Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

 Rachel Maddow describes the facts with respect to current events.  I think that's why paulsurovell prefers the Hannity version ("Hillary Colluded, not Trump").

 Has Rachel ever described facts that show that Trump colluded with Russia?

 She reports the facts about investigation findings and other significant things. All in all, tending to support continuing the investigation. 

Sean relies on "No proof of collusion" as an argument against continuing to investigate. It's a dishonest argument that only a die-hard Trump supporter would claim should be believed. 

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Edited to Add: Do you find similarities between @nohero and @South_Mountaineer beyond their identical views?

Not really.*
*Restrictions apply. See terms and conditions (e.g. “I am not a microscope” and “‘Identical’ is your word, not mine”) for details. 

 I'm taller and better looking. If intellectually dishonest @nohero says otherwise, don't believe it. 

DaveSchmidt said:
To the other matter at hand: If “help” is the operative verb, then, yes, Democratic votes for actions that the White House backs, campaign ads that treat the incumbent like any other president, and arguments that the Mueller investigation is illegitimate and even dangerous all help Trump. I’d venture to say, though, that they don’t serve his purposes equally.

 Agreed.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

 Rachel Maddow describes the facts with respect to current events.  I think that's why paulsurovell prefers the Hannity version ("Hillary Colluded, not Trump").

 Has Rachel ever described facts that show that Trump colluded with Russia?

 She reports the facts about investigation findings and other significant things. All in all, tending to support continuing the investigation. 
Sean relies on "No proof of collusion" as an argument against continuing to investigate. It's a dishonest argument that only a die-hard Trump supporter would claim should be believed. 

 Rachel embellishes facts into allegations and innuendos that, by the time she's finished, have no resemblance to the facts she started with. And from there, the allegations and innuendos are presented as facts. She never challenged because she never invites anyone on her show to challenge her. And that's how her audience has been duped into thinking that there is evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, that Trump is a Russian agent, and that he is President only because Russian meddled in our election.

On the Hannity matter, you've agreed with me (or was it your alter-ego?) that there's "No proof of collusion" -- which is half of what you describe as Hannity's position. Does that make you half of a die-hard Trump supporter?

For the record, I'm not in favor of shutting down the investigation. I think it's in the national interest continue the investigation to determine why the FBI launched a criminal investigation of a political party with no apparent evidentiary basis.

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Not even a microscope will find a difference between @nohero and @South_Mountaineer.

I’m not a microscope. 
I find differences between nohero and South_Mountaineer.
Q.E.D.

 All of us have differences in our posts from time to time, sometimes they are intentional.
Edited to Add: Do you find similarities between @nohero and @South_Mountaineer beyond their identical views?

 Seems like the same person to me.  I don't see any difference.

South_Mountaineer said:

 No. See what I already wrote. You and Trump can be in favor of something without you being a Trump supporter. Sean is a proud Trump supporter. 

Are you suggesting that disagreements over the Russia narrative should be debated on their merits, without labeling dissenting views as "helping Trump," "Trumpist," "supporting Trump," or any of the other variations of "pro-Trump" pejoratives that prejudice the debate and tar the dissenter?

Figures that Boris wants to shut down the Mueller investigation.   

paulsurovell said:

Rachel embellishes facts into allegations and innuendos that, by the time she's finished, have no resemblance to the facts she started with. And from there, the allegations and innuendos are presented as facts. She never challenged because she never invites anyone on her show to challenge her. And that's how her audience has been duped into thinking that there is evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, that Trump is a Russian agent, and that he is President only because Russian meddled in our election.

Can you post a full Rachel segment where she does exactly what you're saying?  You're saying her followers are duped - where's the proof?  Do you have a poll of Rachel viewers that demonstrates what they think and why they think that?

We all know there are a ton of Russia connections with the Trump crew - there are guilty pleas.  The rest is up to Mueller, unless Trump stops it - which there is a good chance he will after the elections.

What are your thought on Trump going along with the Rogue theory on KhasHoggi and his support of Saudi Arabia?  Are you thoughts similar to you thought on the Salisbury tourists?  Which you have seemed to back off on.

nan said:

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Not even a microscope will find a difference between @nohero and @South_Mountaineer.

I’m not a microscope. 
I find differences between nohero and South_Mountaineer.
Q.E.D.

 All of us have differences in our posts from time to time, sometimes they are intentional.
Edited to Add: Do you find similarities between @nohero and @South_Mountaineer beyond their identical views?

 Seems like the same person to me.  I don't see any difference.

 It's almost like you are echoing Paul. (The 1 like on your comment was amusing, too.)

paulsurovell said:

For the record, I'm not in favor of shutting down the investigation. I think it's in the national interest continue the investigation to determine why the FBI launched a criminal investigation of a political party with no apparent evidentiary basis.

 That's not even "cute".  It's definitely not "clever".  

We get it.  You'd like to shut down Mueller's investigation of obstruction of justice and possible collusion.  You'd like to shut down any investigation of Russian meddling (I forget, are you still on the theory that a "hack" wasn't possible, or Seth Rich did it, or anything else but Russian hackers?).  You don't have a good reason other than you don't like it, which means you have a lot in common with Trump.

Be About Protecting Russia.

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

Rachel embellishes facts into allegations and innuendos that, by the time she's finished, have no resemblance to the facts she started with. And from there, the allegations and innuendos are presented as facts. She never challenged because she never invites anyone on her show to challenge her. And that's how her audience has been duped into thinking that there is evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, that Trump is a Russian agent, and that he is President only because Russian meddled in our election.

Can you post a full Rachel segment where she does exactly what you're saying?  You're saying her followers are duped - where's the proof?  Do you have a poll of Rachel viewers that demonstrates what they think and why they think that?
We all know there are a ton of Russia connections with the Trump crew - there are guilty pleas.  The rest is up to Mueller, unless Trump stops it - which there is a good chance he will after the elections.

What are your thought on Trump going along with the Rogue theory on KhasHoggi and his support of Saudi Arabia?  Are you thoughts similar to you thought on the Salisbury tourists?  Which you have seemed to back off on.

 You're not supposed to ask for evidence or any back-up.  His saying that it's so should be good enough for you.  

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

 No. See what I already wrote. You and Trump can be in favor of something without you being a Trump supporter. Sean is a proud Trump supporter. 

Are you suggesting that disagreements over the Russia narrative should be debated on their merits, without labeling dissenting views as "helping Trump," "Trumpist," "supporting Trump," or any of the other variations of "pro-Trump" pejoratives that prejudice the debate and tar the dissenter?

 Instead of trying to untangle what you asked, I'll just say that I'm suggesting what I actually wrote, and not suggesting anything I didn't write.  I think it's time to give that dead horse a break.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
For the record, I'm not in favor of shutting down the investigation. I think it's in the national interest continue the investigation to determine why the FBI launched a criminal investigation of a political party with no apparent evidentiary basis.

 That's not even "cute".  It's definitely not "clever".  
We get it.  You'd like to shut down Mueller's investigation of obstruction of justice and possible collusion.  You'd like to shut down any investigation of Russian meddling (I forget, are you still on the theory that a "hack" wasn't possible, or Seth Rich did it, or anything else but Russian hackers?).  You don't have a good reason other than you don't like it, which means you have a lot in common with Trump.

I'll respond sentence by sentence:

1) Odd

2) Strange

3) Weird

4) Deranged

5) Irrational

6) Unhinged

But you get an A for creativity.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

 No. See what I already wrote. You and Trump can be in favor of something without you being a Trump supporter. Sean is a proud Trump supporter. 

Are you suggesting that disagreements over the Russia narrative should be debated on their merits, without labeling dissenting views as "helping Trump," "Trumpist," "supporting Trump," or any of the other variations of "pro-Trump" pejoratives that prejudice the debate and tar the dissenter?

 Instead of trying to untangle what you asked, I'll just say that I'm suggesting what I actually wrote, and not suggesting anything I didn't write.  I think it's time to give that dead horse a break.

 I guess acting civil just isn't your thing.

You’re missing a Dwarf.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

 No. See what I already wrote. You and Trump can be in favor of something without you being a Trump supporter. Sean is a proud Trump supporter. 

Are you suggesting that disagreements over the Russia narrative should be debated on their merits, without labeling dissenting views as "helping Trump," "Trumpist," "supporting Trump," or any of the other variations of "pro-Trump" pejoratives that prejudice the debate and tar the dissenter?

 Instead of trying to untangle what you asked, I'll just say that I'm suggesting what I actually wrote, and not suggesting anything I didn't write.  I think it's time to give that dead horse a break.

 I guess acting civil just isn't your thing.

 ?

There was nothing "uncivil" about my response. Your post is a little ironic given the one just before it. 

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

 No. See what I already wrote. You and Trump can be in favor of something without you being a Trump supporter. Sean is a proud Trump supporter. 

Are you suggesting that disagreements over the Russia narrative should be debated on their merits, without labeling dissenting views as "helping Trump," "Trumpist," "supporting Trump," or any of the other variations of "pro-Trump" pejoratives that prejudice the debate and tar the dissenter?

 Instead of trying to untangle what you asked, I'll just say that I'm suggesting what I actually wrote, and not suggesting anything I didn't write.  I think it's time to give that dead horse a break.

 I guess acting civil just isn't your thing.

 ?
There was nothing "uncivil" about my response. Your post is a little ironic given the one just before it. 

 I suggested that issues be debated on their merits, and you rejected my suggestion. That's what is uncivil. My prior post was an appropriate response to your offensive -- and uncivil -- rant.

DaveSchmidt said:
You’re missing a Dwarf.

 Dead Horse migrated to the other post.

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

Rachel embellishes facts into allegations and innuendos that, by the time she's finished, have no resemblance to the facts she started with. And from there, the allegations and innuendos are presented as facts. She never challenged because she never invites anyone on her show to challenge her. And that's how her audience has been duped into thinking that there is evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, that Trump is a Russian agent, and that he is President only because Russian meddled in our election.

Can you post a full Rachel segment where she does exactly what you're saying?  You're saying her followers are duped - where's the proof?  Do you have a poll of Rachel viewers that demonstrates what they think and why they think that?

Will get to these tomorrow.

jamie

said:We all know there are a ton of Russia connections with the Trump crew - there are guilty pleas.  The rest is up to Mueller, unless Trump stops it - which there is a good chance he will after the elections.

 I'd be surprised.

jamie said:

What are your thought on Trump going along with the Rogue theory on KhasHoggi and his support of Saudi Arabia?

Outrageous, dangerous and should be condemned. We should sever our alliance with Saudi Arabia and immediately halt arms sales.

Tulsi Gabbard long ago identified Saudi support for Wahabe extremism as the source for much of the terrorism around the world.

Here's a good perspective of the mainstream media's complicity with the Saudi Arabian regime: https://twitter.com/schwarz/status/1052267063618736128

jamie said:

Are you thoughts similar to you thought on the Salisbury tourists?  Which you have seemed to back off on.

 Craig Murray opines that the attack on the Skripals resulted from "spy games." He's skeptical that the two were tourists, since the Russian government hasn't reported on who they are. I share that view.  Seymour Hersh has said the attack was carried out by Russian mafia, as opposed to the Russian government.

Hersh expresses his skepticism of official stories on Russian hacking/collusion and Syrian chemical weapons here:

1: http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2018/04/06/myth-busting-why-didn-t-the-skripals-die-on-the-spot

2: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/russia-novichok-suspects-salisbury-investigation-named-perfume-london-hotel-room-a8523886.html

3: May 4 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-didn-t-warn-salisbury-suspects-hotel-after-finding-novichok-jkpg3l787

Edited. In answer to question 4:

"The OPCW experts visited the locations where two of the victims were reportedly exposed to a toxic chemical and collected several environmental samples. The team also took biomedical samples from these two victims, as well as from a third individual, a police officer reportedly exposed to a toxic chemical. These samples were sealed and brought to the OPCW laboratory on 23 March 2018. Samples were split in the presence of an expert from the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom was provided with one split of each sample. The environmental samples were then delivered to two designated laboratories, and the biomedical samples were delivered to another two designated laboratories. The collection, splitting, and transportation of the samples were carried out in-line with the relevant procedures of the Secretariat. The chain-of-custody was fully EC-M-57/DG.1 page 2 maintained. States Parties are not informed of the designated laboratories selected by the Secretariat to perform the technical analysis."

https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/S_series/2018/en/s-1612-2018_e_.pdf

https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/EC/M-57/en/ecm57dg01_e_.pdf

Quoted text is from the second link. I haven't yet been able to find an online copy of the full report, but if I do, I'll post it here.

Paul - Here's some easy questions:

1) Are you onboard with the conclusion of the House Russia Investigation report - was it thorough enough?

2) If any of Trump's minions are found to have colluded with Russia - are these independent of Trump's collusion?  Should he be responsible for those he has hired?

3) Should we have Trump's tax returns?  If there's a strong financial connection to Russia, wouldn't that raise some red flags.  Perhaps he's been embracing Putin because of this debt, are you happy with a president that is swayed with financial interests?   Cohen may have been working on a Trump Tower deal in Moscow as late as May 2016.  Going easy on Russia could be collusion in itself - it's not the election collusion that's front and center - but it does demonstrate a possible influence in US - Russia relations.

ridski said:

1: http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2018/04/06/myth-busting-why-didn-t-the-skripals-die-on-the-spot
2: May 4 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-didn-t-warn-salisbury-suspects-hotel-after-finding-novichok-jkpg3l787
3: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/russia-novichok-suspects-salisbury-investigation-named-perfume-london-hotel-room-a8523886.html
Not sure what question 4 is. 

 Well, if you're going to rely on the "mainstream media" instead YouTube videos, no wonder you're so misguided and not buying what Mr. Surovell is selling.

South_Mountaineer said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Edited to Add: Do you find similarities between @nohero and @South_Mountaineer beyond their identical views?

Not really.*
*Restrictions apply. See terms and conditions (e.g. “I am not a microscope” and “‘Identical’ is your word, not mine”) for details. 

 I'm taller and better looking. If intellectually dishonest @nohero says otherwise, don't believe it. 

 Don't get me started, horseface.  I already made clear who is better looking earlier on this thread.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Edited to Add: Do you find similarities between @nohero and @South_Mountaineer beyond their identical views?

Not really.*
*Restrictions apply. See terms and conditions (e.g. “I am not a microscope” and “‘Identical’ is your word, not mine”) for details. 

 If I were you, I'd check the kerning.

Or better yet, a DNA test, but some people don't think that should be used in a political discussion.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:
 Instead of trying to untangle what you asked, I'll just say that I'm suggesting what I actually wrote, and not suggesting anything I didn't write.  I think it's time to give that dead horse a break.

 I guess acting civil just isn't your thing.

 ?
There was nothing "uncivil" about my response. Your post is a little ironic given the one just before it. 

 I suggested that issues be debated on their merits, and you rejected my suggestion. That's what is uncivil. My prior post was an appropriate response to your offensive -- and uncivil -- rant.

 No, all I did is what I wrote. You can't invent what people write and then criticize based on that. 

I don't think it was uncivil or offensive to comment that you meant the opposite of letting the Mueller investigation continue when you wrote -- 

I think it's in the national interest continue the investigation to determine why the FBI launched a criminal investigation of a political party with no apparent evidentiary basis.

I didn't even mention how you made a false claim that "the FBI launched a criminal investigation of a political party", or the "Trumpist" line that the investigation that's actually taking place was begun "with no apparent evidentiary basis."

jamie said:
Paul - Here's some easy questions:
1) Are you onboard with the conclusion of the House Russia Investigation report - was it thorough enough?
2) If any of Trump's minions are found to have colluded with Russia - are these independent of Trump's collusion?  Should he be responsible for those he has hired?
3) Should we have Trump's tax returns?  If there's a strong financial connection to Russia, wouldn't that raise some red flags.  Perhaps he's been embracing Putin because of this debt, are you happy with a president that is swayed with financial interests?   Cohen may have been working on a Trump Tower deal in Moscow as late as May 2016.  Going easy on Russia could be collusion in itself - it's not the election collusion that's front and center - but it does demonstrate a possible influence in US - Russia relations.

Jamie,

Before I respond, can you define what you mean by "collusion?" You are all over the map here, departing from its meaning in Russiagate and the Mueller investigation, which is coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

paulsurovell said:

Jamie,

Before I respond, can you define what you mean by "collusion?" You are all over the map here, departing from its meaning in Russiagate and the Mueller investigation, which is coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

 After 3,417 comments on the "Hillary Colluded, Not Trump" thread, we've finally arrived at "Define 'Collusion' ".   There's 15 months of posts down the drain ...

He finally made it back to Dodge City and its time to start out again!

Gallopin'!

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
Paul - Here's some easy questions:
1) Are you onboard with the conclusion of the House Russia Investigation report - was it thorough enough?
2) If any of Trump's minions are found to have colluded with Russia - are these independent of Trump's collusion?  Should he be responsible for those he has hired?
3) Should we have Trump's tax returns?  If there's a strong financial connection to Russia, wouldn't that raise some red flags.  Perhaps he's been embracing Putin because of this debt, are you happy with a president that is swayed with financial interests?   Cohen may have been working on a Trump Tower deal in Moscow as late as May 2016.  Going easy on Russia could be collusion in itself - it's not the election collusion that's front and center - but it does demonstrate a possible influence in US - Russia relations.

Jamie,
Before I respond, can you define what you mean by "collusion?" You are all over the map here, departing from its meaning in Russiagate and the Mueller investigation, which is coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

 Let's say - Russia hacked the DNC and someone on Trump's team worked with Assange on the timing of their release - is this collusion?

If Trump Jr eagerly wanted stolen documents on Hillary - is this collusion?  (The Hillary collusion as you described dealt with the sharing of public information.)

Sounds like Mueller is pretty close to releasing some conclusions, we'll probably have to wait until after the elections.  But, then I'm sure you'll find fault with his logic - especially because of you know, 9/11.

I also see Trump's inability to speak out against the Saudis as a form of collusion.  The Saudis have supported Trump properties bigly since he's been in office.