Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

[Deleted member 365]

If republicans want a social media platform free from decency and standards so that Nazis can spout off about anything they want, why don’t they pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and create one?

Why ask the government to force Facebook and Twitter to repeal their own rules and force them to accept Nazi rhetoric?

If republicans think that there’s really a market for Nazis, create your own social media platforms. If you folks think that there are plenty who want to listen to the paranoid and racist rants of Alex Jones, Milo, Bannon, and Spencer, then it’ll be successful. Hell, maybe you’ll even put Facebook and twitter out of business. How much #owninthelibs would that he like to put Facebook and twitter out of business with your Nazibook?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I'm not sure why you brought up the Chinese Cultural Revolution in the first place. That's not even old news. It isn't news at all. It's history. And where exactly did I say Chinese totalitarianism was itself news??

The news is the creation of a "social credits" system under the surveillance of modern technology. My understanding is this initiative began in 2014, with nation wide implementation planned for 2020, if that's possible. I find this totalitarianism supported by modern technology fascinating. Seems to me it was not really possible, to such a degree, before now.

This is 2019. I'm not interested in the Cultural Revolution as predecessor. I did, and do, find it interesting that some Chinese citizens are saying the social credits system is a good thing, but if I were a citizen of China, and in front of a camera, I would not say it's a bad thing. At any rate, the thing you refer to as "all that has changed" is is the very thing I find of great interest. So, to each his own I would say.

I'm with you on this one Red. It's both fascinating and terrifying. I'm not sure what point the person you are responding to is trying to make. Is he trying to say that China has always wanted to control their population so the only thing that has changed is that now they have the tools to accomplish their goals? I'd say that's a pretty big deal.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

The mental model is controlling the masses. That is the common thread. Chinese have always used the latest technology to do so. If the modern issues float your boat, I get it, it is an interesting topic. Perhaps even more interesting when understanding the historical context.

Is this really the rabbit hole you want to go down? Did you watch the videos Red posted? This is news.

 

[Red]

I'm with you on this one Red. It's both fascinating and terrifying. I'm not sure what point the person you are responding to is trying to make. Is he trying to say that China has always wanted to control their population so the only thing that has changed is that now they have the tools to accomplish their goals? I'd say that's a pretty big deal.

No, the manner in which I originally introduced the business about Chinese "social credit" initiative was worded in a way that might cause misinterpretation, which I understood might happen, once silesian pointed it out to me. So, it was a simple misunderstanding, no more. And yes, I think it is a big deal that modern tech may now serve to better accomplish control of its citizens by the Chinese. We are not free of problems, but there are far worse places to live and regimes to live under.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Yes, I notice, so let's look at one of his favorite sayings, the press is "the enemy of the people".

A free press has long been one of a democracy's principle vehicles for speaking truth to power.

And a president's words would be expected to carry more weight, on topics pertaining to the functioning of our democracy and government, by virtue of being chief executive of the federal government. They may not be weighty intrinsically, but by virtue of who he is, his words will carry weight.

Is it right, given those two premises, for a president to turn the phrase the news media is "the enemy of the people" into a mantra, by virtue of stating it repetitively? If I defended his right to say it, could I nonetheless say it's irresponsible for him to say it? Yes, my free speech gives me the right to call him irresponsible in this case. And, if it's irresponsible, given the function of a free press to speak truth to power in a democracy, then should he be saying it, to the point of being a mantra?

I believe he does damage to one of our most important democratic institutions by both saying it in the first place, and turning it into a political mantra in the second place. The behavior of his rally attendees toward the press in attendance at those rallies, would suggest they believe the press is their enemy. He did not create that belief, but he promotes it, and his words carry more weight then yours or mine.

So, yeah, it is his speech I want to stop. Because it's irresponsible to say it, and damaging to a democratic institution by saying it over and over, not because he does not have the freedom to say it.

Imagine that the press was having some sort of contest to twist every one of your statements into the worst possible interperetation. Imagine that they were making up evidence to claim that you were a criminal. Imagine that large portions of the press were actively working to undermine you. That is what is happening to Trump (at least from his perspective). Many (notice that I did not say "all") of the breathless claims the press has been making over the last 2.5 years have been proven false. So how would you feel about the press if you were someone they had been telling these sorts of untruths about over all this time? I know I would not enjoy being lied about in that way.

Unfortunately all of this might be an unavoidable pitfall of social media and 24/7 news (which are both here to stay).

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I wish, just occasionally, conservatives would not conflate the notions of "collusion", which clearly did happen and is not illegal, with "conspiracy", which is illegal. When the Trump team got advance word of the Wikileaks dump, it was collusion. When Trump Jr. took the Trump tower meeting with a Russian operative, it was collusion (and to my understanding, only not illegal because this was an occasion knowledge of the law was needed for an act to be illegal).



If you mean the Steele dossier, that was produced well before the FBI got involved, as the very article you quoted explained.

The allegation is that the Steele dossier was used as evidence to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. Your clarification that it was produced before the FBI got involved does the opposite of refuting that post you are responding to.

And it's pretty funny to me that you are now accusing conservatives of turning "collusion" into some sort of naughty word. Have you somehow missed the way that the anti-Trump crowd has been throwing that word around for the last 2.5 years?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

We are not free of problems, but there are far worse places to live and regimes to live under.

100% agree.

 

[One Brow]

The allegation is that the Steele dossier was used as evidence to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. Your clarification that it was produced before the FBI got involved does the opposite of refuting that post you are responding to.

To quote the post to which I responded, with important words in bold, "The FBI colluded with Trump's political opponents to produce the original Trump dossier,...".

Last I heard, parts of the Steele dossier were part of the evidence to get the warrant on Page. Wow, what an accusation.

And it's pretty funny to me that you are now accusing conservatives of turning "collusion" into some sort of naughty word. Have you somehow missed the way that the anti-Trump crowd has been throwing that word around for the last 2.5 years?

Not at all. Are all naughty things criminal?

 

[One Brow]

Imagine that the press was having some sort of contest to twist every one of your statements into the worst possible interperetation.

Out of my 56 years, I have only see the press treat a sitting President that way for about 56 of them.

Imagine that they were making up evidence to claim that you were a criminal.

Like claiming that you lied about where you were born and so could not be President of the US?

Imagine that large portions of the press were actively working to undermine you.

Again, 56 out of 56.

That is what is happening to Trump (at least from his perspective).

Well, he is the POTUS.

 

[Red]

Imagine that the press was having some sort of contest to twist every one of your statements into the worst possible interperetation. Imagine that they were making up evidence to claim that you were a criminal. Imagine that large portions of the press were actively working to undermine you. That is what is happening to Trump (at least from his perspective). Many (notice that I did not say "all") of the breathless claims the press has been making over the last 2.5 years have been proven false. So how would you feel about the press if you were someone they had been telling these sorts of untruths about over all this time? I know I would not enjoy being lied about in that way.

Unfortunately all of this might be an unavoidable pitfall of social media and 24/7 news (which are both here to stay).

Sorry, man, another long reply. I believe the lies are originating from Trump's side of the equation. Of course I would not like what you are describing, and I have considered that, and mentioned as much earlier in this thread, as being the reason he's been so bent out of shape by the Mueller investigation and press feeding frenzy at times. But, this is Trump, and I don't believe him for one second.

First, a much more honest and direct answer to the questions you asked me earlier in this thread, regarding spying, etc., would have been that no, I am not concerned with any of the points you mentioned, and in fact I have not followed closely the alternative history or alternative interpretation offered by the Deep State hypothesis. It would have been far better to simply say that, rather then let myself be triggered by a presentation of view points associated with that narrative. I don't mind being labeled biased over this. I have been convinced long since that the Trump/Fox News/Deep State/ Dems-attempted-a-coup narrative is all a lie. And I won't waste my time on it as a result. They have spun several conspiracy theories since the 2016 campaign. I don't expect them to ever stop.

I assume, Trump, Fox News and other Trump-friendly sites, and the GOP in general are running with that narrative to simply provide cover. I still believe Trump feared something where the Mueller investigation was concerned, or he would not have obstructed justice so many times. Sure, it's distracting, but if you really are innocent, just hands off and wait for the findings.

Follow the money. There will be Russian connections, and Trump is hiding that fact. I do believe he is compromised, and if we can get those financial investigations off the ground, we'll find that out. IMO.

This alternative narrative all started with the Nunes Memo. As this Washington Post article points, out, the Deep State narrative launched in part by the Nunes Memo has grown and been increasingly adopted by the entire GOP. Please understand that, to me, this is a construct, a lie, a false narrative designed to protect Trump, and its embrace now by the GOP can be traced to the finding of no conspiracy by Mueller (As Colton has pointed out a couple of times, the Post can be read in incognito mode using chrome browser):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...sing-embrace-trumps-russia-conspiracy-theory/

Now, once again, Trump is focusing on the "coup narrative" in his tweets today:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tru...ims-coup-attempt-fbi-lawyer/story?id=63001147

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/trump-quotes-right-wing-commentator-in-accusing-democrats-of-waging-american-coup

And, another Post opinion piece indicating that Trump is already getting set to use the power of the federal government against the eventual Democratic nominee in 2020:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...et-use-government-destroy-democratic-nominee/

Now, many conservative lawyers are getting on Trump's case for his abuse of power. Over 700 ex prosecutors from GOP and Democratic administrations have signed on to the statement saying they would charge Trump with instruction, based on the Mueller report:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-republican-lawyers-20190512-story.html

 

[Red]

Is this really the rabbit hole you want to go down? Did you watch the videos Red posted? This is news.

Joe, it was just a misunderstanding, we resolved it. Plus, I agree with silesian. China's "social credit" system is best understood in the Chinese historical context of thought control.

 

[Red]

AG Barr has appointed the US Attorney for Ct. to investigate the investigators:

https://www.courant.com/breaking-ne...0190514-y3azsicsb5aezexkat2zltjuxa-story.html

And the view from a conservative news source:

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...emocrats-should-be-quite-worried-about-latest