-ranks-as-a-problematic-place-for-journalists

The United States has become a less safe place for journalists, and the threats they face are becoming the standard, according to a new report by an international press freedom organization.

Reporters Sans Frontières, or Reporters Without Borders, dropped the U.S. to No. 48 out of 180 on its annual World Press Freedom Index, three notches lower than its place last year. The move downgrades the country from a "satisfactory" place to work freely to a "problematic" one for journalists.

"Never before have US journalists been subjected to so many death threats or turned so often to private security firms for protection," the report stated.

Ten journalists have been physically attacked this year, and 46 since 2017. In January, one reporter was punched in the face and her phone stolen, while interviewing voters in California.

Last June, five people were killed while working at the Capital Gazette newsroom in Annapolis, Md. The man accused of shooting them had threatened the publication for years leading up to the attack.

KyussB

Brian? wrote: »

Can you give some examples of the "vast array of lies" that were propagated? I'd like specifics.

Here is a very thorough takedown and description of the primary bits of misinformatiion which were propagated:
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/

There general thrust, is there has been a major movement from many prominent mainstream outlets, very clearly trying to paint a link between the Trump presidential campaign and the Russians - and all of that is obliterated by the Mueller report, now:
http://web.archive.org/web/20190418162213/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/13/all-of-the-known-times-the-trump-campaign-met-with-russians/?utm_term=.61539c445d40
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russians-wikileaks.html

One of the most farcical articles trying to paint a link was actually from the Guardian - falsely stating that Manafort had visited the most surveilled man in the UK, without anyone noticing:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy

The Guardian still hasn't retracted that completely discrediting story.

Another false claim here, stating Cohen knew of Trump's advance knowledge on Trump tower meeting - when Cohen did not know this:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/26/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-june-2016-meeting-knowledge/index.html

There are yet more examples in the top article. Lets also not forget all of the other hysterical Russia-phobic stories over these years, which aren't directly related to Trump (the Mueller report just highlights one of the most egregious examples) - all of these were false, but were at least corrected afterwards - which doesn't justify the uncritical hysterical headlines that came in the first place:
http://web.archive.org/web/20190419174840/http://fortune.com/2017/01/12/cspan-rt-interruption/ (false claims of Russian hacking of C-Span)
http://web.archive.org/web/20190413223616/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html (false claims of Russian hacking of electricity grid)
https://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-russia-scaramucci-dmitriev-meeting-new-details-2018-3?r=US&IR=T (false claims about meeting between a White House director and Russian investor)

In this case, loads of legitimate news sites were cited as reporting 'fake news' supporting Russia - with the Washington Post supporting/propagating these false claims uncritically, despite the source being anonymous - being forced to partially walk it back, later:
http://web.archive.org/web/20190215082416/https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html?utm_term=.5a7d9a324f30

The Cuba embassy sonic weapon attack blamed on Russia - that turned out to be fucking crickets of all things...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latin-america/u-s-officials-suspect-russia-mystery-attacks-diplomats-cuba-china-n908141
http://fortune.com/2018/09/11/sonic-attacks-cuba-china-russia-suspect/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/science/sonic-attack-cuba-microwave.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/11/russia-mystery-illnesses-us-staff-cuba-china
etc. etc. loads of newspapers uncritically spreading Russia-phobic hysteria.

I can't be bothered going through the rest of that list - it's all here, and the worst of it I didn't even get to:
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/

It's been very clear for years that there has been extreme 'reds under the bed' Russia-phobia going on, with some of the worst false claims surrounding the Trump presidential campaign - and many more extreme and false claims that aren't directly related to that, yet which have directly aided in heavily damaging the quality of public discourse - probably in a lasting way which won't easily be recovered from.

hill16bhoy

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Calling a nonsensical point "nonsense" is perfectly reasonable.

Calling my posts "rants" is simply attacking the poster.

The below was his post which you called arrant nonsense.



Stop talking sense. The average American can see through the bull****, and actually decide from themselves. They don't need Twitter police to tell them what to think. Literally nobody depends on Fox, CNN or MSNBC to tell them what to think on any issue. The idea that mainstream media influence most people in the US is ridiculous, most people don't even watch.

The bottom line is Democrats need to get their act together and formulate a platform for 2020 that is not just not-Trump, as the American public actually want to know what your vision is for the future.



Point out the nonsense please. And no, me calling your replies "rants" is the definition of attacking posts, not the poster.

hill16bhoy

KyussB wrote: »

Here is a very thorough takedown and description of the primary bits of misinformatiion which were propagated:

Do you acknowledge that the vast, vast majority of the reporting on Trump and his links to Russia have proved accurate, and that the Mueller report is, all in all, a thorough vindication for US investigative journalism?

KyussB

hill16bhoy wrote: »

How so?

The so called "mainstream press" have been thoroughly vindicated in their reporting while the likes of Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi and Michael Tracey have been left with a large amount of egg on their faces.

The likes of Greenwald took a position based on no evidence and then, ostrich-like, defended that position in the face of all the evidence for fear of losing face that they had called it wrong.

The Mueller report provides ample evidence of collusion.

Even Greenwald's own media outlet The Intercept has made a fool of him.

There are endless psychological theses to be done on the total delusion that has gripped those defending Trump.

Anything to back up those claims? In the case of Greenwald in particular, he's very clearly identified the claim that was spread of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia - has shown how news media have uncritically propagated that idea - and has shown how the Mueller report obliterates that claim.

That's fairly clear-cut.

You seem to want to engage in a pre-emptive character attack, instead of focusing on the substance of the claims and counter-claims made, and the evidence for/against.

KyussB

Rjd2 wrote: »

Plenty their.

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/

The Buzzfeed story is the obvious one.

Glenn deserves a lot of credit here, he has always stated how much he hates Trump but calls out the breathless "PUTIN~!!!! DEMOCRACY STOLEN~"" hype spouted by the likes of Maddow, Abramson etc who have made a lot of money exploiting those on the left who live in collusion echo chambers and those who don't want to accept that America could elect a ****show like Trump by themselves. He took a lot of abuse for this but he stuck by his guns credit where its due.

Yes this is one of the most notable thing from Glenn over his years: He sticks to his guns, and when he has spent years criticising Republican governments under Bush etc., he doesn't switch into deference-mode like most mainstream journalists do, as soon as a Democrat gets into power - he keeps up his critical reporting and investigative journalism against the Democratic government undertaking/legitimizing/expanding the same illegal/immoral programs as the last government, even when he knows it burns bridges with previous (now partisan) allies.

He's one of the best examples out there, of a journalist with actual integrity - even after his friend was murdered in Brazil, and Bolsonaro (the president there now) made veiled threats of murdering further opponents - with links published between Bolsonaro's family and the murderer's of Glenn's friend - Glenn is staying there and his partner David Miranda has filled the role of a congressman who fled the country also due to death threats.

Been following his writing for more than a decade and you won't find many other journalists with as much smarts and integrity.

TomOnBoard

So, congress have issued a subpoena for a fully un-redacted version as well as all the underlying evidence to be presented.

Unless extremely strict protocols are in place to prevent even the tiniest of leaks of redacted content, and/or the hoard of evidence, they ought not get all that. Why? They have proven incapable of not leaking when partisan points can be made. I would fear for ongoing investigations if certain details were made available, and I wouldn't put it past certain members to do such leaking in order to compromise legal investigations that have been spawned by the Mueller team's work.

hill16bhoy

Deleted User wrote: »

The below was his post which you called arrant nonsense.



Stop talking sense. The average American can see through the bull****, and actually decide from themselves. They don't need Twitter police to tell them what to think. Literally nobody depends on Fox, CNN or MSNBC to tell them what to think on any issue. The idea that mainstream media influence most people in the US is ridiculous, most people don't even watch.

The bottom line is Democrats need to get their act together and formulate a platform for 2020 that is not just not-Trump, as the American public actually want to know what your vision is for the future.



Point out the nonsense please. And no, me calling your replies "rants" is the definition of attacking posts, not the poster.

Stating that somebody's replies are "rants" with nothing else to back it up - which you did - is the very definition of attacking the poster.

The point about the average US voter being well able to make up their own mind was nonsense was because the percentage of US voters who are terminally partisan is extremely high and they simply believe what "their side" says.

It's the same in the UK.

I think that tendency is undeniably much, much higher among Republican voters, however, as the propensity for outright lying is much, much higher among Republican-aligned media outlets, such as Fox, Breitbart, Sinclair and the vast array of right-wing talk show hosts.

In many cases, these outlets churn out naked propaganda which bears no relation whatsoever to reality.

You simply cannot say that about CNN, which is centrist, or MSNBC.

These right-wing media outlets given to outright propaganda are the key mainstream opinion forming vehicles among Republicans.

The poster also contradicted himself by saying that most people don't consume so called "mainstream media".

If that is the case, where do they get their information from? Social media? The same social media that Russia was all over?

Is he and are you now saying that Russian-disseminated social media advertisements are a good source of actual knowledge?

KyussB

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Do you acknowledge that the vast, vast majority of the reporting on Trump and his links to Russia have proved accurate, and that the Mueller report is, all in all, a thorough vindication for US investigative journalism?

They key claims of collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia are obliterated, in ribbons, pining for the fjords, blasted into fucking smithereens.

In its wake, it's blasted holes in the reputations of an extremely wide range of mainstream (and other) news outlets.

hill16bhoy

KyussB wrote: »

Anything to back up those claims? In the case of Greenwald in particular, he's very clearly identified the claim that was spread of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia - has shown how news media have uncritically propagated that idea - and has shown how the Mueller report obliterates that claim.

That's fairly clear-cut.

You seem to want to engage in a pre-emptive character attack, instead of focusing on the substance of the claims and counter-claims made, and the evidence for/against.

The Mueller report’s collusion section is much worse than you think
The contacts with Russians documented in the report amount to a devastating indictment of Trump’s approach to politics.

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/18/18484965/mueller-report-trump-no-collusion

In another post you mention that Greenwald "sticks to his guns".

There are many occasions when "sticking to your guns" is a very foolish thing to do, and this is one of them.

Greenwald's behaviour on Twitter has been like that of a petulant child - very Trump-like, actually.

He's manipulating reality to seduce gullible people who are desperate to cling to a wrong narrative that was arrived at without evidence and clung to in the face of the evidence - that neither Trump or his campaign had anything to do with Russia or were or are in any way influenced by them.

I think he's damaged his credibility completely beyond repair.

hill16bhoy

KyussB wrote: »

They key claims of collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia are obliterated, in ribbons, pining for the fjords, blasted into fucking smithereens.

In it's wake, it's blasted holes in the reputations of an extremely wide range of mainstream (and other) news outlets.

But that simply isn't true.

Trump's campaign did collude with Russia.

It's there in black and white!

Your language and tone is curiously similar to Greenwald's.

It's a bizarre exercise in self-deception and self-delusion.

DreamsBurnDown

hill16bhoy wrote: »

What questions have you answered? Because I haven't seen any answers from you.

Do you think Trump is a racist?

Do you think Trump is an anti-Semite or has engaged in anti-Semitism?

Did Trump or his campaign engage in collusion with Russia?

Did he engage in corruption?

Is Barr corrupt? Has Barr a long history of misrepresentation and cover up?

How should Barr's "summaries" be treated? Seriously, or with the same worth as one would treat soiled toilet paper with?

Did Barr act honourably?

Did Richard Burr act in a corrupt manner when he acted as a back channel to Trump as regards the FBI investigating him?

Did Trump obstruct justice?

Has he committed impeachable offences?

Should he be impeached? Given that the redacted Mueller report is a clear call for his impeachment, like. Do you admit it is?

Should the matter of impeachment be considered purely as a matter of right and wrong?

Or, as you appear to suggest, should it be considered purely on the basis of whether it will be advantageous or not to the Democrats in an electoral sense?

If one believes the impeachment question is to be considered purely on the basis of whether it is electorally advantageous or disadvantageous, what does that say about one's attitude to exposing and punishing corruption in politics? Does it lead one to think that you take it seriously?

Is the hiding and cover up of massive corruption bad or good for democracy? Your posts would appear to suggest the latter.

Would any other president who had a report like this written about them be faced with impeachment proceedings?

What is the hard left?

Calling Trump a "narcissistic asshole" seems very much like the sort of "criticism" one would make when one is trying to avoid actual criticism and is trying to give an illusion of balance to one's posts.

I find your tone both highly arrogant, abusive and also ironic given that your post is written in a manner that is squarely guilty of everything you erroneously accuse me of - and it's not the first time. I think there's a lot of projection there.

For a supposed "registered Democrat", you sure come across as anything but - your posts seem curiously evasive of anything that would paint Trump in a bad light, bar calling him a "narrcissistic asshole", which is sort of a given and doesn't provide any insight at all.

So, once again you call me a liar. Sadly, you are typical of the perpetually outraged left who regard everyone who does not agree with them as the enemy. It is exactly this kind of arrogance and intolerance that could see Trump elected again in 2020.

You have asked me 18 questions and yet won't answer one. Have you lived in the US or spent considerable time there?, as it sounds like you have next to no understanding of how Americans think and how they regard politicians. The American appetite for politicians of both parties is at an all time low and if you think this is specific to Republicans you are sadly mistaken. One small example, when Kavanaugh was being called a liar by Senator Blumenthal during the Senate hearing many Americans were asking themselves "wait, isn't this the guy who claimed he was running up hills dodging bullets in Vietnam to get elected, and never actually set foot in Vietnam".

Can you actually comprehend that Washington is completely corrupt, and that literally all politicians are liars, just some are more polished than others? Politicians will literally say anything to get elected and then when in office do whatever they are paid to do by lobbyists. That is principally the reason why Congress is at 17% approval rating, politicians of both parties do not represent the people who elected them.

I would agree with most of your charges against Trump, although some are naive, especially regarding Barr. Do you seriously think a Democrat AG would behave any differently? What do you think Eric Holder meant when he said about Obama "I'm still the President's wing man, I'm there with my boy". Of course Barr is partisan, literally everyone in government is. It is incredibly naive to think Republicans are going to suddenly develop morals and oust Trump, given not one Democratic senator voted to oust a President who actually lied under oath to a grand jury and had sex in the oval office with an employee, an act that would not be regarded as consensual by most today.

The only question you posed that is of significant importance is whether Democrats should pursue impeachment. The leadership of the party has decided against it, at least for now, and let the electorate decide in 2020. I personally think that's the wise move, mainly as there is no consensus within the party to impeach and it would become a divisive issue even for Democrats. The report is pretty damning to Trump already, there is plenty ammunition there to use in 2020, without resorting to the tactics of 2016 like calling half the country deplorables.

What is hard left? Those that believe capitalism should be replaced by socialism and that the state should run industry rather than relying on the genius of entrepreneurs. In the US that means the DSA. Do you agree with the goals of the DSA in that the state should run industry?

I've only asked you two questions, two yes or no answers will suffice.

KyussB

hill16bhoy wrote: »

But that simply isn't true.

Trump's campaign did collude with Russia.

It's there in black and white!

Your language and tone is curiously similar to Greenwald's.

It's a bizarre exercise in self-deception and self-delusion.

Show me where it paints collusion between Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government?

That's literally the exact opposite of what the report states - and it was stated very clearly - from the 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."

I don't want to waste my time arguing with someone who is going to take a contrarian stance, just for the sake of it. The claim that is at issue is very clear, and the revokation of that claim is equally clear.

The repercussions of that claim, particularly on the reputation of many news media outlets and on public discourse, may be up for further debate - but if the central claim itself and its revokation are still being debated, after such clarity in their revokation, then that is just a waste of time discussing further - because I don't think it can be made any clearer.

hill16bhoy

In terms of Greenwald's credibility, even his own media outlet is destroying it.

https://twitter.com/theintercept/status/1118988830261092353

The only logical corollary of Greenwald's stance is that he agrees entirely with Trump when he says the entire Mueller investigation and indeed every other investigation into Trump was a "total witch hunt", and that proceedings should be opened against those that enabled it - which means Rosenstein, Mueller himself, and all media outlets which reported over the last two and a bit years.

Greenwald's stance here is simply "don't believe reality - believe Trump".

That isn't journalism (has Greenwald ever even been a journalist himself? He's always been basically nothing more than a glorified opinion writer), it's self-promotion and propaganda.

DreamsBurnDown

hill16bhoy wrote: »

In many cases, these outlets churn out naked propaganda which bears no relation whatsoever to reality.

You simply cannot say that about CNN, which is centrist, or MSNBC.

These right-wing media outlets given to outright propaganda are the key mainstream opinion forming vehicles among Republicans.

The poster also contradicted himself by saying that most people don't consume so called "mainstream media".

..and yet Fox were critical of Trump on Thursday when the Mueller report was issued. They regularly have Democrats on their shows, even during primetime. CNN had eight panelists on all day Thursday saying exactly the same thing over and over with not one dissenting opinion. Yet you call CNN centrist?

Fox long ago lost credibility with most American voters, CNN and MSNBC have now lost all credibility with most Americans. You would need to live in the US to comprehend that, but it is literally living under a rock to think otherwise. Most of the people I socialize with are Democrats and all freely admit, as do I, that CNN and especially MSNBC are now as biased as Fox.

Yes, social media is full of fake news, which is why most people pay no attention to it. People who can actually think for themselves listen to both sides of an argument and make their minds up.

KyussB

hill16bhoy wrote: »

In terms of Greenwald's credibility, even his own media outlet is destroying it.

https://twitter.com/theintercept/status/1118988830261092353

The only logical corollary of Greenwald's stance is that he agrees entirely with Trump when he says the entire Mueller investigation and indeed every other investigation into Trump was a "total witch hunt", and that proceedings should be opened against those that enabled it - which means Rosenstein, Mueller himself, and all media outlets which reported over the last two and a bit years.

Greenwald's stance here is simply "don't believe reality - believe Trump".

That isn't journalism (has Greenwald ever even been a journalist himself? He's always been basically nothing more than a glorified opinion writer), it's self-promotion and propaganda.

That article explicitly states that there was no collusion. The article you link backs my point - that there was no collusion - it does not back your point, claiming that there was collusion.

It's really clear-cut, and has been put to bed. There is no point grasping at straws trying to revive the claim of collusion - as it's about as dead as it could possibly get, now.

hill16bhoy

KyussB wrote: »

Show me where it paints collusion between Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government?

That's literally the exact opposite of what the report states - and it was stated very clearly - from the 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."

I don't want to waste my time arguing with someone who is going to take a contrarian stance, just for the sake of it. The claim that is at issue is very clear, and the revokation of that claim is equally clear.

The repercussions of that claim, particularly on the reputation of many news media outlets and on public discourse, may be up for further debate - but if the central claim itself and its revokation are still being debated, after such clarity in their revokation, then that is just a waste of time discussing further - because I don't think it can be made any clearer.

You seem to be under the impression that because Trump wasn't caught in direct contact with the Russian IRA or GRU, that no collusion took place?

What were you expecting - him to be caught on video doing a Skype with somebody in the IRA office in St. Petersburg dictating the text of fake social media ads?

Collusion has been proven beyond doubt. Did you read the article I linked to?

Unless you think the Trump Tower meeting wasn't collusion or Manafort sharing polling data with the Russians with a view to social media disinformation campaigns isn't collusion?

Your naivety is astounding, I don't think you're trolling but one nearly hopes for your sake that you are.

KyussB

The article you linked states there was no collusion!..

Can you at least read the articles you link, so I don't have to bloody waste time reading them for you.

hill16bhoy

KyussB wrote: »

The article you linked states there was no collusion!..

Can you at least read the articles you link, so I don't have to bloody waste time reading them for you.

Please stop playing silly, no. The Vox article I linked to details the collusion.

The fact that people like you think the whole Trump-Russia thing is a "conspiracy" is totally laughable.

TomOnBoard

One of the big winners from the Mueller report is the reputation of WhatsApp and Signal as messaging technologies for the conduct of nefarious activities. The fact that even the FBI could not gain access to messages without having control of a participant's device must surely lift the hearts of those needing to communicate as part of a criminal activity. This doesn't bode well for counter-crime efforts generally, and will put greater pressure on developers to build in 'backdoor' methods to overcome the capability.

KyussB

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Please stop playing silly, no. The Vox article I linked to details the collusion.

The fact that people like you think the whole Trump-Russia thing is a "conspiracy" is totally laughable.

The Vox article actually refutes that there was any collusion - and instead says that both sides were open to and reaching out to each other, but never actually did collude in the end.

What the report finds is not clear-cut evidence of a quid-pro-quo. Instead, what we see is a series of bungled and abortive attempts to create ties between the two sides, a situation in which the Trump team and Russia worked to reach out to each other (and vice versa) without ever developing a formal arrangement to coordinate.

Does that rise to the level of “collusion?” It’s a slippery term. But if “collusion” refers to a willingness to cooperate with Russian interference in the 2016 US election and actively taking steps to abet it, it seems to me that the Mueller report does in fact establish that it took place.

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/18/18484965/mueller-report-trump-no-collusion

It's a rather desperate article saying that because they both wanted to collude, then lets redefine the definition of 'collusion' so that we include wanting to collude as well.

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

So, once again you call me a liar.

Where did I call you a liar?

Specifics now, please.

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Sadly, you are typical of the perpetually outraged left who regard everyone who does not agree with them as the enemy. It is exactly this kind of arrogance and intolerance that could see Trump elected again in 2020.

Attacking the poster in an arrogant manner again, I see. You seem too have a really big problem that people might have different views from you. And all the while, the only poster displaying fake outrage is yourself.

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

You have asked me 18 questions and yet won't answer one. Have you lived in the US or spent considerable time there?, as it sounds like you have next to no understanding of how Americans think and how they regard politicians.

I have indeed. My uncle who hails from Labane, Co. Galway is a professor in the Bay Area and I visit every couple of years or so - and I spent three summers there when I was younger on a J1.

Though I'm really not sure what that has to do with anything - as people in Ireland have access to all the same news as the US.

Do you live in the US? Presumably you'd have access to all the same media we have in Ireland. If you're Irish, I'm sure you're able to keep in touch with matters going on at home.

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

The American appetite for politicians of both parties is at an all time low and if you think this is specific to Republicans you are sadly mistaken. One small example, when Kavanaugh was being called a liar by Senator Blumenthal during the Senate hearing many Americans were asking themselves "wait, isn't this the guy who claimed he was running up hills dodging bullets in Vietnam to get elected, and never actually set foot in Vietnam".

Can you actually comprehend that Washington is completely corrupt, and that literally all politicians are liars, just some are more polished than others? Politicians will literally say anything to get elected and then when in office do whatever they are paid to do by lobbyists. That is principally the reason why Congress is at 17% approval rating, politicians of both parties do not represent the people who elected them.

None of that is remotely relevant to the questions I posed to you.

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

I would agree with most of your charges against Trump, although some are naive, especially regarding Barr. Do you seriously think a Democrat AG would behave any differently? What do you think Eric Holder meant when he said about Obama "I'm still the President's wing man, I'm there with my boy". Of course Barr is partisan, literally everyone in government is. It is incredibly naive to think Republicans are going to suddenly develop morals and oust Trump, given not one Democratic senator voted to oust a President who actually lied under oath to a grand jury and had sex in the oval office with an employee, an act that would not be regarded as consensual by most today.

The only question you posed that is of significant importance is whether Democrats should pursue impeachment. The leadership of the party has decided against it, at least for now, and let the electorate decide in 2020. I personally think that's the wise move, mainly as there is no consensus within the party to impeach and it would become a divisive issue even for Democrats. The report is pretty damning to Trump already, there is plenty ammunition there to use in 2020, without resorting to the tactics of 2016 like calling half the country deplorables.

So you're fine with covering up corruption, yes?

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

What is hard left? Those that believe capitalism should be replaced by socialism and that the state should run industry rather than relying on the genius of entrepreneurs. In the US that means the DSA. Do you agree with the goals of the DSA in that the state should run industry?

Unfortunately you're confsuing socialism with communism. A common mistake among many people in the US who eat up the sort of right-wing propaganda that passes for "information" there.

Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are the two most prominent faces of the DSA and neither have callled for the state to run industry.

Though obviously you do have an ideological problem with any sort of state industry. Presumably you had a big problem with the nationalisation of General Motors, even though it saved thousands of jobs.


Now I answered your questions.

Answer mine, because so far you haven't done so. With specifics, please.

Do you think Trump is a racist?

Do you think Trump is an anti-Semite or has engaged in anti-Semitism?

Did Trump or his campaign engage in collusion with Russia?

Did he engage in corruption?

Is Barr corrupt? Has Barr a long history of misrepresentation and cover up?

How should Barr's "summaries" be treated? Seriously, or with the same worth as one would treat soiled toilet paper with?

Did Barr act honourably?

Did Richard Burr act in a corrupt manner when he acted as a back channel to Trump as regards the FBI investigating him?

Did Trump obstruct justice?

Has he committed impeachable offences?

Should he be impeached? Given that the redacted Mueller report is a clear call for his impeachment, like. Do you admit it is?

Should the matter of impeachment be considered purely as a matter of right and wrong?

Or, as you appear to suggest, should it be considered purely on the basis of whether it will be advantageous or not to the Democrats in an electoral sense?

If one believes the impeachment question is to be considered purely on the basis of whether it is electorally advantageous or disadvantageous, what does that say about one's attitude to exposing and punishing corruption in politics? Does it lead one to think that you take it seriously?

Is the hiding and cover up of massive corruption bad or good for democracy? Your posts would appear to suggest the latter.

Would any other president who had a report like this written about them be faced with impeachment proceedings?

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

..and yet Fox were critical of Trump on Thursday when the Mueller report was issued. They regularly have Democrats on their shows, even during primetime. CNN had eight panelists on all day Thursday saying exactly the same thing over and over with not one dissenting opinion. Yet you call CNN centrist?

Fox long ago lost credibility with most American voters, CNN and MSNBC have now lost all credibility with most Americans. You would need to live in the US to comprehend that, but it is literally living under a rock to think otherwise. Most of the people I socialize with are Democrats and all freely admit, as do I, that CNN and especially MSNBC are now as biased as Fox.

Yes, social media is full of fake news, which is why most people pay no attention to it. People who can actually think for themselves listen to both sides of an argument and make their minds up.

So, you say, most people pay no attention to "mainstream media" and no attention to "social media".

So, that's pretty much all media covered, unless you're talking about the propaganda media of the alt-right and such, which are terrible sources.

So, where on earth do they get their information from?!

Because to have any sort of informed opinion, you do have to consume media.

You're actually proving my point here.

DreamsBurnDown

hill16bhoy wrote: »

So, you say, most people pay no attention to "mainstream media" and no attention to "social media".

So, that's pretty much all media covered, unless you're talking about the propaganda media of the alt-right and such, which are terrible sources.

So, where on earth do they get their information from?!

Because to have any sort of informed opinion, you do have to consume media.

You're actually proving my point here.

I said most people, and most people in the US are of the opinion that today all of mainstream media is biased. You are overstating how many people watch news channels or even pay attention to politics. Most people do not regularly watch Fox, CNN or MSNBC, have you ever looked at the numbers that watch compared to the population? The only time most people pay any attention to politics is during the election cycle, and during major news events like this week.

Obviously you believe CNN and MSNBC are not biased towards Democrats. Literally every American I know would admit they are biased, so there is a disconnect here you need to think about.

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

I said most people, and most people in the US are of the opinion that today all of mainstream media is biased. You are overstating how many people watch news channels or even pay attention to politics. Most people do not regularly watch Fox, CNN or MSNBC, have you ever looked at the numbers that watch compared to the population? The only time most people pay any attention to politics is during the election cycle, and during major news events like this week.

Obviously you believe CNN and MSNBC are not biased towards Democrats. Literally every American I know would admit they are biased, so there is a disconnect here you need to think about.

CNN is centrist, MSNBC is obviously aligned towards a Democratic-voting audience but it reflects reality in a way that Fox simply doesn't. Comparisons between the two are obviously mendacious and disingenuous.

Fox is nothing more than propaganda.

The key thing about media is whether it reflects reality, not whether it has an editorial stance.

So, you say most people consume no media at all, and yet you also say most people are informed and capable of making up their own minds?

How can they make up their own minds when they avoid media?

You can't form any sort of informed opinion on politics without consuming any media.

You can't form any sort of informed opinion on anything in life if you avoid all media.

You obviously think otherwise.

DreamsBurnDown

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The bottom line is despite claiming to be a Democrat since registering here (nobody believes that)..

You have twice stated that you do not believe I am a Democrat, and furthermore have taken it upon yourself to speak on behalf of every other poster on boards. You were asked by a fellow poster if you believed I was a liar and have refused to answer.

So, out with it. Do you believe I am a liar? Unless you can answer that I won't engage with you further.

I accept your statement that you have visited the US. It doesn't sound like you learned a whole lot, as my views are typical of mainstream Democrats. I fully accept they are not the views of the newer progressive left within the Democratic party, who believe unless you agree with everything they believe you are not a proper Democrat. It is very dangerous rhetoric that threatens to split the party.

Bernie Sanders is not a member of the DSA. The goals of the DSA I quoted were from a DSA leader, I have never said AOC agrees with those goals although she is as member.

peddlelies

hill16bhoy wrote: »

CNN is centrist

How far left on the scale must you be to believe this is true?

This site from what I've seen is pretty spot on when ranking media outlets, both left and right. They base their ratings on pew research findings.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/

DreamsBurnDown

hill16bhoy wrote: »

CNN is centrist, MSNBC is obviously aligned towards a Democratic-voting audience but it reflects reality in a way that Fox simply doesn't. Comparisons between the two are obviously mendacious and disingenuous.

Fox is nothing more than propaganda.

The key thing about media is whether it reflects reality, not whether it has an editorial stance.

So, you say most people consume no media at all, and yet you also say most people are informed and capable of making up their own minds?

How can they make up their own minds when they avoid media?

You can't form any sort of informed opinion on politics without consuming any media.

You can't form any sort of informed opinion on anything in life if you avoid all media.

You obviously think otherwise.

If CNN are centrist why did they have eight panelists on all day Thursday agreeing with each other and not one Republican allowed on to offer a dissenting opinion? MSNBC hosts like Rachel Maddow won't even allow mainstream Democrats on let alone Republican. Fox which is obviously biased regularly have Democrats on. It sounds to me like you suffer from confirmation bias.

Most people in America have very little interest in politics except during the election cycle. Most people in America regard politicians of both parties as corrupt and are not surprised in the least regarding corruption or immorality by their leaders. Why are these two concepts so difficult to understand?

DreamsBurnDown

peddlelies wrote: »

How far left on the scale must you be to believe this is true?

This site from what I've seen is pretty spot on when ranking media outlets, both left and right. They base their ratings on pew research findings.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/

It's the same argument that today there is no left wing politics in the US and no support for socialism. CNN used to be centrist and the Democratic party used to be centrist. Those denying the Democratic party has moved to the left and that progressives within the party want it to move much further left are denying reality.