Usually one needs to got to RT or Sputnik News to get that level of objective and un-biased analysis of the American political scene. Same old tired old buzzwords and talking points to downplay Tsar Vlad’s role in tampering with elections in the West that we’ve seen here before and disproved.
6 Likes
Yes. Really.
“WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has conceded to a secretive intelligence court that the available evidence about Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser wiretapped by the F.B.I. during the Russia investigation, was legally insufficient to justify the last several months of his continued surveillance in 2017.”
On the second point, here’s a Hollywood writer blaming Russia Bots for inciting division:
https://twitter.com/slack2thefuture/status/1224600734999572480?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1224600734999572480&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheoutline.com%2Fpost%2F8640%2Fiowa-caucus-conspiracy-theory
It is completely reasonable to question the DNCs actions with the Iowa caucus. JFC.
It’s tedious to have to repeat this every few days:
McCarthyism was the the powerful persecuting innocents for their political beliefs and ethnic background.
There is little to no comparison between that and those not in power investigating the guilty as Page, Flynn, Manafort, et at are most certainly guilty, for working directly with a hostile government.
11 Likes
The Justice Department run by Bill fucking Barr said so and you’re going to trust that? Nevermind the procedural errors, Carter Page was in fact a knowing Russian asset. He’s not some innocent abused by an overbearing and corrupt agency. He was a fucking spy. Quit gaslighting for him.
Because they are? I mean, feel free to ignore the statements by the intelligence community; the biggest problem with “the Hollywood writer” saying this is that the hacker community has been pointing it out for five years. And it’s accelerating.
8 Likes
It’s tedious to have to counter arguments that I’m not making.
McCarthyism was labeling anyone a commie regardless of their political beliefs or ethnic background or any justification. My mom used to tell me the story of working on the MGM lot and they had everyone come out of there offices and line up outside. They asked any commies to come forward and they also escorted one or two off the lot. It was insidious and wide spread. And anyone who would defend them would also be accused of being a commie. Much like posts above the are insinuating I’m a Russian tr0ll. (I don’t know what the zero means btw)
Investigating people in power is always a good idea. In fact, that is what my initial post was doing. I’m saying “here is an organization, with historic and documented decades of abuse. Why are we just dictating and listening to them uncritically?” Then a pile on starts, my meaning is misconstrued, it’s insinuated I have ties to Russia with calls of whataboutism and that becomes the end of the conversation.
And AGAIN, I’ve never said there are no Russian hackers. I’ve only questioned whether or not it made any difference.
I started this by questioning Christopher Wray, I pointed out how going after Carter Page has some serious legal problems. The response was “you can’t trust the Justice Department!” So is it you can trust these institutions? You can’t trust these institutions or You can trust them when it fits your agenda?
Here’s Christopher Wray saying just that about Carter Page: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wray-says-fbi-actions-to-obtain-carter-page-fisa-warrant-were-unacceptable-and-cannot-be-repeated
" FBI Director Christopher Wray testified Wednesday that the actions taken by the bureau to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page were “unacceptable” and “cannot be repeated.” "
At the very least, you have to concede that it certainly looks bad and undermines their trustworthiness.
An excellent example of ongoing Russian info warfare:
They are going full trumpy.
5 Likes
I apologize. It seems your definition of “McCarthyism” is even more superficial and off-base than I had given you credit for. There’s no “commie” witch hunt going on. If you are being called out as a Russian asset, which is probably mild hyperbole, it’s because you are making an argument that only benefits parties interested in further eroding US democracy and institutions. You can be an unknowing asset by simply parroting the talking points that they want to be spread. By questioning whether Russian efforts had an effect, by questioning the validity of the FBI investigation, by making a sea lioning argument that anyone who challenges you is participating in McCarthyism, you’re acting as a convenient pawn for Russian interests. That should give you pause.
And finally, when it comes to Carter Page, whether the FBI filled out their FISA paperwork correctly or not, he’s guilty as hell. Wray’s statement doesn’t change that one whit.
11 Likes
what, in your view, would be the appropriate action for the fbi to take if opening an investigation represents a wrongful act when they receive a credible allegation that a presidential candidate is receiving the active assistance of either an intelligence agency of a foreign country or a cybercriminal syndicate to unlawfully hack the private communications of a potential opponent?
in what sense does the dnc represent a greater existential threat to democracy than trump and his minions who have spent the past three years undermining democratic institutions from the inside, wrecking democratic norms, and sowing discord within and distrust towards government institutions?
given those two theses apparent divergence from objective reality how am i to take your final statement seriously? as well, given the overall tone of your entire comment, i have a hard time taking seriously your stated eschewal of trump–
so if this truly is your position then you do have to say that and even with your say so i still have room for doubt. again, based on the overall tone of your own words.
11 Likes
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
But I want the FBI to be an accountable, transparent organization.
And to your last part, NO I do not have to say that. It makes no difference to the original argument which is “Why are we dictating what the FBI says?”
Likewise. People like Tulsi Gabbard suck, but too often I see a narrative that amplifying anything negative is indiredtly helping the Russians.
Americans are unquestionably better off than our Russian counterparts, but to shut down discussion of the problems faced by the disenfranchised there is frankly, a privileged position to take.
I’ve found that if I don’t understand someone’s comment it is best to ask for clarification instead of just telling them my ignorance is better.
7 Likes
No apology necessary. I often use the standard, accepted and well known definition of McCarthyism. But for a refresher for you there’s this Google one: " a campaign or practice that endorses the use of unfair allegations and investigations.
“he practiced McCarthyism long before there was a McCarthy” "
By not addressing my point, by attributing things to me that I haven’t said, by making long explainy reasons why I’m a Russian stooge I can see that there is no healthy skepticism here.
Thanks for your time.
Your misunderstanding of what McCarthyism actually was deepens. Or shallowens, really.
It’s bad faith indeed to write off my criticisms of what appears to be your point by saying I didn’t address it. I most certainly did.
When it comes to the BBS, there are truckloads of healthy skepticism - of the FBI, of the Justice Department, of almost every form of authority that exists in this world. However, when you point fingers at the relatively powerless internal party mechanics of the party that clearly is not in power, and say “There! They are the greatest danger to our democracy!” in direct contrast to the lawless, corrupt, bigoted administration actually in power at the time, then the healthy skepticism is directed at you, and for good reason. Your attempt to distract from the obvious and real dumpster fire before us by pointing out a puff of smoke from the agency that is genuinely trying (for once!) to hold them accountable rightly drew criticism.
If you’re going to voice those opinions here, you can’t just opt out of that criticism.
10 Likes
10 Likes
Including skepticism of the DNC establishment, as the comment history of most of us here in election topics will attest. But we also have something called a sense of perspective. When it comes to determining the greatest threat to democracy in the U.S., this allows us to put the DNC somewhat behind a, y’know, actual right-wing populist regime occupying the executive branch – one whose figurehead is so in thrall to Putin (and so in hock to his tame oligarch bankers) that he hired demonstrable Russian toadies like Page, Flynn, and Manafort for key senior positions.
8 Likes
if you can’t understand or respond to questions naturally arising from your comment why are you putting up so many words here at the bbs? do you understand the things you, yourself, have written?
since you went quite far beyond that original argument, much of which represent trump talking points or the talking points of his lackeys, the overall drift of the comment to which i responded makes your aversion to trump doubtful without your disavowal. the fact that you seem unable to understand that makes me wonder if the answer to my question " do you understand the things you, yourself, have written?" is “no, not really.”
edited to add an omitted word for the clarity and grammar.
7 Likes
Just to make sure I wasn’t unfairly criticizing or misunderstanding your points in this thread, I went back to the beginning. So I’ll tackle them one by one.
First, the FBI warns of ongoing Russian information warfare. They warned the Obama Administration of it in 2016, which lead to sanctions against Russia. They provided most of the details and evidence publicly afterwards. In other words, they showed their work. They gave the same warning in 2018 and provided the evidence to the public, either voluntarily or through FOIA filings. There has been third-party corroboration of that from info sec experts.
So when they say that it’s not just ongoing, but intensifying, it is reasonable to take them at their word on this subject. They’ve established credibility on it, and it would in fact make Wray’s life easier in this administration to ignore it or even deny it.
[but Carter Page!]
The failings of the FBI’s FISA warrants for Carter Page can by summed up as paperwork errors. He was in fact spying for the Russians. Should we have high standards for FISA warrants? Oh, hell yes. But using the Page warrants as justification for ignoring everything the FBI says or does is overblown. There are hundreds of FISA warrants with the same kind of errors. Saying that it validates Trump supporters narratives about FBI bias against Trump is some serious Fox News-level shit.
There’s plenty of evidence available that it has contributed to the fractious nature of current politics, but does it even matter? It’s bad whether it affects the outcome of elections or not. And when you talk about massive illegal payments to folks like Kevin McCarthy, there is no way you can wave that away as being harmless.
That’s just off-topic and should be flagged as such.
From all current evidence, there wasn’t DNC shenanigans in Iowa. The DNC doesn’t even administer the Iowa Caucus. Now, if you had pointed out Bloomberg buying his way into the next debate, then that’s shenanigans. But it’s still small change compared to what you’re trying to distract from. And it’s blatant whataboutism that doesn’t belong in a good faith discussion.
McCarthyism. You really need to study it more or stop misapplying the term.
More off-topic. What does Venezuela have to do with the OP?
Which you clarified as:
And I’ll sum up with - if you don’t want to face criticism for what you post, don’t post it.
12 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
