Sign in to follow this  
deicer

Trump 2.0 Continues

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

Occasionally I will take a moment and try to figure out things that make no sense to me. This is one of those attempts and I’m no further ahead as a result of looking. As always though, I come away with the notion that the Democrats damn well better be right or they are going to look pretty silly. This has been an extended diet of nothing burgers and I wonder if US voters are as hungry as I am.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/12/17/alan-dershowitz-fbi-absolutely-tried-trap-flynn-nobody-understands-why-he-lied

Flynn should have known what the FBI was capable of.  When they started the questioning, knowing what he said because they had the transcripts,  Flynn should have just come clean.  The spectacular spin Fox is trying to put on this is fun to watch.

Fox is now caught between a rock and a hard place.  Why?  Not only are they trying to spin hard for the Trump faithful, they must be having an attack of conscience because this is the article that was right under the article you posted.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/12/17/judge-napolitano-michael-flynn-sentencing-no-entrapment-no-jail-time-no-explanation

So even Fox is hedging it's bets now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at this foolishness only in the context of snapshots.... it's not a hobby for me.

So he is guilty of lying to people who already knew the truth about something he did, the doing of which not only wasn't illegal, it was his job to do. So, the only thing illegal was the lie that wasn't really a lie because it wasn't material. The next time your wife asks how the new jeans look, I recommend caution....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, deicer said:

Yes, but the truth always comes out, even with your wife.....

 

“ Federal investigators have now moved on to explore even murkier depths of the president’s wrongdoing. Sources tell CNN who tell sources their sources say that sources are telling CNN that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is now looking into whether Trump lied when he recently said that his administration was the best administration in American history. According to NBC Legal Analyst Crackpot McSillyFace, since Trump made this statement while an episode of Law And Order was playing on a nearby TV, it would constitute an act of perjury according to the laws of Grand Fenwick, a country from the hilarious comic novel The Mouse that Roared, “

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I think I have it.... here's how it all plays out:

My wife gets a new pair of jeans and asks how they look from the back. I overlook the hole in the butt (it's a fashion statement) and say, “fine.” At the restaurant, my sister in law tells her they have a hole in the butt and should have been returned. My wife tells her (while I’m getting drinks) that I said they looked great. My sister in law asks me (while my wife is in the bathroom) why I told her the jeans looked fantastic…. I reply that I never said that (because I actually didn’t and I can already see that everyone is upset by the fact they think I did).

When she gets back from the washroom my sister in law throws me under the bus and announces that I lied by saying I never said that they looked fantastic. My wife feels that lying to her sister is worse than the lie she has now convinced herself I told her in the first place. Everyone is mad at me and the ride home is quieter than normal.

As I see it, I never said they looked great, I never said they looked fantastic….  I just said they looked fine. I didn’t lie about the hole either, I thought she paid extra for it.

Later, I come to realize that I never cared how they looked in the first place. My brother in law who actually thought they looked fine, later joins me in the guest house after he has the same fight with his wife for thinking what he thought even though he never said what he thought until after he was warned about what to think… we are both confused and decide to join the Republican Party. The next day, the girls don't seem to care anymore and my back is sore...

 

 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall Deicer's past focus on this PHD's study, but not the thread the discussion originally took place in.

Here in this short clip John Stossel exposes the mass media's ability to spin up the gullible masses using fake news and direct the public opinion.

 

 

Edited by DEFCON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/united-states-lower-death-shootings/

The source of the list is a 2015 article published by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), a pro-gun rights nonprofit run by economist John Lott. In his research, Lott found that between 2009 and 2015, the number of people killed in a mass shooting in the United States (in relation to the overall population) was lower than it was in several European countries, including Norway, France, Switzerland and Finland.

Our conclusion is that this is accurate based on the CPRC’s definition of a mass shooting, but also extremely misleading. It uses inappropriate statistical methods to obscure the reality that mass shootings are very rare in most countries, so that when they do happen they have an outsized statistical effect. Of the countries chosen by Lott for his analysis, the United States is by some distance the most consistent site of mass shootings.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://qz.com/1212809/compare-us-mass-shootings-and-gun-control-to-germany-china-russia-switzerland-and-australia/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/05/does-us-lead-world-mass-shootings/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e57b7051de49

The Bottom Line

We appreciate Lott's willingness to recalculate his results based on our questions, as well as his decision to make public the voluminous data he has collected as he tried to replicate Lankford's findings. Lankford has chosen to keep his data set private, which makes it difficult to understand how the two researchers come to such different conclusions. Indeed, Lott was unaware that Lankford did not include the Mumbai attacks in his data set until The Fact Checker learned that from Lankford. (That's because Lankford refused to respond to his queries.) Lott's results changed when he removed cases that might not fit the public's definition of a mass shooting, just as they would change if a different definition of mass shooting is used.

A consistent definition of mass shooting — and public databases that display the relevant data — thus are necessary for the two sides of the gun debate to even begin to have a discussion on this issue. Lankford should reveal his dataset so it can receive the same scrutiny as Lott's work.

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, boestar said:

you know that works on BOTH sides Right???

I certainly do, the Liberals have surpassed all expectations with it. You need only look to Canadian statistics in the last year to see blatant statistical manipulation go unchallenged on a breathtaking level. What that says to me is simply that anything beyond pointing out blatant lies is a waste of time. People will search the internet for stats that serve to support their position without even considering if they be true or not. Discussion is futile... only blatant lies have merit now. The good news is that serial liars almost always overplay their hands... that's why I'm now fairly confident the Liberals have lost this round. They got greedy to the point of foolishness. 

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone can find a website to outlet to serve their side of an argument.  This is why quoting youtube videos and web articles is not supportive of any argument

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An accurate assessment Boestar, but not always.

In my post the presenter asks several questions and points out several glaring errors in the methodology used by the study's author.

Garbage in, garbage out?

Before a Phd's paper receives wide acceptance it typically undergoes rigorous review by 'peers'.

In this case the media presented an untested theory, which is a rough opinion from the perspective of science, as fact to the general public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but I could author a paper presenting a specific and find several people to corroborate the paper as peer reviewed.  (look at any climate paper on either side).

The presentation of Proved and verifiable FACT should be the only thing the news outlets report. PERIOD.  Opinions can be formulated and presented as such but in today age opinion is passed along as fact all too frequently.  Again this goes for bot sides.

Any news outlet today (and I mean ANY) has its own political agenda, be it Left or Right leaning. it doesn't matter if it's "Main Stream" of some guy passing off "news" from his basement on youtube.  There IS an agenda.  Knowing this and recognizing this is what MILLIONS of people fail to do and they only view "NEWS" that echos their particular feelings and biases. 

So while the right will poke at CNN for being "Fake News" the Left will poke Fox for the same thing.

Untested theories are FREQUENTLY passed along as fact on internet pages disguised as news pages.  I see this ll the time.  "NEW BETTER BATTERY WILL WIPE OUT LITHIUM ION" Just saw that one yesterday.  Further investigation reveals that it could be a game changer if they can get it to work at room temperature as opposed to 300 degrees F.  It is like premature ejaculation of news.  Need the scoop so we will publish it, right or wrong.

The world today thrives on instant gratification and news is no different.  the problem lies in that today news is not trying to give you the news they are trying to get your money by getting you to click.  you are just a commodity to be exploited.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to write a book.  It will be called "How to Eat Cake and Ice Cream and Still Lose 5 Pounds a day"

It will just be a book full of blank pages with a fancy cover but it will sell millions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More information coming out about Russian manipulation after the election and how they targeted Muelller.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/russian-disinformation-teams-targeted-robert-s-mueller-iii-says-report-prepared-for-senate/2018/12/17/0e0047f6-0230-11e9-8186-4ec26a485713_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.19140abc77d5

Months after President Trump took office, Russia’s disinformation teams trained their sights on a new target: special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Having worked to help get Trump into the White House, they now worked to neutralize the biggest threat to his staying there.

The Russian operatives unloaded on Mueller through fake accounts on Facebook, Twitter and beyond, falsely claiming that the former FBI director was corrupt and that the allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election were crackpot conspiracies. One post on Instagram — which emerged as an especially potent weapon in the Russian social media arsenal — claimed that Mueller had worked in the past with “radical Islamic groups.”

Such tactics exemplified how Russian teams ranged nimbly across social media platforms in a shrewd online influence operation aimed squarely at American voters. The effort started earlier than commonly understood and lasted longer while relying on the strengths of different sites to manipulate distinct slices of the electorate, according to a pair of comprehensive new reports prepared for the Senate Intelligence Committee and released Monday.

One of the reports, written by Oxford University’s Computational Propaganda Project and network analysis firm Graphika, became public when The Washington Post obtained it and published its highlights Sunday. The other report was by social media research firm New Knowledge, Columbia University and Canfield Research.

Together the reports describe the Russian campaign with sweep and detail not before available. The researchers analyzed more than 10 million posts and messages on every major social media platform to understand how the Russians used American technology to build a sprawling online disinformation machine, with each piece playing a designated role while supporting the others with links and other connections.

The reports also underscore the difficulty of defeating Russian disinformation as operatives moved easily from platform to platform, making the process of detecting and deleting misleading posts impossible for any company to manage on its own.

Washington Post’s Craig Timberg on 'failure' to quickly understand Russia's disinformation campaign

Washington Post National Technology Reporter Craig Timberg discusses missed signals at the start of Russia's disinformation campaign. (Washington Post Live)

Twitter hit political and journalistic elites. Facebook and its advertising targeting tools divided the electorate into demographic and ideological segments ripe for manipulation, with particular focus on energizing conservatives and suppressing African Americans, who traditionally are more likely to vote for Democrats.

YouTube provided a free online library of more than 1,100 disinformation videos. PayPal helped raise money and move politically themed merchandise designed by the Russian teams, such as “I SUPPORT AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT” T-shirts. Tumblr, Medium, Vine, Reddit and various other websites also played roles.

“We hope that these reports provide clarity for the American people and policymakers alike, and make clear the sweeping scope of the operation and the long game being played,” said Renee DiResta, research director at New Knowledge.

Social media researchers said the weaponization of these sites and services highlights the broadening challenge they face in combating the increasingly sophisticated tactics of Russia and other foreign malefactors online.

“Some of the platforms that don’t have as much traffic, but still have highly engaged communities, are the most vulnerable to a challenge like misinformation,” said Graham Brookie, head of the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab. “They don’t have the resources to dedicate to making their platforms more resilient.”

What we know about Russia's cyber tactics

Here's what we know about the Kremlin's playbook for creating division in the U.S. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

One unexpected star of the new reports Monday was Facebook’s photo-sharing subsidiary Instagram. Over the years of the disinformation campaign, Instagram generated responses on a scale beyond any of the others — with 187 million comments, likes and other user reactions, more than Twitter and Facebook combined.

But it had been the least scrutinized of the major platforms before this week as lawmakers, researchers and journalists focused more heavily on Facebook, Twitter and Google. Instagram’s use by the Russian teams more than doubled in the first six months after Trump’s election, the researchers found. It also offered access to a younger demographic and provided easy likes in a simple, engaging format.

“Instagram’s appeal is that’s where the kids are, and that seems to be where the Russians went,” said Philip N. Howard, head of the Oxford research group.

The report anchored by New Knowledge found that the Russians posted on Instagram 116,000 times, nearly double the number of times they did on Facebook, as documented in the report. The most popular posts praised African American culture and achievement, but the Russians also targeted this community for voter suppression messages on multiple platforms, urging boycotts of the election or spreading false information on how to vote. 

On Monday, the NAACP called for a week-long boycott of Facebook starting Tuesday, saying the company’s business practices — and the spread of “disingenuous portrayals of the African American community” on its site — should prompt further congressional investigation. 

Facebook said in a statement that it has “made progress in helping prevent interference on our platforms during elections, strengthened our policies against voter suppression ahead of the 2018 midterms, and funded independent research on the impact of social media on democracy.”

Tumblr pointed to a November blog post, which said the company took down Russian-related disinformation ahead of this year’s election. PayPal said it “works to combat and prevent the illicit use of our services.” Twitter said it has made “significant strides since 2016 to counter ma­nipu­la­tion of our service.” Reddit said it is “always evaluating and evolving our approaches to detecting malicious activity and have grown our team significantly since 2016.” Medium did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The emergence of Mueller as a significant target also highlights the adaptability of the Russian campaign. He was appointed in May 2017 as special counsel to investigate allegations of Russian influence on the Trump campaign. In that role, he has indicted on criminal charges a Kremlin-linked troll farm called the Internet Research Agency and others affiliated with the disinformation campaign.

A Clemson University research team, not affiliated with either of the reports released Monday, found that the Russians tweeted about Mueller more than 5,000 times, including retweets first posted by others. Some called for his firing, while others mocked him as incompetent and still others campaigned for the end of his “entire fake investigation.”

The report by New Knowledge highlighted the focus on Mueller and fired FBI director James B. Comey, who was falsely portrayed as “a dirty cop.”

The Russian operatives often spread jokes to undermine the investigations into their disinformation campaign, the researchers found. One showed Democrat Hillary Clinton saying, “Everyone I don’t like is A Russian Hacker.” Another showed a woman in a car talking to a police officer, with the caption, “IT’S NOT MY FAULT OFFICER, THE RUSSIANS HACKED MY SPEEDOMETER.”

At one point, shortly after the 2016 election, the Russian operatives also began to make fun of Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg for saying that social media didn’t have an impact on Trump’s victory — a claim for which he later apologized.

On Capitol Hill, top Democrats said Monday that the revelations in the pair of Senate reports underscored the need to study social media and consider fresh regulation in order to stop Russia and other foreign actors from manipulating American democracy in future elections.

“I think all the platforms remain keenly vulnerable, and I don’t have the confidence yet companies have invested the resources and people power necessary to deal with the scope of the problem,” said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

In particular, Schiff described the Instagram revelations as “surprising,” contradicting the data and testimony Facebook previously provided to the committee. “If Facebook was unaware of it, it’s one problem,” he said. “If they were aware of it and didn’t share that information, that’s a completely different problem.”

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the chairman of the committee that asked the researchers to analyze the tech companies’ data, said the findings show “how aggressively Russia sought to divide Americans by race, religion and ideology.”

Every other GOP lawmaker on the Senate Intelligence Committee declined to comment or didn’t respond. 

Facebook executives barely discussed the role of Instagram when they testified before Congress late last year about Russian meddling. At the time, the company said that the Russian campaign reached 126 million people on Facebook and 20 million on Instagram.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, deicer said:

More information coming out about Russian manipulation after the election...

Keep watching, by the time JT is finished bribing the media and adjusting voter registration rules we will be praying for Russian manipulation... when it comes to manipulation, JT has rendered the Russian efforts amateurish at best.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So after vehemently denying it, now, because of Cohen, the letter of intent is out proving Trump was working with the Russians on a project.

Another lie overturned...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/18/politics/trump-signed-letter-of-intent-rudy-giuliani-moscow/index.html

A newly obtained document shows President Donald Trump signed a letter of intent to move forward with negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Russia, despite his attorney Rudy Giuliani claiming on Sunday the document was never signed.

CNN's Chris Cuomo obtained a copy of the signed letter of intent that set the stage for negotiations for Trump condominiums, a hotel and commercial property in the heart of Moscow. The letter is dated October 28, 2015, and bears the President's signature.

When asked on Sunday about the letter, Giuliani incorrectly told CNN's Dana Bash that it had not been signed.

"It was a real estate project. There was a letter of intent to go forward, but no one signed it," Giuliani told Bash.

The non-binding document is also signed by Andrey Rozov, owner of I.C. Expert Investment Co., the Russian firm that would have been responsible for developing the property.

READ: How Trump Tower fits into Russian interference

Trump did not tell the public during the 2016 presidential campaign that his company explored the business deal with Russia and instead repeatedly claimed he had "nothing to do with Russia." But the project, which was ultimately scrapped, would've given Trump's company a $4 million upfront fee, no upfront costs, a percentage of the sales and control over marketing and design. The deal also included an opportunity to name the hotel spa after Trump's daughter Ivanka.

The special counsel's team investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election alleges the deal could have been lucrative for the Trump Organization.

While the potential Trump Tower Moscow deal was on the table, then-candidate Trump was speaking positively about working with Russian President Vladimir Putin and minimizing Russia's aggressive military moves around the world.

Giuliani suggested on Sunday that Trump had spoken with Michael Cohen, Trump's corporate attorney at the time, later than January 2016 about the proposed Moscow project, and said in an interview with ABC that the conversations may have gone as far as toward the end of the general election period.

"According to the answer that he gave, it would have covered all the way up to November of -- covered all the way up to November 2016," Giuliani said, seemingly referencing Trump's written responses to special counsel Robert Mueller.

On Tuesday, Giuliani told CNN that the question to Trump from Mueller was more generally asking if Trump talked to Cohen about the project. The question was not about specific dates or conversations, Giuliani said.

CNN previously obtained a draft of the letter that Trump eventually signed. In 2017, Cohen told congressional committees investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election that Trump had signed the letter. Donald Trump Jr. also testified to Congress that his father signed the letter of intent.

Last week, Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for crimes that included arranging payments during the 2016 presidential election to silence women who claimed affairs with Trump. Trump has denied the affairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only follow this occasionally because it’s all beyond comprehension to me, the Flynn thing is a  perfect example of what I mean.

I know this is a big deal in Democratic circles but after 127 pages I can tell you that I’m no more concerned about hotel construction and porn stars than I was at the start of page one. Had he not been involved in Russian real estate ventures, I would have been surprised. I bet Santa’s RRSP holds stock in toy companies too. If it is lies you are concerned about, the ground in Canada is much more fertile.

My only concern here is collusion and conspiracy to rig an election result. Occasionally, as this ebbs and flows, I will go looking for hard evidence to that effect. To date I have found none. If you have it please share and allow me the pleasure of agreeing with you. In the absence of it, the cost and distraction of this serves no one… least of all Democrats who, BTW, will be judged by the outcome of it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have ever had any experience being in court, you would know that nothing happens quickly.  It takes a very long time to bring out the truth, especially when you have an affair with as many moving parts as this one does.

Just because you have found no conspiracy, doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.  You and I and pretty much everyone who is going to be affected by this proceeding are not privy to the machinations of what the Russians and the Trumps have done.  So to expect to have the 'aha' moment just isn't going to happen.

What is occurring is that one by one the lies of Trump are being exposed and overturned.  The work that Trump has put into this with 'alternative facts' and the money he is putting into lawyers is only slowing things down more.

We as global citizens have to expose this so that we can hopefully learn and protect from it happening again.

That is why we need trusted news sources. 

If you have concerns that Canada is more fertile grounds for this sort of activity, then push the RCMP for an investigation.  All I see is a lot of hand wringing on the right, a lot of memes claiming outrage over what Trudeau is doing, but no investigations, indictments, or convictions.  Unlike what is happening in the U.S.

I guess what I am saying is that the outrage I am seeing from the right is exactly the same sort of agitation that led up to the election of Trump.  Lies, deception, confusion.

It is a proven matter now that the Russians put a lot of time and effort into damaging democracy.  It could be that it is happening here in Canada now with our election coming up next year.  I for one have tried to research and look for the facts under the layer of confusion, and as I have stated before, Canada is stable.  Perfect, no.  Just stable.

So if you want to compare us to them, I think it is apples to pomegranates.

Every piece that is being put into the puzzle has been vetted.  Guilty pleas and convictions in the matter are real.  

The only untruths are the ones being told by Trump and his team, and it is damaging the U.S. in unmeasurable ways.

Let's not do that here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, deicer said:

Just because you have found no conspiracy, doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. 

That is a twist on the gold panner's philosophy and sometimes the only thing that sustains them. I admire their optimism but most would have done better driving trucks.

To some extent, and sad though it is, lies and manipulations are a reality both here and there (not to mention everywhere else I’ve been). In fact, they were JT’s undoing here as he over played his hand to the point of it becoming silly, its obvious silliness is now on full display for all to see on a number of issues. Had that been accomplished with a bit more finesse, I would be far more concerned about outcomes than I am currently.

In short, if it isn’t manifestly unlawful, and, in the absence of integrity as a qualification for the job, I prefer the default position of good governance until evidence of criminality is presented. So, if you have evidence present it, if you don’t get back to work and show me that you are an entity I can vote for next time around. If you have accomplished neither by voting day I think it will prove problematic. That seems like sound advice to me… it's what I would do anyway.

The Democrats have thrown a lot of eggs into this basket and can no longer afford to be wrong. I’m left with the notion that this is now the driver behind much of the investigative process. In short, they now have no alternative but to pursue it aggressively and desperately need to find that smoking gun. Reams of "stuff" that doesn't matter (to me anyway) only serve to convince their base of progress and maintain morale in the absence of legislative objectives. When I see things that simply don’t make sense to me, I start looking for, and expecting to find an agenda. If there is a trace of hysterical outrage on my part, it is reserved almost exclusively for hypocrisy.... and perhaps the selective outrage of the far left. I consider Flynns lie to be orders of magnitude less than JT's, it even seems silly.... the FBI new the answer before they asked the question and he new that they new. He could have just said "ya, I talked to them, it was my job, next question".  BTW, Russian efforts to subvert democracy are older than I am and I consider it a given. Without them and Jihadists I would have spent a lot more time at home.

This guy lied to Congress and that's illegal too, it was arguably far more damaging and done for personal profit. Where is all the Democratic outrage? The more I hear about the Flynn situation the sillier it all sounds.

 https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/facebook-information-data-nyt-privacy-1.4952474

 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this