You've been nothing but a victim since you started posting in GD again. "Oh poor me" "dems are beasts" "shillary emails" "Obama did X" "fake news liberal media"
You don't get to place the victim card. You've played it too often.
Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
You've been nothing but a victim since you started posting in GD again. "Oh poor me" "dems are beasts" "shillary emails" "Obama did X" "fake news liberal media"
You don't get to place the victim card. You've played it too often.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Or maybe I have simply noticed that every time a conservative gets into a position of leadership or potential leadership the left goes crazier than the previous time throwing out accusations of racism, sexism, and every other ism they can dream up. I can't blame them for it because it has been an incredibly effective strategy for tying conservatives in knots, but it's a dirty game.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
You are the guy who is constantly claiming that CNN is not biased, yet with this comment you have made it clear that either you have not watched CNN in the past two years, or you are a liar. And everybody knows that the Russian related indictments the left was breathlessly waiting for were supposed to be against Trump and his associates. By what measure can you consider indicting a bunch of Russians who will never face the American Criminal Justice system a success?
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
A. I don't smoke weed.
B. Smoking weed has nothing to do with anything.
C. What or who is team victim complex?
D. You are a dumbass.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Cry me a river
I will explain a few things to you.
Trump is the worst person, personality and character wise to ever be president. He basically asks the media to attack him. I think he likes it. It's part of his strategy. He enjoys having them as an enemy. He made his bed. We have been over this.
Presidents always get criticized a ton. They have a kinda high profile job and half the country will always hate them simply due to partisanship.
Democratic presidents have and will be attacked like crazy.
Republican presidents have and will be attacked like crazy.
Comes with the job in a 2 party system.
I know that you want to think that you and your party are some kind of special victims that are just the most victimized of all victims in the history of victimization.
Sorry to tell you though, you ain't special.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Last edited:
I have claimed all along that CNN was biased. Is your memory really that poor? I have been saying that CNN is biased toward sensationalism. This opinion is supported by serious efforts at looking at credibility, such as the Media Bias Chart at adfontesmedia.com. Notice how far down on the reliability scale CNN is, while being basically in a central position? CNN will run breathless headlines that disparage the left or the right.
I'm confused. Are you saying that indicting the correct people for the correct crimes is a failure? That the correct people were not indicted for the correct crimes?
Morning edition, On the Media, All Things Consiered. You have about 12 different personalities there between anchors and Washington correspondents.
Go on, prove me wrong.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
We are not talking about credibility or reliability. I will agree with you that CNN lacks both of those. What we are talking about is that you have continually defended CNN as being unbiased politically, and you made that claim again in this very post. The fact that you now claim that no one that you listen to or read regularly has been talking about the end of Trump is proof that you either do not watch CNN or you have been lying.
As for your feigned confusion in your last point, ever since the Mueller investigation began the liberals (including you) and the media have told us that indictments of Trump and his associates on Russia related charges are just around the corner... but more than 2 years and more than $30 million later it has not happened.
Obviously you all went crazy over the weekend so I can't respond to everything. I do want to follow up on @Joe Bagadonuts question about Ukraine and a couple follow up issues.
The degree to which Ukraine is pro-American, and oriented that way in opposition to Putin, is hard to fully comprehend unless you physically go there. I would literally get in taxis and pay the drivers to do a loop around Kyiv and tell me their opinions about what was happening in the world and in their country. I wandered around on the Maiden (think Times Square for Ukraine) and would just talk to people. This is a dude I met who was raising money for a charity associated with the families of people who died during the Ukrainian revolution. He's holding up his ID so I could verify he was related to an actual victim of violence during the revolution (because I took this VERY seriously).
At it's core, the Ukrainian revolution was about a rejection of remaining within the Russian sphere of influence. Although politics everywhere is complicated, the easiest explanation for what "happened" was that the Ukrainian president of the time suddenly took the country off the path to becoming more "Western" and joining NATO/the EU and turned it back towards Russia itself. This was a fundamental betrayal of everything this society had been working towards for decades and it couldn't stand. Notably, the Ukrainian president in question, Yanukovych, worked with Paul Manafort pretty extensively. You might have heard of him.
In the aftermath, Putin invaded Crimea. The question of "Crimean ownership" is complicated. It goes back to the tsarist era, and Crimea was technically "given" to Ukraine while it was still part of the Soviet Union. It was a gift that was symbolic more than anything, no one expected Crimea to "leave" Russia when Ukraine became independent anymore than we would expect the Oklahoma panhandle to leave the United States someday if we reclassified it as part of Texas. The invasion of Crimea, and the follow on conflicts in the Donbass and Donetsk regions, have killed thousands of people and displaced tens of thousands more. My Russian tutor is literally a refugee from this conflict, and she left Mariupol rather than be subjected to periodic shelling. This is a real conflict with existential implications for the entire country of Ukraine, and it goes to something fundamental about Ukrainian identity: are they a distinct people or are they just a subsection of Russia who speak their own dialect.
This is an issue of critical importance there. When the new president was sworn in recently, he was interrupted during his inauguration because he did part of the inaugural address in Russian rather than Ukrainian. Some portions of the political society there see an official address even acknowledging that Russian is an unrecognized de facto language of the country as a threat to Ukraine's sovereignty. So Ukraine is stuck in this frozen conflict with Russia, for years, about its identity. It fights back and does not just cede territory because to do so would threaten the existence of the country itself in the next decade.
Further, you need to understand why Russia wants Ukraine to fail. Domestically, Putin's primary argument against true democracy is that there is a fundamental clash between Slavic character and a democratic form of government. This is why the Kremlin engages in what they refer to as "managed democracy." The outcome is never really in doubt. The election serves to ratify and legitimize a system that will always produce a fixed winner. As long as they promise stability they can maintain this system, which in turn enables a kleptocratic state. The fact that Ukraine is making a real go of an actual democracy, in which an outsider can win the presidency and there is a peaceful transfer of power, threatens Russia's domestic political situation. If real democracy works in Ukraine, culturally as close to Russia as you can imagine, then there's no reason why it couldn't work in Russia too. The existence of a successful Ukraine is a security threat to Putin's regime.
America, during the Obama administration, and the West generally, has been the effective guarantor of Ukraine's security against Russia. The reason Russia has to engage in a proxy war and/or hide its involvement in Eastern Ukraine is because being overt would risk a larger conflict. Without America, Ukraine likely ceases to exist as a state. It gets rolled over and absorbed back into Russia.
That's the (brief) context here. I could tell you a LOT more, including some stuff that's not so favorable for Hillary (I learned some things about how the embassy got built in Kyiv while I was there, it's amazing how much people will tell you if you show up and you're interested), but that's the overall picture. And it's also what you need to understand to get why the "revelations" as you put it being fed to Giuliani are entirely self-serving reporting that favors Russia. The same individuals alleging that Ukraine was in bed with the Democrats are the people who tried to broker a "peace deal" between Russia and the US in which Ukraine's territorial sovereignty could be negotiated away by the US. They are the same people who were involved with the Yanukovych pull of Ukraine away from the EU and the West. And they are the same people who seek to obscure very well documented ties between the Trump campaign and Yanukovych through Manafort. Simply put, they are not Ukrainian patriots, but people who have a vested interest in tearing the state down in favor of Russia.
Giuliani and the GOP either are unaware of this and are grasping onto anything they can find to spin positively. Or, more cynically, they know this and don't care because they profit from it. These are not good faith allegations, and legitimizing them is a betrayal of how much the Ukrainians who are trying to build something there believe in us and trust in us. Acting like the Ukrainians are involved in the "real crime" (as Trump likes to put it) fundamentally destabilizes that entire country, and that's a fellow democracy that we should support. That's what Trump is doing wrong - and it's only about protecting himself.
The entire point of public service, of working on behalf of other people, is that there is a concept above and beyond your personal interests. You subsume what is narrowly best for you for what is in the best interests of the nation and the world. These ridiculous self-serving accusations about Ukraine go the opposite direction - it's societal level destruction for some cheap points on twitters.
Call me when there's any events uncovered that happened before George Papadopoulos drunkenly bragged about Russian dirt to an Australian ambassador. All the conspiracy theories pretend that event didn't occur. It's also in the Mueller report that this was the first event that caused an investigation - before anything involving the Steele Dossiet.
I'm going to assert, and hope you will trust me, that I've followed the Russia investigation more closely than 99% of the American population. Let me tell you that I'm absolutely convinced that Russian "collusion" occurred but that it's difficult for virtually everyone to keep all the names and players straight.
I already spent a LONG time writing about this today above but if you're interested I'll walk you through some Russian language materials that I'm pretty sure establish the exact chain of communication from Trump/Manafort to Putin himself - complete with video of the various players talking about the American election on a yacht in the Black Sea.
Collusion is not a legal concept. Needless to say the investigation produced dozens of indictments, including of the National Security Advisor and the President's campaign manager. I often wonder how this story would have been covered if Mueller indicted no one until the last week and then indicted everyone all at once.
The degree to which Ukraine is pro-American, and oriented that way in opposition to Putin, is hard to fully comprehend unless you physically go there. I would literally get in taxis and pay the drivers to do a loop around Kyiv and tell me their opinions about what was happening in the world and in their country. I wandered around on the Maiden (think Times Square for Ukraine) and would just talk to people. This is a dude I met who was raising money for a charity associated with the families of people who died during the Ukrainian revolution. He's holding up his ID so I could verify he was related to an actual victim of violence during the revolution (because I took this VERY seriously).
At it's core, the Ukrainian revolution was about a rejection of remaining within the Russian sphere of influence. Although politics everywhere is complicated, the easiest explanation for what "happened" was that the Ukrainian president of the time suddenly took the country off the path to becoming more "Western" and joining NATO/the EU and turned it back towards Russia itself. This was a fundamental betrayal of everything this society had been working towards for decades and it couldn't stand. Notably, the Ukrainian president in question, Yanukovych, worked with Paul Manafort pretty extensively. You might have heard of him.
In the aftermath, Putin invaded Crimea. The question of "Crimean ownership" is complicated. It goes back to the tsarist era, and Crimea was technically "given" to Ukraine while it was still part of the Soviet Union. It was a gift that was symbolic more than anything, no one expected Crimea to "leave" Russia when Ukraine became independent anymore than we would expect the Oklahoma panhandle to leave the United States someday if we reclassified it as part of Texas. The invasion of Crimea, and the follow on conflicts in the Donbass and Donetsk regions, have killed thousands of people and displaced tens of thousands more. My Russian tutor is literally a refugee from this conflict, and she left Mariupol rather than be subjected to periodic shelling. This is a real conflict with existential implications for the entire country of Ukraine, and it goes to something fundamental about Ukrainian identity: are they a distinct people or are they just a subsection of Russia who speak their own dialect.
This is an issue of critical importance there. When the new president was sworn in recently, he was interrupted during his inauguration because he did part of the inaugural address in Russian rather than Ukrainian. Some portions of the political society there see an official address even acknowledging that Russian is an unrecognized de facto language of the country as a threat to Ukraine's sovereignty. So Ukraine is stuck in this frozen conflict with Russia, for years, about its identity. It fights back and does not just cede territory because to do so would threaten the existence of the country itself in the next decade.
Further, you need to understand why Russia wants Ukraine to fail. Domestically, Putin's primary argument against true democracy is that there is a fundamental clash between Slavic character and a democratic form of government. This is why the Kremlin engages in what they refer to as "managed democracy." The outcome is never really in doubt. The election serves to ratify and legitimize a system that will always produce a fixed winner. As long as they promise stability they can maintain this system, which in turn enables a kleptocratic state. The fact that Ukraine is making a real go of an actual democracy, in which an outsider can win the presidency and there is a peaceful transfer of power, threatens Russia's domestic political situation. If real democracy works in Ukraine, culturally as close to Russia as you can imagine, then there's no reason why it couldn't work in Russia too. The existence of a successful Ukraine is a security threat to Putin's regime.
America, during the Obama administration, and the West generally, has been the effective guarantor of Ukraine's security against Russia. The reason Russia has to engage in a proxy war and/or hide its involvement in Eastern Ukraine is because being overt would risk a larger conflict. Without America, Ukraine likely ceases to exist as a state. It gets rolled over and absorbed back into Russia.
That's the (brief) context here. I could tell you a LOT more, including some stuff that's not so favorable for Hillary (I learned some things about how the embassy got built in Kyiv while I was there, it's amazing how much people will tell you if you show up and you're interested), but that's the overall picture. And it's also what you need to understand to get why the "revelations" as you put it being fed to Giuliani are entirely self-serving reporting that favors Russia. The same individuals alleging that Ukraine was in bed with the Democrats are the people who tried to broker a "peace deal" between Russia and the US in which Ukraine's territorial sovereignty could be negotiated away by the US. They are the same people who were involved with the Yanukovych pull of Ukraine away from the EU and the West. And they are the same people who seek to obscure very well documented ties between the Trump campaign and Yanukovych through Manafort. Simply put, they are not Ukrainian patriots, but people who have a vested interest in tearing the state down in favor of Russia.
Giuliani and the GOP either are unaware of this and are grasping onto anything they can find to spin positively. Or, more cynically, they know this and don't care because they profit from it. These are not good faith allegations, and legitimizing them is a betrayal of how much the Ukrainians who are trying to build something there believe in us and trust in us. Acting like the Ukrainians are involved in the "real crime" (as Trump likes to put it) fundamentally destabilizes that entire country, and that's a fellow democracy that we should support. That's what Trump is doing wrong - and it's only about protecting himself.
The entire point of public service, of working on behalf of other people, is that there is a concept above and beyond your personal interests. You subsume what is narrowly best for you for what is in the best interests of the nation and the world. These ridiculous self-serving accusations about Ukraine go the opposite direction - it's societal level destruction for some cheap points on twitters.
Call me when there's any events uncovered that happened before George Papadopoulos drunkenly bragged about Russian dirt to an Australian ambassador. All the conspiracy theories pretend that event didn't occur. It's also in the Mueller report that this was the first event that caused an investigation - before anything involving the Steele Dossiet.
I'm going to assert, and hope you will trust me, that I've followed the Russia investigation more closely than 99% of the American population. Let me tell you that I'm absolutely convinced that Russian "collusion" occurred but that it's difficult for virtually everyone to keep all the names and players straight.
I already spent a LONG time writing about this today above but if you're interested I'll walk you through some Russian language materials that I'm pretty sure establish the exact chain of communication from Trump/Manafort to Putin himself - complete with video of the various players talking about the American election on a yacht in the Black Sea.
Collusion is not a legal concept. Needless to say the investigation produced dozens of indictments, including of the National Security Advisor and the President's campaign manager. I often wonder how this story would have been covered if Mueller indicted no one until the last week and then indicted everyone all at once.
Last edited:
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
That bias chart is biased.
Interesting stuff. I get most of my news from NPR, along with BBC, economist, post, times. Don't watch a lot of TV. Get my tabloid stuff from Yahoo. Heh
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
A. Yes, you do smoke weed. You've said as much.
B. Yes smoking weed makes you paranoid. Its a scientific fact. Watch Refer Madness.
C. Democrats/the left/liberals are team victim complex. This is also a fact. There is endless evidence of it. Denying it makes you a retard.
D. Im smarter than you, so what does that say about you?
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Post of the year material here. Would rep (bring that back pls.)
I don't know how much of Trump's involvement in Russia stems from his business interests there, but to me that's what makes the most sense. He's willing to throw whoever he needs to under the bus in pursuit of it, and he's teamed up with people with their own nefarious agendas to that end.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
A. Nope. Have I before? Yep.
B. Nope. In fact for many people its quite the opposite. It actually calms them down and eliminates or alleviates paranoid feelings.
C. No one cries harder than you. Good to know you are a left leaning liberal democrat.
D. Smarter than me doesn't say all that much. I didn't graduate from my high school and have no college degree. You are a dumbass regardless of my level of intelligence. Congrats
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Why does anyone still reply to this guy as though he's not clearly taking the piss?
Hotdog
Well-Known Member
You denying that weed can cause paranoia?
People who reply to me are people who arent afraid of confronting a different perspective and dare to leave the echo chamber.
Thanks for the info. Is this just a hobby/personal project of yours, or are you involved through your job?
Zombie
Well-Known Member
You're so right, we are afraid of confronting the truth contained in Reefer Madness LMAO.
Look I get it, work can get boring and putting on a clownish persona online is a entertaining way to fill the day. I just wish you brought a little more charisma to this whole endeavor.
This is a personal project. Fundamentally, the nature of what happened in 2016 really struck me personally and I decided that I needed to have a better grasp on what was happening in Russia/Eastern Europe to really grasp what was happening in the world generally.
If you're interested in why I started doing this and some of the big lessons I've taken from it about how Americans and Russians perceive the world differently, I did a sermon at a Unitarian Universalist church on the topic a couple months ago.
@sirkickyass: Does George Papadopoulos drunkenly bragging about Russian dirt to an Australian ambassador (or anyone else) hold as evidence of collusion or conspiracy with Russia?
Lots of people have dirt on Hillary Clinton--the FBI, the NYPD, other US politicians, entities that donated to the Clinton Foundation or participated in their private parties, etc. There's a trail of dead investigators and prostitutes, CIA drug running through Arkansas, human trafficking from Haiti, pay-to-play schemes, possible money laundering, a history that goes back over 25 years.
Is there something unique about the dirt the Russians had and the way the Trump campaign was involved to leverage it?
Lots of people have dirt on Hillary Clinton--the FBI, the NYPD, other US politicians, entities that donated to the Clinton Foundation or participated in their private parties, etc. There's a trail of dead investigators and prostitutes, CIA drug running through Arkansas, human trafficking from Haiti, pay-to-play schemes, possible money laundering, a history that goes back over 25 years.
Is there something unique about the dirt the Russians had and the way the Trump campaign was involved to leverage it?
Last edited: