|
bro you cut out the good bits
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
Might as well post the whole transcript:quote:The President: [laughter] That’s a very good idea. I think your country is very happy about that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 16:32
|
|
|
i will absolutely die laughing if that is real, and also if its just the president dictating a fake transcript which i could also 100% believe because Foucalt's Pendulum is a documentary about the future sent back into the past
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
quote:Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000%
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 16:40
|
|
|
All signs point to: this is the least objectionable call, the one they thought looked best to release.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Might as well post the whole transcript: that's not a transcript
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
OJ MIST 2 THE DICK posted:that's not a transcript CNN is now referring to it as a "rough transcript"  Also: https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/1176896651727908866?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
They also sent a followup email to "recall" that first email and also the email that followed it because that's definitely how it works.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
skylined! posted:!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 15:39
|
|
|
Is there another thread discussing this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
I think USPOL is currently where most of the discussion is happening.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
so is this a coup
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 06:19
|
|
|
oh hey speaking of foreign russian interference https://twitter.com/NickNehamas/status/1177746479890534400 quote:A military official formerly in charge of all White House communications for the U.S. Army at Mar-a-Lago was sentenced to three years of probation on Friday after he made false statements to a federal agent during a child pornography investigation. but, i mean, who gives a gently caress now? Right? Now we're all concerned with how joe biden's family got their large adult son getting a sweetheart deal unfairly brought to light because trump is incapable of coloring inside the lines. What a strange thing for nobody to give a gently caress about until prompted by a combative post on the internet, where im sure a lot of people cared a whole bunch this whole time and will continue to do so for as many as 24 to 48 hours.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 06:28
|
|
|
jeffrey epstein was loving murdered and the media apparatus who claims its normal for two cameras to "malfunction" while a billionaire wraps tissue paper bedsheets along a column that doesn't exist in a SHU to sit down so hard he broke his neck in two separate places will not make a loving peep about the actual crimes of a white house official also being deep into some kids, because so is everyone else in the .1%. nobody talks about this on this forum, and it is a point in their disfavor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 06:38
|
|
|
I still care, just busy as poo poo. Also the NRA news.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 06:44
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I still care, just busy as poo poo. Not that i don't care about you or the things you've got going on IRL, but for the sake of this thread's minor purview of things that are definitely true: We're all busy. With all due respect, you're not the only one with poo poo to do, lol Epstein may as well have not existed, for all the heft he pulled six months ago. Epstein was up to his rear end in Mossad and CIA contacts, and had every billionaire in his black book including Trump--though according to the trafficked women he was apparently unusually well behaved compared to Bill Clinton. Yet it is trump's inappropriate pursuit of a VP's son getting appointed to a then-State-connected oil board getting traction. I cannot wait to see how this develops amongst a base who rallied against the Deep StateTM. I keep harping on it because the same media that pumps Ukrainegate buries Epstein. this is important. The actual vulnerabilities remain as purposeful blindspots! We instead focus on bullshit. We don't focus on the concentration camps, we don't focus on executive orders or evident mental unfitness. No, only drawing attention to backroom dealing. That is a bridge too far, unlike the other bridges.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 07:10
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Not that i don't care about you or the things you've got going on IRL, but for the sake of this thread's minor purview of things that are definitely true: We're all busy. With all due respect, you're not the only one with poo poo to do, lol Busy is my normal baseline. Maybe exhausted is a better word. I've fallen asleep writing this post. Look Willie it's a radical, foundational issue for many people. We can say (correctly) the reason for that is because of ideology, a myth, a narrative, that is being participated in by the people it's a foundational issue for. Is that myth one that needs to be broken? Does the symbolic act (impeachment) matter to the portion of us that participate in that myth? Does it matter more or less in the shaping of future events than those other issues (Epstein, the camps, etc)? I don't know. I mean don't get me wrong holy poo poo is the level im at with both the Epstein thing and the camps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
lol i definitely thought the epstein thing was gonna have some long term consequences for a lot of things, including lets say, bill clinton's legacy. im such a rube
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
incidentally times sure have changed around here though. i think even this forum agrees bill clinton is a likely rapist but back in the day I got proped in CSPAM! for trying to discuss it
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
Zas posted:lol i definitely thought the epstein thing was gonna have some long term consequences for a lot of things, including lets say, bill clinton's legacy. im such a rube Don’t count long term consequences out yet; the FBI has just started an investigation into Prince Andrew, along with all the other ongoing Epstein-related investigations and court cases. Of course, we can’t ignore the possibility of basically all the rich/famous people involved getting off scot-free either. It’s too early to say.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 03:55
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Don’t count long term consequences out yet; the FBI has just started an investigation into Prince Andrew, along with all the other ongoing Epstein-related investigations and court cases. Of course, we can’t ignore the possibility of basically all the rich/famous people involved getting off scot-free either. It’s too early to say. Do you seriously think Epstein was running his operation without, at bare minimum, the FBI being aware of and generally supportive of his actions? They are almost certainly the agency responsible for getting him a slap on the wrist last time: The Palm Beach Post posted:The one line was part of a brief missive dated Sept. 18, 2008, closing the case: “On 9/11/08, case agent advised writer that Epstein is currently being prosecuted by the State of Florida and is complying with all conditions of his plea with the State of Florida. Epstein has also provided information to the FBI as agreed upon. Case agent advised that no federal prosecution will occur in this matter as long as Epstein continues to uphold his agreement with the State of Florida. ... Case agent is requested to contact writer in the event this matter moves forward on a federal level.” Epstein wasn't operating under the noises of federal law enforcement, he enjoyed their active protection and support. Remember all the agitation people expressed when they thought Putin had blackmail material on the president? Do you really think the entire US security state apparatus just sat by twiddling their thumbs for decades while Epstein was blatantly entrapping major politicians, philanthropists and cultural figures? If that were the case then that ought to be a scandal ten times the size of Russiagate and deserving of a massive congressional inquiry and a root-and-branch reform of the CIA and FBI because they apparently sat by for decades while multiple former / future Presidents and dozens of other extremely significant figures were compromised in ways that make the worst Steele dossier allegations look trivial in comparison. It would be one of the greatest 'national security' failures in human history if Epstein really were running his own op and nobody in the US government knew or cared to stop it even following his initial arrest. Of course that's not what happened because Epstein was their guy, but I encourage people to actually think through what it would be necessary to believe if you want to really tell yourself that the FBI and CIA were completely ignorant of what Epstein and co were up to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 19:45
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It would be one of the greatest 'national security' failures in human history if Epstein really were running his own op and nobody in the US government knew or cared to stop it even following his initial arrest. and how do you think the US government, especially under Donald loving Trump, would handle this? that actually pretty much handily explains why this is getting swept under the rug so hard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
i do quite like that helsing of all loving people is deep into the epstein conspiracy i'm not even saying you're wrong there, helsing, i'm saying you're credulous when you like the conspiracy being proposed and will go to enormous lengths to be skeptical when you don't like it
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2019 07:30
|
|
|
Pointing out that the core Russiagate narrative was based almost exclusively on assertions from various (usually unspecified) classified intelligence sources - mostly from agencies or specific individuals that had a recent record of misleading the public on national security issues - is hardly an example of my going "to enormous lengths" to be skeptical. Pointing out that many of Trump's foreign policy decisions don't align with the core claims of Russiagate is not me going "to enormous lengths" to be skeptical. Saying that the public should demand evidence from public figures claiming a foreign enemy committed an act of war is not me going "to enormous lengths" to be skeptical. That's the baseline for how any informed person should view such claims, and most of my skepticism about Russiagate developed gradually as I realized that such evidence was not going to be forthcoming. I didn't start at that point, I moved there gradually because that's where the accumulating data pointed. Because I kept an open mind and did my best to follow the story as it developed I was the only active poster in the last Russiagate thread who accurately predicted the outcome of the Mueller probe before the report hit. I didn't reach that out of reflexive blanket skepticism, I reached that conclusion by actually following the story and doing my best to analyze those claims based on my own areas of knowledge and expertise. As for Epstein, pointing out that the major US foreign and domestic intelligence services were certainly not unaware of Epstein cavorting with dozens of the world's powerful and important people - even after his conviction for underage sex trafficking and after they raided his properties and found dozens of hidden cameras - is hardly being "credulous" or "deep into" anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
Moving this out from the primary thread...MinisterSinister posted:I think that stems from the supposed connections to Trump's campaign that the Russians had (therefore being associated with Russia is shorthand for being associated with Trump), but it's also because those other influencers you listed have goals in mind that don't involve, y'know, the collapse of the American world order and the suffering of our nation. Israel wants US approval and support so it can keep doing... what it's doing in Palestine, and Saudi Arabia wants US support so that Iran doesn't escalate things with them further. Both nations have self-preservation as their main goal in their political involvement in the US, and that is debatably not as bad as what Russia wants. The collapse of the so-called "American world order" will not cause significant suffering to the American people. It might cause significant suffering to American-owned international business interests which have depended on American imperialism to turn other countries into profit centers for US billionaires for more than a century, sure. But the only ill effect that the average American is likely to see from that is whatever trouble is caused as a result of the billionaire interests aggressively lobbying the government to make up for their losses by either utterly destroying the world or utterly destroying American labor law as we know it. Putin doesn't need the US to fall apart, he just needs the US to stop trying to extend its sphere of influence right up to Russia's borders and beyond. Russia has little interest in utterly destroying the US, it just wants the US to be too tied up in domestic matters or isolationism to bother with political meddling in places that are far closer to Russian borders than to American borders. Harming the American empire is not the same as harming Americans. And frankly, if the American Empire literally collapses simply because Russia bought five or six digits worth of Facebook ads and leaked some emails, then we were clearly on the brink of destroying ourselves regardless of that tiny Russian contribution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
The fun part about exiling discussion of Russian election interference to the Conspiracy Thread is that it's not a loving conspiracy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
How are u posted:The fun part about exiling discussion of Russian election interference to the Conspiracy Thread is that it's not a loving conspiracy. You seem to not understand what the word "conspiracy" means.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
How are u posted:lmao Russia has actively been rebuilding, modernizing, and testing new generations of nuclear weapons for like the last decade. Poor plucky little Russia, forced into nukes by Amerikkkan Imperialism. correct, russia has been developing new nuclear weapons systems ever since dubya pulled the us unilaterally out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty in 2002. this is why it is so dangerous to normalize breaking all of the arms control treaties with russia because putin = bad. deliberately breaking the status quo equilibrium of nuclear deterrence just forces the other side to counter by developing new weapons technologies, which just makes nuclear war more likely. and don't act like this is some sort of weird tankie position, this has been standard policy in the us since the 70s. when bush pulled out of the ABM treaty, he was panned by democrats and state department wonks for doing so. now russiagate has rotted liberal brains so badly that they cheer on as the arms control work of decades is thrown out the window.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
Pulling out of nuclear antiproliferation treaties because you want to proliferate nukes and then whining how unfair it is that nukes are proliferating is the most American thing probably ever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 00:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Pulling out of nuclear antiproliferation treaties because you want to proliferate nukes and then whining how unfair it is that nukes are proliferating is the most American thing probably ever. somehow profiting off of each part of that would be better
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:
I'll bite. Exactly which "liberals" have applauded Trump's pull-out of the INF treaty?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
predicto posted:I'll bite. Exactly which "liberals" have applauded Trump's pull-out of the INF treaty? i was actually talking to one of people involved in negotiating the new START treaty a few weeks ago (they know a family member tangentially). i was kind of dismayed at how thoroughly they believed in the russiagate stuff, and how little they cared about the US backing out of the IMF treaty. here's a quote from a former democratic candidate CNN interviewed in their story about the withdrawl: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/nuclear-treaty-inf-us-withdraws-russia/index.html quote:Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a former NATO supreme allied commander, said on CNN "New Day" that the termination of the treaty also marks "one more ratchet up on the movement towards a more adversarial relationship with Russia." perhaps 'applauded' was too strong, but a lot of the liberal press adopted this tone of 'dangerous, but necessary for national security.'
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:i was actually talking to one of people involved in negotiating the new START treaty a few weeks ago (they know a family member tangentially). i was kind of dismayed at how thoroughly they believed in the russiagate stuff, and how little they cared about the US backing out of the IMF treaty. General Wesley loving Clark? That's all you go? The guy who said "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls" Wesley Clarke? And no, the liberal press did not "adopt a tone of 'dangerous, but necessary for national security." I've done some googling, and as far as I can tell that is entirely in your imagination.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 04:43
|
|
|
predicto posted:General Wesley loving Clark? That's all you go? The guy who said "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls" Wesley Clarke? this is from the council for foreign relations magazine. pretty representative organ of the liberal national security people. if you're saying that those are the worst wing of the democratic party, then yes, but they still have a lot of influence. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2019-08-29/good-riddance-inf-treaty "Exiting the INF Treaty is no panacea, but it opens much-needed possibilities for Washington to reset the military balance with Beijing in its favor. Washington should use this opportunity to develop and deploy its own missiles to counter the Chinese threat—or risk being steamrolled in a future confrontation."
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 05:47
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:this is from the council for foreign relations magazine. pretty representative organ of the liberal national security people. if you're saying that those are the worst wing of the democratic party, then yes, but they still have a lot of influence. Andrew Erickson is not a liberal and he is not the liberal press. He is a China hawk who works for the Naval War College. And the Council on Foreign Relations magazine posts articles across the range - I found quite a few bemoaning the demise of the INF treaty. It appears that your definition of "the liberal press" is really "two conservatives that I found after googling for a long time." Maybe you can point us to a liberal Heritage Foundation article next. And your underlying claim that "now russiagate has rotted liberal brains so badly that they cheer on as the arms control work of decades is thrown out the window" is complete nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
predicto posted:Andrew Erickson is not a liberal and he is not the liberal press. He is a China hawk who works for the Naval War College. And the Council on Foreign Relations magazine posts articles across the range - I found quite a few bemoaning the demise of the INF treaty. Rachel Maddow's reporting on North Korea is a pretty clear cut example of this. She was arguing that just having an unconditional meeting with the North Korean president and halting extremely provocative wargames right off the North Korean coast were some kind of humiliating concessions by the United States that played directly into the hands of Vladimir Putin. I think a more rational position would be that halting ultra-provocative military maneuvres and agreeing to meet with the other side's leadership is a fairly basic prerequisite for any meaningful negotiation. Yet here we have Maddow literally talking like one of the raving generals from Dr. Strangelove. The Obama administration also tried to limit the lethal aid it exported to Ukraine and in particular refused to send them Javelin missiles, which were viewed as a provocative escalation of the situation. When Trump came into office the approved the sale of lethal aid including Javelin missiles. However, now that Trump is getting impeached for his conduct in Ukraine the Democratic consensus has seemingly shifted to "its absolutely vital we send Javelin missiles to Ukraine to protect them from Russia!" Then there's also the fact that 188 Democrats in the House just voted in favour of Trump's latest National Defense Authorization Act. The military budget has gone up about 140 billion since Obama left office. Included in this bill is the creation of a militarized space force and a new strategic focus on countering Russia, including updating the country's nuclear arsenal. The silence and in many cases acquiescence of the Democratic leadership on this is shameful. It's also a notable change from back in 2012 when the Democrats all made fun of Mitt Romney for his Russia fearmongering or even 2014 when the Pentagon's stated position was to aim for “preserving strategic stability”. Contrast that with how Mattis described the new Pentagon strategy back in 2018: Politico posted:“This strategy is fit for our time — providing the American people the military required to protect our way of life, stand with our allies and live up to our responsibility to pass intact to the next generation those freedoms that all of us enjoy here today," Mattis said in an address at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. This is genuine madness. The United States military budget isn't about survival. Yet there's no pushback coming from the mainstream Democratic party on this insane warmongering rhetoric because actually the Democrats seem to agree that an ultra-aggressive anti-Russia policy is the only sensible thing to be done. Meanwhile arms control experts warn that after 20 years of stalled progress the danger of a nuclear war is the highest it has been since World War II.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
Just like everyone else in DnD, I don't want to play Helsing games anymore. There's a good reason this thread is dead as a doornail - discussing anything with you is pointless. I asked someone else a question about something he said, and his inability to support his claim has become pretty apparent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
predicto posted:Just like everyone else in DnD, I don't want to play Helsing games anymore. There's a good reason this thread is dead as a doornail - discussing anything with you is pointless. Being wrong probably does make it more difficult to discuss things, I'll grant you that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
predicto posted:Just like everyone else in DnD, I don't want to play Helsing games anymore. There's a good reason this thread is dead as a doornail - discussing anything with you is pointless. lmao "Well his claim ended up being well-supported, but someone else pointed out the support so it doesn't count and reality is still whatever I like"
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
Helsing posted:The silence and in many cases acquiescence of the Democratic leadership on this is shameful. It's also a notable change from back in 2012 when the Democrats all made fun of Mitt Romney for his Russia fearmongering or even 2014 when the Pentagon's stated position was to aim for “preserving strategic stability”. Contrast that with how Mattis described the new Pentagon strategy back in 2018: Why do you think that is Hellsing? They clearly believe that Russia intervened in the 2016 election. Even if you believe they're wrong to believe that, they do believe that, and treating the Russians as enemy #1 given that belief is not surprising.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 06:18
|
|