A Liberals Attempt to Understand Conservative Beliefs

[OscarLevant]

My apologies for not making it simple enough for you to comprehend.

A wisecrack will not make the incompetent competent.

 

[Pedestrian]

Ahh yes, here we go again with the uneducated rural folks crap.
All we rural folk have to do is stop trucking food into your big cities,
that would quickly turn you liberals into sewer rats.

Well neither right or left at the grassroots is that monolithic in opinion but farmers do need to be careful with that food though.

One does not want to mess up those farm subsidies. (welfare)

 

[iguanaman]

Perhaps because Trump is undeserving of the title, frankly.

And he only won because he cheated with Russian help and defrauded voters with illegal hush money. In the Olympics cheaters get their medals taken away.

 

[Arby]

Well neither right or left at the grassroots is that monolithic in opinion but farmers do need to be careful with that food though.

One does not want to mess up those farm subsidies. (welfare)

And your point is?

 

[ultmd]

Sure, but as has been said multiple times the problem isn't with the facts. We agree on the facts. You don't think two people can't come to different conclusions based on the same facts? Now, I may know some he doesn't or he may know some I don't, but based on conclusions alone how am I suppose to determine where that might exist?

That's silly. He's asking for you to post FACTS to back up the opinions you've expressed in this thread. And you've offered to post "sources" to back up your opinions. But, at least so far, you have posted neither (facts, nor sources).

Step one is determining where our analysis departed.

Nonsense. Step one requires nothing more than you posting FACTS (rather than unsubstantiated personal opinions) and then backing them up with some of those "sources" you offered to present.

Correct 9 areas where I have found the two narratives departing.

So can you back up your opinions with verifiable facts and credible sources, or not?

As stated for the purposes of getting one to feel more skeptical of his postion before reading more. I used Jimmy Dore, because he is someone I know and follow who is both anti-trump and who still doesn't believe this Russia non-sense. I am obviously come off less trustworth as I could be dismissed as just biased for Trump. You don't think feelings are apart of why we disagree?

I think feelings lack credibility in political debate when expressed in the absense of objective, verifiable FACTS. That's the only way to separate biases (i.e. "feelings") built upon ideology from those predicated upon the truth. I'm trying to determine if your biases here are emotion-based, or reality-based. And, so far, it's looking like the fomer.

2nd, I dare you to watch that clip and not at least be a little more skeptical if you beileve the Russia non-sense.

I did watch it. It did not engender any more skepticism in me than existed before viewing it. I'm, frankly, wondering why you are so moved by it. A "liberal" espousing the same bat-crap crazy conspiracy theories as most Trump supporters isn't persuasive.

If I wanted to write a book expanding on all those points that's what I would have posted. I gave a short list, from the top of my head, so a skeptical reader could zoom in on the ones you/he might find damning to their own narrative if proven. I am happy to expand and lookup sources only if it would be meaningful. In many cases the facts are well known.

No one requested (nor even suggested) that you "write a book". All that has been asked is that you do what you agreed to do (i.e. post "sources" to back up your opinions). Why make the offer if you're going to dodge and dissemble when challenged? I think you know that you cannot back up your previous remarks, because you know the FACTS do not support them. And that just proves much of what the OP had to say about conservatives today. Facts mean little to you, unless they happen to agree with you. When facts contradict you, you ignore/avoid them...and cling to your existing biases.

I may enjoy debate and forum posting. What I do not enjoy is wasting my time. I see the same, off the top of ones head, statements here all the time. You know what I do if I find one curious. I research it to know what they are talking about. You should try it sometime. To debate, you should know how to argue both sides.

:lamo
What you don't enjoy...and clearly did not anticipate...is being forced to back up your right wing biases and bat-crap crazy conspiracy theories with objective FACTS. It's not my job to back up your opinions. That's your job. Obviously, you're not up to that task. But let's be clear...you and I both know you can't, and that is the REAL reason why you are dodging the challenge. Your arguments were ideological and emotional, and not supported by the facts. I suspect that's why Todzilla's challenge went ignored.

Your just seeing what you want to see. If you had any idea what I was talking about you could point out where reality stops and delusion begins.

e
Reality stopped when you started offering baseless right wing opinions and bat-crap crazy conspiracy theories that you could "expand on with sources"...and then ran from repeated requests to back them up with those "sources" (which don't exist).

 

[Conaeolos]

That's silly. He's asking for you to post FACTS to back up the opinions you've expressed in this thread. And you've offered to post "sources" to back up your opinions. But, at least so far, you have posted neither (facts, nor sources).


Nonsense. Step one requires nothing more than you posting FACTS (rather than unsubstantiated personal opinions) and then backing them up with some of those "sources" you offered to present.


So can you back up your opinions with verifiable facts and credible sources, or not?


I think feelings lack credibility in political debate when expressed in the absense of objective, verifiable FACTS. That's the only way to separate biases (i.e. "feelings") built upon ideology from those predicated upon the truth. I'm trying to determine if your biases here are emotion-based, or reality-based. And, so far, it's looking like the fomer.



I did watch it. It did not engender any more skepticism in me than existed before viewing it. I'm, frankly, wondering why you are so moved by it. A "liberal" espousing the same bat-crap crazy conspiracy theories as most Trump supporters isn't persuasive.


No one requested (nor even suggested) that you "write a book". All that has been asked is that you do what you agreed to do (i.e. post "sources" to back up your opinions). Why make the offer if you're going to dodge and dissemble when challenged? I think you know that you cannot back up your previous remarks, because you know the FACTS do not support them. And that just proves much of what the OP had to say about conservatives today. Facts mean little to you, unless they happen to agree with you. When facts contradict you, you ignore/avoid them...and cling to your existing biases.



:lamo
What you don't enjoy...and clearly did not anticipate...is being forced to back up your right wing biases and bat-crap crazy conspiracy theories with objective FACTS. It's not my job to back up your opinions. That's your job. Obviously, you're not up to that task. But let's be clear...you and I both know you can't, and that is the REAL reason why you are dodging the challenge. Your arguments were ideological and emotional, and not supported by the facts. I suspect that's why Todzilla's challenge went ignored.

e
Reality stopped when you started offering baseless right wing opinions and bat-crap crazy conspiracy theories that you could "expand on with sources"...and then ran from repeated requests to back them up with those "sources" (which don't exist).

Thank you for taking the time to watch the video and writing a reply point by point. Sorry it sounds like it was such a waste of time for you. I am also sorry your unable to see where I am coming from, it must be very frustrating to go through life thinking that these “right-wing” nuts are delusional.

You seem very convinced I have access to some facts or sources you do not or that I am basing these opinion on debunked information. I am not sure about you, but I read and watch many different sources of news, form opinions and simply look up sources when debating to reinforce a point. So maybe I do just have my facts mixed up. I am pretty sure though in this case there is no real point going much further in my explanation as I doubt its going to shake your confidence or clarify my opinion.

So just one question, so as a person having followed the developments and taken away that Wikileaks was leaks not hacks, there was no huge troll campaign for trump in 2016, and who see no actions by Trump that is un-American or pro-russia? To what facts/source should I be looking to be pulled back from my “right wing” delusion?

 

[MrWonka]

It’s easy to define racism if you have a different opinion than liberals then guess what you’re racist. Easy peasy

Sadly, I really wish that weren't true, but it sure seems to be.

 

[MrWonka]

Racism: you quite often refer to white racism yet you state you are white, hate yourself much?

No, I hate racists. You can be white without being racist. White racists only make up about 40% of voters and around 55% of white people.

How about off the wall statements like "Pretty much entirely uneducated rural white racist xenophobic sexist gun crazy religious extremists." where you demean basically all whites who live in rural America with all kinds of derogative adjectives? Rural America is the backbone of America!\

I'm from rural white America. I know exactly of what I speak. Sorry, but rural America is no longer the backbone of America and hasn't been for some time. Most of it has become a burden on the country as a whole at this point. In the modern world, you really can't run any kind of major corporation without a lot of highly educated highly technical people. Roughly 64% of all the GDP in the United States of America last year was generated in less than 20% of the counties overall. All of those counties were very urban. Metro areas are paying virtually all the taxes that keep rural parts of the country afloat.

While it's true that even in rural parts of the country there's usually about 30-40% of the population that is made up of good people the rest are so insecure and fearful that they risk undermining our entire country, subverting our Democracy, and destroying our planet out of an irrational fear of anything outside the 25 square miles surrounding their old high school.

You say I should educate myself and state you are an educator, first my education was at M.I.T., perhaps you have heard of it.

Sure thing chief. Sounds like something a Russian bot would say.

Second, the part of you teaching students is disturbing to me

Not sure where you got this notion that I am a teacher. Pretty sure I have never said any such thing.

with the outlandish comments, bigotry, and bias you espouse in your posts,

Again, please learn what bigotry and bias are before you accuse others of them. Bigotry and bias involve prejudice. It's about having things that influence your judgments outside of the evidence and the facts. I'm a wealthy white male from rural Christian America. There is no rational reason for me to have a personal bias against those types of people unless it is 100% deserved. The Republican party has a platform. It is an ideology. It has a platform. They have leaders who are elected to speak on behalf of their party. If you voted for Trump you are saying that you support and agree with most of what he is saying and doing. I can see what Trump and Republican leaders are doing, and I can see how disgusting and unethical it is. If a person is supporting their actions then I can say with 100% certainty that they are either a massive idiot or a disgusting human being. Usually, it's a combination of the two. If you voted for Donald Trump the best possible thing that can be said about you is that you're only stupid. That's not prejudiced, that is a flawlessly accurate statement.

 

[Integrityrespec]

And liberals believe far left beliefs of socialist policy is Ok for our economy. They also belief Trump is all wrong despite the rise in the economy during his first 2 years. Liberals somehow believe Trump is a criminal but Hillary never did anything wrong! There is more reason to look at crimes by Hillary and her campaign as well as some members of the FBI and DOJ than what most liberals think are crimes by Trump. It's funny stuff.

 

[Todzilla]

Not necessarily. Since their founding the US Intelligence community has been caught later having publicly lied to the American people including congress to further their own agenda or that of political actors. This is unfortunately standard practice in espionage as deception is their very business. It doesn't make every conspiracy true, it merely raises a skeptical context in evaluating statements by these agencies or releases they make in the media.

In a court case it would be like have an involved known liar with mixed motives as your witness; it's not meaningless(as they do know the truth) but that doesn't make it enough without corroboration.

I think the motive is there so it is plausible. It would however not be easy and there is just no evidence or reasonable suspicion that it happened. It somethign I expect to hear from an Alex Jones.

Keep in mind: Russia has a foreign policy pushing efforts like RT [benign], many online spam & piracy operations are located in Russia, and there is business\politics that takes place between the two countries.

So, finding nothing is not the standard. We are looking for a significant amount of activity or suspicious activity.

<snipped for brevity>

Want me to go on? Or expand on any one point with sources?

Once again, I applaud your thoroughness. I find your replies an intriguing blend of reasonableness and unbounded bias, but of course, there's my bias as the reader as well.

For the record, I try to be somewhat skeptical of everything. But when all the different intelligence agencies are in lockstep, suspicion requires a conspiracy too vast for me to consider it without a foil hat. As for your nine points,

1. The MAGA folks I know are indifferent at best to Russia. Many even say "Having good relations with Russia is a GOOD thing." And then there are the myriad contacts with Russia among Trump's election/transition/administration that seems far beyond courting any other nation. There's a coincidence that is increasingly bearing fruit for Mueller.

2. RT, I don't really follow. But I don't see their support of Trump as in any way connected to a stealth campaign Russia would wage. Putin fears (rightly) that Russia is still a dirty word among lots of independent voters. Why be blatant with his strategies.

3. Sorry, not understanding where Pizzagate has a connection to Putin/Trump

4. I assume intelligence agencies monitor network traffic on certain entities of interest, logging Internet hops and probably even unencrypting traffic as needed. And they don't need to know everything about the targets if they're monitoring the bad guys.

5. Not sure your point here.

6. I've heard no one suggest that Wikileaks is a Russian front. They have their political biases, but it may been a common enemy thing.

7. The notion of the Steele dossier being the impetus for investigating Trump has been thoroughly debunked. Details

8. Many of those same people talked mad **** about Hillary, Bernie and others. Many folks in government have a general disdain for politicians. And honestly, Trump's whole vibe invites loathing. If government were staffed with only loyalists, well, you had the **** show of his administration on a bureaucratic level.

9. I'm not aware of any leaks out of the Mueller investigation that have any semblance of legitimacy.

If Mueller is proceeding without any evidence to corroborate what folks who've flipped are saying, then his case will wither on the vine. Based on reactions of grand juries and the SDNY, it seems quite clear there is substantial evidence of activity between Trump and Russia far beyond the shaky testimony of those whom our Crime Boss in Chief calls "rats."

 

[ultmd]

Thank you for taking the time to watch the video and writing a reply point by point. Sorry it sounds like it was such a waste of time for you. I am also sorry your unable to see where I am coming from, it must be very frustrating to go through life thinking that these “right-wing” nuts are delusional.

Look, when you make statements/arguments and assert them as factual...but cannot/will not back them up (even after offering to do so)...there are only a couple of options to consider in assessing them. A delusion is a fixed, falsed believe in something....but one that is genuinely held (i.e. the person truly believes his/her false argument). A lie is a false statements made with the knowledge that the statement is untrue. In your case, you attempted to portray your views as fact-based, by offering to posts "sources" to back them up. But, when challenged to do so, you began to dodged, deflect and dissemble. So "delusional" is actually the most graceful judgment that can be offered.

You seem very convinced I have access to some facts or sources you do not or that I am basing these opinion on debunked information. I am not sure about you, but I read and watch many different sources of news, form opinions and simply look up sources when debating to reinforce a point.

I'm only convince of one thing: that you (not me, YOU) made a bunch of baseless arguments to the OP, and then offered to provide "sources" to back them up. Yet, once challenged to do so, you began to dodge, deflect and dissemble. And THAT is what leads me to believe that you are the very type of conservative that the OP was describing. You can dispell me of that notion by simply doing what you promised to do: post some of your "sources" to back up the arguments you offered in rebuttal to the OP. Stop avoiding the issue, please.

So maybe I do just have my facts mixed up. I am pretty sure though in this case there is no real point going much further in my explanation as I doubt its going to shake your confidence or clarify my opinion.

The issue here is not me. It's you. I'm not afraid to have my opinions challenged, nor to back them up with objective, verifiable facts. That'sthe essense of any substantive, respectful debate of competing ideas. Don't you want to know the facts for yourself? Let's see some of your sources, and we can discuss them.

So just one question, so as a person having followed the developments and taken away that Wikileaks was leaks not hacks, there was no huge troll campaign for trump in 2016, and who see no actions by Trump that is un-American or pro-russia?

That's not a question. It's a statement with a question mark at the end of it. What are you asking me, here?

To what facts/source should I be looking to be pulled back from my “right wing” delusion?

Start with any legitmate news organizations, not right wing blogs or conspiracy sites. And do not mistake conservative OPINION pieces for hard "news" sources. For example, none of what you wrote in the statement/question above is accurate. The connections and coordination between Wikileaks and the Russian hackers has been well-documented.....as has the MASSIVE Russian troll campaign (i.e. 126+ Million targeted social media hits/ads) aimed at supporting the 2016 Trump campaign....as are questions about "un-American" or "pro-Russia" actions by the Trump campaign (and administration), beginning with changing the GOP platform to soften the US's support for Ukraine against Russia and emails promising to lift sanctions against Russian oligarchs after the election.

 

[Conaeolos]

I find your replies an intriguing blend of reasonableness and unbounded bias

Sounds about right :lol:

7. The notion of the Steele dossier being the impetus for investigating Trump has been thoroughly debunked. Details

PART 1:
Thank you for clarifying where we are departing in our interpretations of the news. I doubt I will shake your confidence in Intelligence reports, as you either have it or you don’t and there is a solid case either way. It sounds like then I should address point 7. Your clear debunking of this opinion is simply referring to a disputed response memo by the democrats, which is not debunking but rather a counter-argument about my framing of the common facts. Since the release of the redacted FISA application we know without a doubt that the Steel Dossier was the key evidence/methodology used. The only issue in dispute then is how verified this document was when submitting it. I would note here, Comey, did not regard this document favorably in his later testimony on the matter

I think it is important to highlight: NPR:

Now that portions are public, it is clear that the FISA application does not name Trump or Clinton or Fusion GPS or Simpson or Steele nor detail the political background.

Standard procedure or not. Would it been approved via reputation of Christopher Steele as stated if the questionable source was better highlighted. [I should note here, this was no accounts of Steele but raw paid intel from russian sources]

As to a case for why one I might think one should be highly skeptical that the reacted portion do not contain information that would make this dossier more credible as suggested in that democratic memo. See this article by Andrew McCarthy at the National Review

But then one might ask isn’t at least some of the Dossier now been verified, right?
Kind of, if you really want it to be true. The logic here is quite extensive, and convincing without outside context, but I would note that much of this “verification” anyone can see could just as easily be a circular logic which validates finding by the aftermath of the findings such as when in the FISA application they used an article based on the dossier to give credit to the dossier. A common pattern in these stories. These narratives also consistantly not apply the same standards of verified to debunked [leaning on the fact you can’t prove a negative] this is clearly concerning. For example, even when an aspect is well above the used verification standard (reasonable suspicion) such as the Prague trip by Michael Cohen. This aspect is left as unverified yet they claim other aspects verified based on some superficial often second or third hand corroboration or mere accusation despite also being conflicted[and in many case more so], it only goes to show such confident statement are based on an affirmative case not a balanced analysis. I am happy to address any one so called verified details by public account, but again there are too many claims to go point by point. It is unfair to call it debunked but it certainly far more reasonable to call it still highly suspicious rather than somewhat or mostly verified by public information.

 

[Conaeolos]

PART 2:
Why question its legitimacy beyond who paid for it?
- Michael Cohen did not admit to any form of lying to the FBI about Russia despite making many statements on the matter and maintained and shown much evidence to at least the parts of his involvement being false. Important parts to this narrative.

- Steele testimony under oath indicates it was likely developed to possibly challenge the results of 2016 source

Fusion’s immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie LLP. It engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie LLP to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election.
Based on that advice, parties such as the Democratic National Committee and HFACC Inc. (also known as ‘Hillary for America’) could consider steps they would be legally entitled to take to challenge the validity of the outcome of that election.

- FISA application was Oct 2016 – this statement indicates still unverified by those with the classified info as of May 2017. source

What I understand by verified is we then try to replicate the source information, so that it becomes FBI investigation and our conclusions rather than a reliable source’s. That’s what I understand it, the difference to be. And that work wasn’t completed by the time I left in May of 2017, to my knowledge.

Now, I would note here James Clapper clarified source:

some of the substantive content, not all of it, but some of the substantive content of the dossier, we were able to corroborate in our Intelligence Community assessment which from other sources in which we had very high confidence to it.

I would however also note it was made clear this dossier was also apart of the evidence by the intelligence community in their assessments; a fact, so often claimed to be the verification itself. Again we find the circular pattern.

- the sources used were paid Russians themselves. a source

Source A—to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier—was ‘a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure.’ Source B was ‘a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.

- Fusion GPS is well connected and embedded in the media community being founded by two prominent former journalists.sourcewiki

- Natalia Veselnitskaya familiar connections to Fusion GPS. source

- Key members of the Clinton campaign such as Tony Podesta & John Podesta, plus other members like David Adams [chief legislative advisor] have documented far stronger relationships with the Kremlin insiders.source

Again, I don’t fault one for still thinking there might be something here but I resent saying one should. We have to wait and see. I think that this coming public warranted a full investigation. To date though despite a mass investigation by multiples parties, insiders now working with the investigation and full subpoena power there remains zero damning evidence[or indication there of] and more and more questionable circumstances to how the investigation started and the objectivity of those involved [e.g. peter strzok]. Or, Flynn’s plea to minor Russia not major Turkey discovery. etc

TDS is real. I might be wrong here, but reading into cases like Nixon. The more to me it becomes clear how corrupt political actors work and where the real scandal lays today. I am not sure of your background, but even though I mostly deal in management and financial matters. Much of my life has been spent in development of analytic software and working with convicted criminals. I was there in during the Trump campaign. I follow Russian politics. So this is not out of my wheel house. To someone looking in with no reference to this outrageous claim[Russia interfered for trump] maybe it does seem damning. To me it reminds me the false reports in my local newspaper, distorting events, getting ages wrong and making claims no one has any way of knowing to sell papers.

 

[Conaeolos]

Stop avoiding the issue, please.

I respect your harden quest to hold people to backing up their claims. I remain happy with my approach and choice of an opinioned rather than factual response in an internet debate forum. As I stated in my last reply to you, I fully admit it is possible my facts are mixed up and that I provided only brief statements of opinion to get to the heart of this disagreement not new facts as requested. Unfortunately it seems you refused to acknowledge that admission and would rather lecture method than discuss content. I am uninterested in interactions with those minds that have become possessed by their feelings and thus this will be my last response to you. I wish you the best.

A delusion is a fixed, falsed believe in something....but one that is genuinely held (i.e. the person truly believes his/her false argument). A lie is a false statements made with the knowledge that the statement is untrue. In your case, you attempted to portray your views as fact-based, by offering to posts "sources" to back them up. But, when challenged to do so, you began to dodged, deflect and dissemble. So "delusional" is actually the most graceful judgment that can be offered.

I would hope you in fact hold a more nuanced view than that expressed in this statement. Not every non direct response is a dodge or deflection nor disagreement in conclusion based in lies or delusion. No one even actually asked for evidence here. They only expressed the sentiment that one would need evidence to justify their opinion over their-own opinion. To make a real ask for evidence one needs to be far more specific on the claim rather than just repeating “prove it”. Take any unanswerable proof question: e.g. “prove God”. If someone were to follow up, “how do you define God?” And the other person answers “a supernatural being ruling all things”, they're only revealing their lack of motive in hearing an actual case for God. The question is not literal, nor a trick or dodge, it’s a litmus test. Do you understand there a semantic problem? Is your burden of proof appropriate? Etc etc. If you wanted evidence you would take a specific claim of a miracle and say “how was this God verses [insert explanation]”

This case is similar. We all share common facts, but draw opposite conclusions based on many different factors including personality. Our disagreement in conclusion on this matter most likely have nothing to do with facts\lies, nor delusions but rather the way we are filtering the facts to meet our world views. Your request is merely the suggestion I engage in a fruitless zeno’s dichotomy paradox where we shout opinions at each other or you shout down mine, and no one is the better for it.

Don't you want to know the facts for yourself?

I am relatively confident I do know the facts as they tend to be common knowledge for people who follow politics. I also assume you and others reading also do until I see evidence you do not[which I have not]. A debate forum is not university papers. It’s a discussion board.

Start with any legitmate news organizations, not right wing blogs or conspiracy sites.

Thanks but those don’t exist. Every “news” source is saturated by opinion, thus I personally like to read a variety of news [including mainline] but also including yes right & left wing blogs and conspiracy sites. I find alt-media has more on the ground and raw sources which are the only real facts-based news that remain. Obviously Alex Jones is listen to with more skepticism than the WSJ, like a judge though you have to hear both sides, form your own views and be open to being proven wrong, taken in by false information or conviction. I seek to understand all sides.

I would not criticize your strategy as uninformed, but certainly misinformed as it would be like a judge who hears only the prosecution because they work for the public good and not the defense because they just work for criminals and must be liars. The entire second answer to my question is testimony to that point. You distort your level of confidence and point to marginal policy differences. Yeah, so have different opinions based on trust in the sources - shocker.

 

[Todzilla]

PART 2:
Why question its legitimacy beyond who paid for it?
- Michael Cohen did not admit to any form of lying to the FBI about Russia despite making many statements on the matter and maintained and shown much evidence to at least the parts of his involvement being false. Important parts to this narrative.

- Steele testimony under oath indicates it was likely developed to possibly challenge the results of 2016 source



- FISA application was Oct 2016 – this statement indicates still unverified by those with the classified info as of May 2017. source



Now, I would note here James Clapper clarified source:



I would however also note it was made clear this dossier was also apart of the evidence by the intelligence community in their assessments; a fact, so often claimed to be the verification itself. Again we find the circular pattern.

- the sources used were paid Russians themselves. a source


- Fusion GPS is well connected and embedded in the media community being founded by two prominent former journalists.sourcewiki

- Natalia Veselnitskaya familiar connections to Fusion GPS. source

- Key members of the Clinton campaign such as Tony Podesta & John Podesta, plus other members like David Adams [chief legislative advisor] have documented far stronger relationships with the Kremlin insiders.source

Again, I don’t fault one for still thinking there might be something here but I resent saying one should. We have to wait and see. I think that this coming public warranted a full investigation. To date though despite a mass investigation by multiples parties, insiders now working with the investigation and full subpoena power there remains zero damning evidence[or indication there of] and more and more questionable circumstances to how the investigation started and the objectivity of those involved [e.g. peter strzok]. Or, Flynn’s plea to minor Russia not major Turkey discovery. etc

TDS is real. I might be wrong here, but reading into cases like Nixon. The more to me it becomes clear how corrupt political actors work and where the real scandal lays today. I am not sure of your background, but even though I mostly deal in management and financial matters. Much of my life has been spent in development of analytic software and working with convicted criminals. I was there in during the Trump campaign. I follow Russian politics. So this is not out of my wheel house. To someone looking in with no reference to this outrageous claim[Russia interfered for trump] maybe it does seem damning. To me it reminds me the false reports in my local newspaper, distorting events, getting ages wrong and making claims no one has any way of knowing to sell papers.

I had understood the original impetus for the intelligence community was Mr. Popodopoulus's conversations with an Aussie diplomat. The Steele dossier, which I understood was originally funded by Republican primary opponents, certainly laid out very troubling allegations by a seasoned intelligence professional (albeit working as a private contractor at the time), whose details have been re-verified over and over again, except for a couple trivial details.

My background is in IT management, but certainly not in the specific areas you note in your resume.

It would seem, even if the Russia investigation were of suspicious origins (and I think that's not at all the case), the indictment and conviction yields would more than substantiate it. The reason I view the "Deep State" conspiracy theories with such skepticism is that I believe conspiracy theories are increasingly non-credible as they require more and more actors to be "in on it." Not only would the intelligence community (which involves many disparate areas of government) be in on it, the Justice Department, grand juries, the Media, State offices of Attorneys General... It feels like the Deep State theory involves pretty much everyone except Mr. Trump, his administration, his Congressional Enablers and Fox News. That's where I call bull****.

 

[Conaeolos]

It would seem, even if the Russia investigation were of suspicious origins (and I think that's not at all the case), the indictment and conviction yields would more than substantiate it.

I see the exact opposite pattern. Which one in particular do you see shows the most strong evidence there is classified evidence of Russian collusion?

The reason I view the "Deep State" conspiracy theories with such skepticism is that I believe conspiracy theories are increasingly non-credible as they require more and more actors to be "in on it."

No, when I say there is an attack from deep state or the establishment, I think I mean something very different from what you are imagining. I think there are a number of people who are bad actors, but for the most part those involved are doing their job only biased as they are apart of deep state. That is, a culture of entrenched government people, employed by government in and out of term, directly or indirectly, who exclusively know the world through their political lens and are hostile to outsiders. I am not suggesting that most of the actors involved are acting together toward one aim in an organized manner. Like with any large organizational crime, the bad actors are around utilizing the systemic biases for their advantage. All I could ask for would be an investigation, which is underway under Huber. We simply haven’t heard as much from it since the media is obsessed with creating a Trump scandal every week for various reasons and the updates have been moved a couple times

If you doubt a deep state, I am not sure what to tell you, the evidence is mountainous. We were literally going into 2016 with the strong expectation of a choice Jeb verse Hillary, even though the base voted toward Trump and Bernie despite huge disparities in spending. Hillary by the way likely only won her nomination, only because since losing to Obama her team had worked to corruptly taint her primary in her favor [the most significant thing to come out of WikiLeaks releases].

I had understood the original impetus for the intelligence community was Mr. Popodopoulus's conversations with an Aussie diplomat.

Rhetoric trick, it’s not about what started an investigation, I would hope there was an investigation, what matters is what weighed in the FISA approval. What you point to was second hand information from “Joseph Mifsud” and referred to the “Clinton emails” such perhaps as the ones deleted from her private server which was public information. You can read the little we know of Mifsud and decide how incriminating that is for Popodopoulus. The FISA application weighted on the Steele Dossier likely unverified because of the reputation of Christopher Steele. I find that very suspect and you should too. FISA especially on a political actor should not be based on unvetted or poorly vetted Paid Russian Intel.

The Steele dossier, which I understood was originally funded by Republican primary opponents

No. Fusion GPS was hired by The Washington Free Beacon for Trump dirt and then the Hillary/DNC for oppo. Two months after that, Steele was contacted by Fusion GPS and the Dossier was born. Christopher Steele under oath said the reasoning was a possible legal challenge to the results of 2016. source (see relevant quote in part 2)

have been re-verified over and over again, except for a couple trivial details.

No, not verified or corroborated but people sure like to say that based on feeling. If true, I am sure you or someone else would be happy to name one aspect that is verified and how[not classified or appeal to authority]. To help here are the two articles most linked as proof of that claim: CNN Feb 2017, Lawfare Dec 2018
Here is the original document.

I am happy to just look at a link. The problem with the above are both are condensing way too much conjecture. I hope you understand. In short: CNN - appeal to authority. Lawfare - circular reasoning. I also hope you understand Russia-gate is the affirmative position. So there are two conspiracies being discussed. I am merely mentioning Spy-gate to help frame current events.

background is in IT

Great, so in broadest sense. Knowing Russian spam networks operate on social media; how much Russian activity would it take to reach the level of concern and how much is just to be expected?

 

[akyron]

Do you dismiss the unanimous intelligence findings about Russian meddling in our election? And are you not troubled that many many of Trump's people met with Russians connected w Putin and denied having done so? These two events should convince anyone that there's nothing "crazy" about the Russian connection.

Have you rethought any of this in hindsight with additional information?

Obama cyber chief confirms 'stand down' order against Russian cyberattacks in summer 2016

"Daniel declined to discuss the details of those options during Wednesday’s open hearing, saying he would share them with the panel during a classified session later in the day. But he described his proposals as “the full range of potential actions” that the U.S. government could use in the cyber arena “to impose costs on the Russians — both openly to demonstrate that we could do it as a deterrent and also clandestinely to disrupt their operations as well.”

Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, asked about a “Russian Roulette” passage in which one of Daniel’s staff members, Daniel Prieto, recounted a staff meeting shortly after the cyber coordinator was ordered by Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser, to stop his efforts and “stand down.” This order was in part because Rice feared the options would leak and “box the president in.”

“I was incredulous and in disbelief,” Prieto is quoted as saying in the book. “It took me a moment to process. In my head, I was like, did I hear that correctly?” Prieto told the authors he then spoke up, asking Daniel: “Why the hell are we standing down? Michael, can you help us understand?”"

Who was large and in charge in 2016 exactly?

Concerning the FBI. That is Federal Bureau of Investigations...

Papadapoulos: I Got Caught In A Perjury Trap, It Was A Setup By US, UK, Australian Intelligence


The damning proof of innocence that FBI likely withheld in Russian probe

"Page never has been charged with wrongdoing. And Papadopoulos, after an exhaustive investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, was not accused of conspiracy with Russia; instead, he pleaded guilty to making a false statement to the FBI about a months-old conversation with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer regarding a rumor that Russia possessed embarrassing emails from Clinton.

The crime was deemed so minor by the presiding judge that Papadopoulos was sentenced to a mere 14 days in jail.

If Page’s and Papadopoulos’s recollections of what they told Halper are accurate, former FBI officials Comey, James Baker, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok — all of whom played a role in the Russia probe and the FISA warrants — have some serious explaining to do. So does departing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who signed the fourth and final FISA warrant.

My reporting suggests a much bigger scandal — the intentional misleading of the nation’s federal intelligence court — soon may eclipse the Russia narrative that has dominated the media the past two years."

 

[ultmd]

I respect your harden quest to hold people to backing up their claims. I remain happy with my approach and choice of an opinioned rather than factual response in an internet debate forum. As I stated in my last reply to you, I fully admit it is possible my facts are mixed up and that I provided only brief statements of opinion to get to the heart of this disagreement not new facts as requested. Unfortunately it seems you refused to acknowledge that admission and would rather lecture method than discuss content. I am uninterested in interactions with those minds that have become possessed by their feelings and thus this will be my last response to you. I wish you the best.

LOL, yours is a typical position taken by a right-winger. You admit that your views are based upon OPINIONS that you cannot back up with any objective information....and then you tell the guy who relies upon objective information that he's "possessed by feelings". That's silly...but I'm sure you don't get that, either. As I've noted repeatedly in this thread, if you had the facts or the intellectual chops to defend your fact-free opinions on the issues, you'd have done so by now. In your heart, you understand that. And that's the crux of the matter. So it matters little to me if you respond to me. I think we both know the truth, here.

I would hope you in fact hold a more nuanced view than that expressed in this statement...Take any unanswerable proof question: e.g. “prove God”. If someone were to follow up, “how do you define God?” And the other person answers “a supernatural being ruling all things”, they're only revealing their lack of motive in hearing an actual case for God. The question is not literal, nor a trick or dodge, it’s a litmus test. Do you understand there a semantic problem? Is your burden of proof appropriate? Etc etc. If you wanted evidence you would take a specific claim of a miracle and say “how was this God verses [insert explanation]”

:lamoMore nonsense. Asking you to present some OBJECTIVE FACTS and CREDIBLE SOURCES to support your right-wing delusions (rather than a video clip from some Youtube comedian)...is HARDLY akin to challenging someone to "prove God". Let us recall that it was YOU who brazenly offered to present such references and sources, upon request. Remember that? Yet, once challenged to produce them, you started dodging and dissembling. So,clearly, you were lying back then...hoping that no one would take you up on the offer. Now, you're stuck...caught up in your original lie, with nowhere to go. It's time for you to just go away quietly from this thread, lol. And if you HONESTLY don't understand that, you have no business on this board.

This case is similar. We all share common facts, but draw opposite conclusions based on many different factors including personality. Our disagreement in conclusion on this matter most likely have nothing to do with facts\lies, nor delusions but rather the way we are filtering the facts to meet our world views. Your request is merely the suggestion I engage in a fruitless zeno’s dichotomy paradox where we shout opinions at each other or you shout down mine, and no one is the better for it.

:lamo...hardly.
What separates us is simple, and you know it. Your "facts" are fake news facts, i.e. ideologically conservative OPINIONS for which no OBJECTIVE substantiations exist. Those can only be described in one of two ways: Lies, or Delusions. The only remaining unanswered questions regarding your motives are with respect to that very issue. Either you are delusional...or you're just lying. Because there are very few (if any) OBJECTIVE FACTS to back up your stated OPINIONS in this thread. Period.

I am relatively confident I do know the facts as they tend to be common knowledge for people who follow politics. I also assume you and others reading also do until I see evidence you do not[which I have not]. A debate forum is not university papers. It’s a discussion board.

...and yet, when asked to further YOUR perspective in this "discussion", you have repeated ducked, dodged and dissembled rather than post even ONE of your "common knowldge facts". Clearly, you know this, hence the avoidance.

 

[ultmd]

Thanks but those don’t exist. Every “news” source is saturated by opinion, thus I personally like to read a variety of news [including mainline] but also including yes right & left wing blogs and conspiracy sites.

WRONG. Legitimate news organizations do not mix news with opinion. The sources that you prefer make no such distinction. You'd understand that if you were capable of objectivity. This is the kind of nonsense that marks one as a right-wing conspiracy theorist.

I find alt-media has more on the ground and raw sources which are the only real facts-based news that remain. Obviously Alex Jones is listen to with more skepticism than the WSJ, like a judge though you have to hear both sides, form your own views and be open to being proven wrong, taken in by false information or conviction. I seek to understand all sides.

:lamo
Like most alt-right types, you are deluding yourself. But at least you've now gone on record as someone who listens to Alex Jones. That's enough. You're done.

I would not criticize your strategy as uninformed, but certainly misinformed as it would be like a judge who hears only the prosecution because they work for the public good and not the defense because they just work for criminals and must be liars. The entire second answer to my question is testimony to that point. You distort your level of confidence and point to marginal policy differences. Yeah, so have different opinions based on trust in the sources - shocker.

Well let me be as clear as possible for you. I am absolutely criticizing you for being BOTH uninformed and misinformed. You post opinions that you have neither the means, nor the interest in backing up with FACTS. You are an emotional, opinionated alt-right type who equates criticism of his fact-free, ideology-driven opinions to "personal insults".

 

[OscarLevant]

One of the main reasons I joined this forum is to better understand conservatives, particularly those who continue to support Mr. Trump.

Is it true Trump supporters believe:

• Mueller is driven primarily, if not solely by partisan motives
• The intelligence community is in the bag for Democrats
• Mr. Trump is getting rid of corruption in Washington
• There is nothing wrong with wanting to retain business interests while being President
• Even if Mr. Trump was negotiating a business deal with Russians while running for President, that's just business
• America is now respected, no longer reviled as it was during the Obama Presidency
• Mr. Trump's gut is superior to a bunch of climate nerd scientists' science
• There's nothing wrong with getting along with Putin. As a matter of fact, it's a plus
• Mr. Trump got the best of Kim Jong Un
• There's nothing wrong with the ever changing positions Trump takes on the Mueller findings
• Federal Election laws are a joke and breaking them is a "process crime."
• Mr. Trump is "the least racist person there is" and a strong supporter of women
• Mr. Trump hires the best people to be in his administration
• Mr. Trump's transgressions, if real, are no worse than perpetrated by Democrats
• The Democrats are influencing the justice department and intelligence community by setting "perjury traps" and pressuring people like Cohen, Papadapoulus, Flynn and others into making up fake stories that implicate Mr. Trump
• Mr. Trump, as President, should never have to face legal charges

This is what I'm concluding are some of his supporters core beliefs. Trump supporters, am I correct? Did I leave anything out.

Perfecto! That is what they believe, and I can't think of anything you left out. Oh, but this:


Trump was sent by God.

 

[OscarLevant]

Anyone can trigger liberals with just a few words, it does not take a Trump to do it.

Yeah, all fascists say that.

 

[OscarLevant]

Anyone can trigger liberals with just a few words, it does not take a Trump to do it.

Yeah, like when repubs had a hissy fit when Obama saluted with a coffee cup in his and they had a conniption the day he wore a tan suit.


Serious **** it takes to stir up repubs.

 

[OscarLevant]

To answer for myself.


No. I am not sure of his motive, but it doesn't appear objective. Partisan is defiantly not the issue. Maybe in the broadest terms protecting the establishment. Ben Shapiro has mused he just has seen so much dirt on the guy he feels him 'bad' even if not criminal by way of the investigation. Definitely possible, from all I know Muller seems like someone of good character, but that doesn't mean that's true either or he doesn't have skeltons.


Politicalized members, but again it's more about the political establishment which only became an issue once Trump won the nomination. If Jeb verse Hillary most certainly not.

Do you know the % of our congressional candidates with backgrounds with the intelligence services? It's far above average. What about the statements[e.g. twitter feeds] by the old officials today? Do they seem apolitical?


Indirectly. He is exposing it. He doesn't embrace it which is a good start. It hurts him too though as he alienates key allies. Politics is grey and he is no church boy, but we are better than pre-trump levels certianly.


Its concerning and would be more so if the media wasn't willing to report on conflicts. Overall though no being a business man should not prevent one from being president or holding public office. I'd rather a Perot but it took a Trump.

I also would note I have a far bigger concerns with how many millionaires there are, who are so because they were politicians. This is a large part of my growing distrust of the "establishment". A common feeling on both sides.


Not on the face.Trump does lots of deals. The degree could be such that it becomes concerning.


That's complicated, but certainly more respected in the sense of being America instead of a member of the Globalist community.


In short "no is gut is not superior in the slightest"; however,

Public climate change policies do not have a solid record and often do more harm than good. The aim often don't even qualify as meaningful success. It's a discussion and trump could easily be on the wrong side of it. The idea though that its just climate warriors verses denies isn't true outside some town hall.

One sides for the most part is virtue singling and the otherwise is skeptical and confused as to what to do. Climate change is an important and very difficult problem and I respect trump choosing to get out of the way. Our record still improves year to year as it is about people and their choices not government. And people do care and the science gets to be heard.

As for his choice of messaging, it's the way trump speaks and it got him where he is. So awesome. I am not going to fault him.


True. Of course within reason Putin is no ally.


South Korea is very happy and we're not at war. Un got undeserved legitmency true, but the old policy wasn't working. So we adopted a new one. Could change on a dime. We'll see. Trump loves you or hate you so I'd trust him not to hesitate if the tides do turn.


I don't even care if you say lie, to date his statements are consistent with an innocent person. I personally say his "fibs" though as his intentions tend to be marketing/hyperbole rather than for deceptional gain, but that is obviously controversial.

In other words, and in summary, the OP was frickin' CORRECT.

 

[Bullseye]

One of the main reasons I joined this forum is to better understand conservatives, particularly those who continue to support Mr. Trump.

Is it true Trump supporters believe:

• Mueller is driven primarily, if not solely by partisan motives
• The intelligence community is in the bag for Democrats
• Mr. Trump is getting rid of corruption in Washington
• There is nothing wrong with wanting to retain business interests while being President
• Even if Mr. Trump was negotiating a business deal with Russians while running for President, that's just business
• America is now respected, no longer reviled as it was during the Obama Presidency
• Mr. Trump's gut is superior to a bunch of climate nerd scientists' science
• There's nothing wrong with getting along with Putin. As a matter of fact, it's a plus
• Mr. Trump got the best of Kim Jong Un
• There's nothing wrong with the ever changing positions Trump takes on the Mueller findings
• Federal Election laws are a joke and breaking them is a "process crime."
• Mr. Trump is "the least racist person there is" and a strong supporter of women
• Mr. Trump hires the best people to be in his administration
• Mr. Trump's transgressions, if real, are no worse than perpetrated by Democrats
• The Democrats are influencing the justice department and intelligence community by setting "perjury traps" and pressuring people like Cohen, Papadapoulus, Flynn and others into making up fake stories that implicate Mr. Trump
• Mr. Trump, as President, should never have to face legal charges

This is what I'm concluding are some of his supporters core beliefs. Trump supporters, am I correct? Did I leave anything out.

First thing to understand is that "conservative" and "Trump supporter" are NOT SYNONYMOUS. Second, you list is "slightly liberal" jabberwocky. And poor satire as well.

 

[Bullseye]

Conservatives like Trump because he triggers liberals. They don't care that he's incompetent and corrupt. It's that simple.

Only to those whose brain cells are estranged from each other.