Fake News

Michael Stuart Kelly
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Jon Letendre
Jon Letendre

“I'm a bit confused, so are you saying that the news about packages targeting the Obamas, Clintons, and others is fake news and a false flag?  If so, then why does Trump say the packages exis

anthony
anthony

I was holding my breath for what the Left Dems would come up with in the runup, and this too conveniently 'fits' my concerns. Many nasties there have shown they are willing to do whatever it takes. I'

Ellen Stuttle
Ellen Stuttle

I think there is a strong enabler complicity among those who sneer at the very idea of real conspiracies being underway - a kind of informal colluding though not precisely conspiring to protect the el

Posted Images

Backlighting Apprentice

Backlighting

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Sharyl Attkisson doesn't use the term "fake news" to describe the mainstream news media, but she describes it to a tee.

The gatekeepers are doing their damnedest to keep control through propaganda, but, thankfully, the gatekeepers are losing their gates.

Michael

Indeed...slimy barbarians at the gate (good movie though).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
william.scherk Mentor

william.scherk

Posted
Posted

Russia Russia Russia!

The grand hoopla commences:

 

Spoiler
Quote
share.png Wall Street Journal:
Mike Flynn Offers to Testify in Exchange for Immunity  —  Former national security adviser tells FBI, the House and Senate intelligence committees he's willing to be interviewed in exchange for deal, officials say  —  WASHINGTON—Mike Flynn, President Donald Trump's former national security adviser …
–
Discussion:
RELATED:
share.png Mike Allen / Axios:
1 big thing: Trump, baffled and brooding  —  Trump, during an opioid and drug abuse listening session Wednesday n the Cabinet Room with Chris Christie, Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos / AP's Evan Vucci  —  President Trump brought his chaos …
share.png New York Times: 
Michael Flynn Offers to Testify Before Congress in Exchange for Immunity
–
Discussion:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peter Veteran

Peter

Posted
Posted

Russia! Russia! Russia! One of these days William is going to go internet viral.

Michael posted a picture of the lovely and intelligent Sharyl “Att kiss on” and Vlad “The Impaler” Putin: The gatekeepers are doing their damnedest to keep control through propaganda, but, thankfully, the gatekeepers are losing their gates. end quote

Imprimis the magazine of Hillsdale College had an excellent article about Putin, called, “How to Think About Vladimir Putin,” by Christopher Caldwell, who is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard. Very well done, though I still think Putin was wrong to annex portions of the Ukraine and Georgia. Trump can work with him as long as Putin stops his expansionism, even though the lands annexed were once part of the Soviet Union. As with El Presidente Trump we need to see the good and denounce the bad.

So, President Trump is all for immunity for Flynn? Damn. That is cool. Still, I would not grant full immunity until we know if laws to some extent, were broken.   

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Michael Stuart Kelly Grand Master

Michael Stuart Kelly

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Joel Pollak over at Breitbart sees what I see.

Blue State Blues: The White House Loves the Russia ‘Scandal

From the article:

Quote

The Trump White House seems quietly to be enjoying the Russia hacking “scandal.”

. . .

... the joke is on the journalists. They are spending so much time on the non-story that they are missing what President Donald Trump is actually doing. He complains on Twitter about the coverage, but the truth is that the distraction is very useful.

. . .

... the media think they are onto something very important.

. . .

... Hillary Rodham Clinton was arguably the most pro-Russian official since Alger Hiss. From the Russian “reset,” to giving up missile defense, to the one-sided New START treaty, to the uranium giveaway, to the loss of the Middle East, and to the loss of the Crimea (which happened on her successor’s watch, while she remained silent), Clinton ran the State Department almost like a post-Soviet satellite.

Indeed, if Donald Trump really wanted to appease Russian President Vladimir Putin, it would be hard to find anything left with which to appease him.

. . .

... the Russia “scandal” is much ado about nothing. But it keeps the media distracted from what Trump is really doing — such as taking a chainsaw to Obama’s regulations — and it keeps the Democrats from developing an actual message.

The beauty of it all? Aside from Trump’s tweets, the media and the Democrats are creating this distraction themselves.

(Pssssssst... in boxing, this is called rope-a-dope.)

:)

Who wouldda thunk Rachel Maddow read Joel?

Because that article was yesterday. Suddenly, here is Maddow today:

Maddow Raises Possibility Trump, Campaign Innocent and ‘Scandal’ Isn’t ‘Existential Presidency-Ending Conflagration’

She tried to make it sound different and not like a retreat, but she had a big-ass problem. Despite the bluster, it didn't sound different. It sounded exactly like a retreat.

:)

Note that the mainstream media is supplying this enormous quantity of fake news about Russia. President Trump is merely channeling what they supply. He is luring them in by faking he is on the ropes and they are furiously punching themselves out. Only when they are good and softened up will he start punching for real.

Anyone wanna take bets on how this round will turn out?

If you say just like the last time and all the other times, meaning Trump wins, you will be right.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ellen Stuttle Community Regular

Ellen Stuttle

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Joel Pollak over at Breitbart sees what I see.

Blue State Blues: The White House Loves the Russia ‘Scandal

From the article:

Quote

... the joke is on the journalists. They are spending so much time on the non-story that they are missing what President Donald Trump is actually doing. He complains on Twitter about the coverage, but the truth is that the distraction is very useful.

 

That's how I've been seeing it too.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Michael Stuart Kelly Grand Master

Michael Stuart Kelly

Posted
  • Author
Posted
52 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

I don't think it is, but Trump can't begin to negotiate with Putin now.

Brant,

What do you think all this stink is about?

I'm not saying President Trump was negotiating with Putin the way the fake news means. I'm saying the way he is setting the table, he will be in a strong position to bargain on almost anything with Putin. The idiot press doesn't see it, but that's what he's doing.

It's The Art of the Deal. Make your opening bids much higher than what you really want to settle for. Then when you back up, it will look like a win for the other side, but it's actually what you wanted all along.

So, in my view, President Trump is already negotiating with Putin. But it's not that idiot narrative we all read about in the press.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites
william.scherk Mentor

william.scherk

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

President Trump is already negotiating with Putin. 

Can you elaborate?

***

In any case, the Russia Russia Russia mess is not going away this week. It is like a supercharged Benghazi meme. 

On the other side of the ledger, some plain words for those who appeased Russia in recent history:
 

Quote

 

When America Toes Moscow’s Line
I saw what happens when a U.S. president lets Vladimir Putin get away with murder. His name was Barack Obama.
By MIKHEIL SAAKASHVILI March 31, 2017

In Ukraine, the Obama administration was totally taken by surprise when Russia began its meddling in yet another once-hopeful U.S. ally. At the time, Ukrainian leaders told me that the only action that Secretary of State Kerry and other American interlocutors took was to insist that the government in Kiev should do nothing to provoke Russia, in particular strongly urging Ukrainians not to use force. As a result, the annexation of Crimea went very smoothly, despite the fact Ukraine had enough forces on the ground to put up strong resistance.

As a result, Russia grew emboldened and did what I, and many other observers, was expecting them to do: Start another military adventure in Donbass, Ukraine’s eastern region. And here again, the Obama administration was stubborn and skittish: They refused to provide defensive antitank weapons to Ukraine. Their hesitancy was a catalyst for further adventures by Russia, which had little fear of a serious U.S. reprisal.

Some of President Obama’s statements were not helpful, either—as when he continuously said, when asked about Ukraine, that the U.S. would defend its allies in NATO. The Russians rightly perceived that comment as signaling America’s unwillingness to defend Ukraine, which hadn’t been lucky enough to make it into NATO in time. And later, President Obama articulated this perverse red line even more directly when, in his interview with The Atlantic Monthly, he basically said the U.S. would never go to war with Russia over Ukraine: “But this is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for. And at the end of the day, there’s always going to be some ambiguity.”

 

Oh, and then there is The View from Moscow:

Kremlin spokesman: U.S.-Russia relations ‘maybe even worse’ than Cold War

Quote

Relations between the U.S. and Russia have devolved to the level of a “new Cold War” or “maybe even worse,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Friday morning as he denied allegations that the Russian government interfered in last year’s U.S. presidential election.

Echoing comments from Russian President Vladimir Putin, who responded to a question about whether his government had sought to interfere in the 2016 race by saying “Watch my lips: No,” Peskov told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that “we’re 100 percent confident” that Putin’s claim will prove true. He said reports that the Kremlin had sought to swing the election were “propaganda” that he admitted has been effective in convincing the American public.


“For more than a year, American audience have been a target for severe anti-Russian propaganda and, of course, they felt victim of that propaganda and that's why lots of American, they do think that, yes, Russian hackers are everywhere,” Peskov said. “Russian hackers are in every fridge. Russian hackers are in every iron. But this is not true. Those are fake news, and this is slander.”

The reports that Peskov chalked up to propaganda have largely been sourced to the intelligence community, which concluded last fall that the Russian government was to blame for a wave of cyberattacks targeting the Democratic National Committee and other high-profile political individuals, most of them Democrats. Further, the intelligence community said Russia engaged in its cyber campaign with the specific aim of aiding President Donald Trump’s candidacy and installing him in the White House.

Trump, whose softer stance toward Russia has puzzled even those in his own party, has promised to seek cooperation where possible with Moscow and has praised Putin’s leadership. Even after the release of the intelligence community’s report last fall, Trump stubbornly refused to accept that Russia was behind the attacks and took even greater exception to the notion that he was the Kremlin’s preferred candidate.

Peskov, though, confirmed that Putin did indeed favor the president over his challenger, Democrat Hillary Clinton, because of Trump’s more open stance toward Russia. Trump, the Kremlin spokesman explained, took a position “in favor of re-establishing good relationship with Russia” even though “we will not be able to agree upon everything.”

 

Edited by william.scherk
Added former Georgian president's commentary, plus the Kremlin's pearl-clutching.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peter Veteran

Peter

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Can you elaborate?

Unbelievable! I say in a factual, non-comical, or awestruck way, Trump is a better conniver than Lyndon B. Johnson! We may see him *negotiate* in a way that implies he is not a free market Republican but his final goal is to institute real reform and if subterfuge is required then he is the man for the job. It just takes some getting used to upgrading and adding a couple of chess moves to your thinking. In a sense he needed the Freedom Caucus to save him from his bad decision to immediately repeal and replace Obamacare. Anyone agree?

And his talks with Putin may follow a similar pattern. Fake news and exaggeration is part of the strategy.

Peter  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
william.scherk Mentor

william.scherk

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

42 minutes ago, Peter said:
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:
3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

President Trump is already negotiating with Putin. 

Can you elaborate?

Unbelievable!

I know. MSK usually has a feel for secret plans of the ruling class.

I would wonder how discussions are going.  Are sanctions relief and another 'reset' in Trump's folder?  What is going to be on the table, and what are America's bottom-line positions in such negotiations?  At some point the issues at that table need to be shared with the American people.

I could speculate, but.

Quote

And [Trump's] talks with Putin may follow a similar pattern.

Well, Trump was on the blower and chairing meetings with 'the enemy' -- even with the 'to be destroyed electorally in 2018' Freedom Caucus members. And he has been talking to them via Twitter.

I don't know if he has secret Russia negotiations underway. He hasn't talked directly to Putin since their last phone call, at least according to the White House.

Quote

Fake news and exaggeration is part of the strategy.

An Objective view on Russia Russia  Russia has not yet formed. There is dissent in  the land!

Edited by william.scherk
Rules for Populists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peter Veteran

Peter

Posted
Posted

William wrote: An Objective view on Russia Russia Russia has not yet formed. There is dissent in the land! end quote

I have no doubt that at some “deniable level” talks with Russia and other countries are preceding. Why are the talks at a subliminal, and not public or maybe even at a deceitful level? Frank talk, like locker room talk, is very informative but is not to be shared with certain people like the general population. It might be misconstrued or cause shame or derision, but being ornery, honest and even vulgar is how bonds may be formed between two competing but soon to be cooperating groups. In Vino Veritas. In wine there is truth. That manner of secret negotiation can be found in business and labor negotiations, politics, and even non official forms of association like sports contests. It is our nature to seek dominance, friendship, and to get our way: you just can’t take the negotiations personally. If the words become public a kind of trust has been broken.

So I don’t condemn secrecy. However, the final political decision must have some transparency.

Peter

From Wikipedia: Area 51 is located in the southern portion of Nevada in the western United States, 83 miles (134 km) north-northwest of Las Vegas. Situated at its center, on the southern shore of Groom Lake, is a large military airfield. The site was acquired by the United States Air Force in 1955, primarily for the flight testing of the Lockheed U-2 aircraft. The area around Area 51, including the small town of Rachel on the "Extraterrestrial Highway", is a popular tourist destination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Michael Stuart Kelly Grand Master

Michael Stuart Kelly

Posted
  • Author
Posted
11 hours ago, william.scherk said:

MSK usually has a feel for secret plans of the ruling class.

I would wonder how discussions are going.  Are sanctions relief and another 'reset' in Trump's folder?  What is going to be on the table, and what are America's bottom-line positions in such negotiations?  At some point the issues at that table need to be shared with the American people.

William,

The very way you worded this is dripped in the anti-Trump fake news narrative.

("... need to be shared with the American people"? Really? That is your issue? You are now an advocate for what needs to be shared with the American people? Come on. You never used to sound like a goofy CNN pundit or political hack before. :) )

I suggest taking a step back and looking at what I said.

I never said Trump was in discussions with Putin. But that is your assumption. You assume it as fact. Fact, fact, I say! And if I say it enough, it may become fact by sheer repetition! :evil: 

I said President Trump was already negotiating with Putin by setting the table (Nikki Haley's UN statement comes to mind as a quick example). He's allowing Putin to see a hardliner who is much different than the sell-outs Obama and Clinton. And, as far as I know, there are no sweet uranium deals on the table in exchange for donations and speaking fees.

I believe some of President Trump's table-settings are much stricter and more anti-Russian than the final negotiated position will be. Read The Art of the Deal and you will see this pattern over and over. And he even explains it explicitly. You create an opening impression (usually by an outrageous opening bid, but there are other ways to create the impression--see, for instance, his story about a dummy construction crew... then you negotiate to the position you really want while the other side thinks it won concessions in the end).

The oddest damn thing about this pattern is that people with a bone to pick with Trump don't see it when it is right in their faces and they still don't see it when it is explained point by point. All they do is keep scratching their heads, presenting fictional narratives as facts on a gotcha crusade, and wondering why nothing sticks to him as they fail over and over.

May I suggest turning off the TV and stop reading fake news for a day? Just one day. You can even keep your own biases. But you will be surprised at how differently it all looks and sounds when you can snap out of the media-induced trance for a little. You might even get your own voice back. :evil:  :) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites
william.scherk Mentor

william.scherk

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 4/1/2017 at 6:42 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Make your opening bids much higher than what you really want to settle for.

"At some point the issues at that [USA-Russia] table need to be shared with the American people." That's my high bid.

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[Trump]'s allowing Putin to see a hardliner who is much different than the sell-outs Obama and Clinton.

I partially agree. The 'sell-out' Clinton was not favoured in the Kremlin. The Kremlin favoured Trump -- on the basis of his public remarks as candidate, which were much friendlier to Russia than Clinton's.

Now, Russia is very disappointed, as my posting yesterday showed. Nothing substantial has changed from the Obama policy, and while the Kremlin denies any collusion with the Trump campaign, its meddling in the US election is a 'political fact' noted by top Trump administration foreign policy voices. (eg, UN Ambassador Haley does not mince words about the meddling)

Where I agree is that the Kremlin sees the same institutional barriers to sanctions relief as they did in 2016.  For all intents and purposes, Russia faces the same American barriers to its goals as before.

I think, I speculate, that the very existence of the Russia Russia Russia three-ringed hoopla -- a very messy, very public, very confusing and wide-ranging hoopla -- constrains the Trump administration from any policy changes that candidate Trump promised -- right now and in the near future.  The 'meddling' at the core of Russia Russia Russia prevents immediate 'softening' of the Obama-Trump hardline on sanctions and other penalties.  It is political reality now  that constrains an abrupt shift or relaxing of penalties paid by Russia for its past actions.

Back in July 2016, I speculated that a Russia 'thing' would continue to hang around ...

A weird story that will probably continue to simmer for the remaining months of the 2016 Presidential election:  what are Donald J Trump's ties to Russian interests?  How can the purported ties be established in fact? Is there any record that can be examined?  Would Trump tax returns show something hinky or surprising in this regard?

In that speculative note, I mentioned Manafort and Page. At the time nothing was known of Mike Flynn's intriguing relationships with foreign interests, nor the back-stage lobbying and politicking conducted during the Republican National Convention.  We knew nothing of the genesis of the RNC Ukraine-policy softening (which pleased Russia), we knew nothing of any coincidental meetings between Trump men and Putin men during that platform change.

At that time, all we had to go on was "What does Trump propose for USA-Russia relations?"  And all the evidence came from Trump's statements as policy wishes on the stump.  Wouldn't it be nice if Russia and the USA got along?

That was, perhaps, Trump's opening, high bid, the 'nice' situation for Putin vis a vis sanctions.

Now we see the opening bid is no longer on the table. 

Quote

And, as far as I know, there are no sweet uranium deals on the table in exchange for donations and speaking fees.

I keep hearing about the 'sweet uranium deal' on Clinton's watch as Secretary of State. Would anyone care to compile the facts on this?  How to compare to sanction relief "exchange."

Michael, you may argue that there is nothing at all to Russia Russia Russia (beyond the meddling) in terms of quid pro quo. I understand that.  And I understand that underneath all the bumf about Russia Russia Russia is perhaps nothing more than co-incidental interests converging. In other words, no co-ordination, no quid pro quo, no explicit collusion, no 'pay offs,' no compromat, no particular crime or ethical lapse by any agent of Trump (save, perhaps, Flynn), and no strings attached.  

In that situation, where we learn that Trump had always yearned for a re-set with Russia, that his strategic vision saw the danger of a new 'cold war' not actually benefitting US interests, well, then the door is open to implementing that strategy.

What I am getting at is that until the hoopla relaxes, until the committees of benghazi get through their business, until the matter is definitively settled in Trump's favour ... the President cannot make major moves in this area. 

In that sense, it doesn't matter if there is zero evidence of collusion emerging from the benghazi committees. It doesn't matter. Trump cannot make another high bid promising relief to Russia.

A canny strategic thinker knows who his counterpart's friends are, and grasps the long-term goals of the alliances.  Russia has many friends who are not friends of the USA.   This too will constrain Trump. Eg, if Iran is a friend of Russia, if Iran is a beneficiary of a new Russia ''relax," then sanctions relief will have to be calibrated carefully, staged, made subject to conditions, and not unduly benefit Iran.

I am actually glad that Trump brought in the Russia file (strategy). It brings into relief the different value systems of America and Russia. It unleashes debate that will be helpful to Trump's long-term goals. It thrashes things out.

At some point, Russia will be brought in from the cold.  I believe America will need to have negotiated with itself before opening doors for the adversary.

After the thrashing out of fk nws and wild exaggeration, after a consensus forms in the body politic, America can make a steely-eyed offer to Russia. In exchange for this (relief), you will ... fix your borders with Ukraine and bring your conflict to peaceful resolution. You will fix your problem in broken Syria. You will accept NATO and EU expansion where popular opinion demands it. You will cease your meddling and black arts in Western elections.

I expect that Trump deal will be as steely-eyed and demanding as any US administration. 

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly quoted WSS, who said:

Are sanctions relief and another 'reset' in Trump's folder?  What is going to be on the table, and what are America's bottom-line positions in such negotiations?

I believe the answer to the first question is Yes.  I can only speculate on what will be 'on the table,' but my vision is clouded.  

That's why we need you, Michael, to use your superior vision of Trump mind-set, policy and procedure. I bet you could sketch out a good likeness, what Russia-USA relations look like once the process of change is accomplished.  An end-point portrait.

You might even agree with my opinion that the process is slowed or hobbled by Russia Russia Russia 'fake news' and the congressional commissions of benghazi.

Edited by william.scherk
Glaring errors, syntax, spelling, you name it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peter Veteran

Peter

Posted
Posted

I predict that America’s Russian relationship will remain similar to what it is now. Hands off and wary. We have vodka from our own distilleries, so their biggest export is oil, and we have oil, gas and coal in such abundance it is slowing research in other renewable energy sources, including safer, better nuclear plants as the old plants disintegrate with time. It may be funny but what we want from Russia is their smartest and prettiest citizens. What does Russia import from us?

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peter Veteran

Peter

Posted
Posted

One other thought about Russia. What have they contributed to world knowledge since the fall of communism? What products or innovations have they created? Putin has supposedly lessened the ability of the kleptocracy to steal from its citizens but who in their right mind would try to bring a product to the world market if some ex KGB or billionaire who stole his money from the dissolving Soviet Union is going to expropriate your invention?

I see China is now producing more synthetic heroin than anybody else and it is killing a lot of Americans with poor judgment.  

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites
william.scherk Mentor

william.scherk

Posted
Posted (edited)

While I am on the subject ... recursion.  A different angle, a different road taken.

14 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
On 4/1/2017 at 9:46 AM, william.scherk said:

I would wonder how discussions are going.  Are sanctions relief and another 'reset' in Trump's folder?  What is going to be on the table, and what are America's bottom-line positions in such negotiations?  At some point the issues at that table need to be shared with the American people.

("... need to be shared with the American people"? Really? That is your issue?

It is an observation, an opinion, and pretty plain james. At some point Americans will get to know what changes Trump intends, in some detail. Until then, it's a need-to-know situation, as you or Peter pointed out. From the tea-leaves, from the silos of partisan hackery, from the entrails of sheep, from our own speculative fevers ...

Compare and contrast a recent and fraught 'deal,' that between the Western signatories and Iran. While the actual exchanges were confidential at the various negotiating tables over the years, the process reporting explained bottom lines and goals of all parties. At some point the entire 'deal' was  shared with the American people.

I'd suggest your argument missed the point of "at some point" (in time)

As for personal remarks ...

Quote

You are now an advocate for what needs to be shared with the American people?

At some point, the American people need to know what is proposed in any 'deal.'  I don't think you disagree with that, so the characterization applies broadly.  We are both 'advocates' of a certain level of public scrutiny.

Quote

Come on. You never used to sound like a goofy CNN pundit or political hack before.

It's okay. Warm milk. 

Quote

I suggest taking a step back and looking at what I said.

Good suggestion.   I see that we probably agree across the board, at least at some points.

Following your suggestion and the Principle of Charity (which seems to be a subtext), can you not explain my opinion to me without added floss about being a goofy hack? As some VIP here once said, "you are better than this."  Insert neutral-faced emoticon.

14 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

May I suggest turning off the TV and stop reading fake news for a day? Just one day. You can even keep your own biases. But you will be surprised at how differently it all looks and sounds when you can snap out of the media-induced trance for a little. You might even get your own voice back.

Yikes.  When you go full Charity ...

Anyway, the sharpest point I made to interested readers was that a Trump 'deal' with Russia will eventually be unveiled and need scrutiny. Once the Russia Russia Russia "Feks Nawe" hoopla is purged and the commissions of benghazi finish their labours ...

Who put the Hoo in Hoopla?  Who put the Biz in Byzantine ...

Quote

share.png Matea Gold / Washington Post:

Michael Flynn did not initially reveal income from Russia-related entities on his personal financial disclosure  —  Before resigning under pressure as President Trump's national security adviser, Michael Flynn submitted a personal financial disclosure form to federal ethics officials that failed …
RELATED:

 

 
As of tomorrow I am moving to The Lake.  Goodbye Parm. Goodbye border town. Goodbye to all my elderly acquaintances. Goodbye to my favourite check-out clerk. God be with you, good be with you, goodbye.
Edited by william.scherk
To the lake, to the lake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Michael Stuart Kelly Grand Master

Michael Stuart Kelly

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

It is an observation, an opinion, and pretty plain james.

William,

Actually this is a platitude and means nothing about the American people. It means that the pundit saying it wants power and is covering it with high-sounding yawp. 

Since we primates learn by imitation, this urge to imitate leads us in horrible directions at times. The reason the idiots in the mainstream media keep repeating phrases like "the American people deserve" and "share with the American people" and so on is to get people to imitate it like parrots and turn off their brains.

You are not the only one who falls for this crap. I do, too, at times. Welcome to the human race.

The trick is to recognize it when it happens and slam the brakes on the covert conditioning.

At least you have a brain. So I know you see this, whether you want to own up to it in public or not.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Michael Stuart Kelly Grand Master

Michael Stuart Kelly

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

The Kremlin favoured Trump...

William,

And how, pray tell, do you know this? The mainstream media? Think about it. Do you know any reliable source in the Kremlin? For that matter, do you know any reliable source about the Kremlin in the mainstream media?

Read deeper and you will find plenty of articles about the Kremlin really favoring Clinton. So what to believe? The yawp yawp yawp blasted at you 24/7?

That affirmation is the kind of crap the mainstream media tries to inject in people's brains by sheer repetition.

You may like this brain freezing shit, but not me.

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I keep hearing about the 'sweet uranium deal' on Clinton's watch as Secretary of State. Would anyone care to compile the facts on this?

This was first detailed in a book called Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich by Peter Schweizer. Since then, it has been debated a little--but not too much since it is uncomfortable for Clinton supporters. It has not been debunked--other than some woefully fact-challenged radical left-wingers saying it has been debunked in yawp yawp yawp dismissive tones.

I don't have time right now, but later I will find a summary of the main points. 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites
william.scherk Mentor

william.scherk

Posted
Posted (edited)

Disantidebunkerizationalism ...

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

The Kremlin favoured Trump...

And how, pray tell, do you know this?

It is as plain as the nose on your face, in my opinion. It surprises me that you would see it otherwise (by otherwise I mean the Kremlin favouring Clinton in 2016).

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You may like this brain freezing shit, but not me.

What happened to the Principle of Charity, Michael? On my last day at the desk here, what else can signal profitable disagreement?  

Cultus+Lake-1(still).JPG

Edited by william.scherk
Trigger words.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peter Veteran

Peter

Posted
Posted

Michael wrote: William, And how, pray tell, do you know this? The mainstream media? Think about it. Do you know any reliable source in the Kremlin? For that matter, do you know any reliable source about the Kremlin in the mainstream media? end quote

On the face of it, those questions seem derogatory to the press, and like prying and irrelevant to logical argument . . .  but those questions do weigh a ton. Or as they spell it in Canada and Britain, “They weigh a tonne.” Where do we get our info? What are our thought process with that info? Do we keep track of how often we are wrong? Do we trust anyone else’s judgment?

Peter     

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Michael Stuart Kelly Grand Master

Michael Stuart Kelly

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

It is as plain as the nose on your face, in my opinion. It surprises me that you would see it otherwise (by otherwise I mean the Kremlin favouring Clinton in 2016).

William.

I know.

With all that repeating of opinion as fact in the media for the last few months, if you are one of those it worked on, it feels odd that someone else sees it unplain, most definitely not like the nose on their face.

This is exactly what happens when one's perspective is restricted to inside their bubbles and core stories. Reality feels odd.

I'm not speaking as someone immune to this. I catch myself succumbing all the time and I fight against it. And it's hard.

I just think it's awful to see it engineered from the outside on so many good people with good brains.

Check that premise if you dare, William. How do you know the Kremlin preferred Trump over Clinton? How do you know other than it feels right? Try to find a rational answer to that and you will see what I mean.

Even when one notices that Putin said good things about Trump, everyone who follows the party-line that the Kremlin preferred Trump over Clinton also claim that Putin lies all the time. So was Putin lying when he praised Trump? Or telling the truth? Or does Putin only lie when it is convenient to those who don't like Trump? Hmmmmm? :) How do you square that circle?

You can't, that's how.

(btw - I believe Putin praised Trump back then to get under Obama's skin--notice that it worked at the time :) , but I also believe Putin knows Trump is a much different animal than Obama or Clinton--he's a lion, not a weasel--and Putin respects a tough enemy in a warrior kind of way.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Michael Stuart Kelly Grand Master

Michael Stuart Kelly

Posted
  • Author
Posted
8 hours ago, william.scherk said:

What happened to the Principle of Charity, Michael?

William,

If I didn't value you so highly, I wouldn't bother saying what I'm saying to you. That's time and effort out of my life I could use on my own productive efforts. 

How about using the Principle of Charity right back when considering that?

:) 

Michael

 

EDIT: Let me be clear. I don't mind when you come out blazing against a position of mine like you sometimes do. At times it is magnificent. (Other times not so much :) , but your bar is still good and high most of the time.)

But when you come out regurgitating MSM platitudes and buzz phrases and talking point leading questions as if they are facts "as plain as the nose on your face," or as serious discourse, somebody has to say, "Wake the fuck up. You're in a trance, dude."  :) Keep your disagreement if you will, but get back to the competent independent-thinking full-metal-jacket pre-frontal cortex William. This mindless lockstep is discomfiting to see out of you. Why? Because I know better. I've seen it. Many times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peter Veteran

Peter

Posted
Posted

Michael wrote: I just think it's awful to see it engineered from the outside on so many good people with good brains. end quote

How can you tell if your thinking has been manipulated? This is going to the heart of Epistemology. Even Objectivists must acknowledge and understand the brain washing they may have experienced.    

Michael asked William: How do you know the Kremlin preferred Trump over Clinton? How do you know other than it feels right? Try to find a rational answer to that and you will see what I mean. end quote

The nexus is when you acknowledge, “this is what I already thought, and this presentation of somebody else’s thoughts agrees with what I already thought. And so does this article or news caster. So now I am truly right and vindicated. Now I am certain. Now I can prove I am right.  

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peter Veteran

Peter

Posted
Posted

From the net: Melania is continuing to “surge in popularity.” Is that really true? Be skeptical.

Most intelligent people are not scientists. In my last letter, I was making my thinking as simple as possible, and it does sound simple. But the key is what did the person bring to the table before this dilemma arose? Unless they have a revelation or a Eureka moment they will always be grounded in their stockade of prior conclusions . . .  and no reasoning or facts will change their mind. At some point you must conclude they are a lost cause. You could tell Chuck Schumer to check his premises and try to get him to describe them but he probably could not. And you are not his psychiatrist.

Peter    

Link to comment
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
 Share
Go to topic listing