|
On December 18 2018 04:18 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2018 02:25 brian wrote:the man speaks perfectly fine spanish. instead of ‘ignorant americans speak only one language’ he’s just mad a white (presumably the real problem isn’t that he’s white but that he’s a white dem) dude is catering to his constituency by speaking spanish. what an absurd complaint, one not even based in reality (there’s a surprise.) sorry it’s only on facebook after my ten seconds of looking, but here he is holding a perfectly normal conversation on a spanish broadcast lol. https://www.facebook.com/betoorourke/videos/1641502012566169On December 18 2018 02:20 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 18 2018 02:02 IgnE wrote:
what’s “pretend mexican?” His real name is Francis and he is of Irish ascent, not "Beto". His spanish is both terrible and speaks EXACTLY in the way that english speaking people speak spanish. All native spanish speakers have a distinct phonetic that allows us to tell where someone is from (I.e. I can tell if someone is from Chile/Argentina/Mexico or Spain just be listening to someone, even if they use the exact same words) his name is Robert Francis O’Rourke. people don’t generally go by their middle names round these parts. do you actually not know this? assuming we now agree his spanish isn’t at all terrible; this just in, people speak foreign languages with accents indicative of their mother tongue. isn’t english your second language? does this not strike you as hypocritical and, sorry in advance, very stupid on your behalf? His spanish is terrible, he conjugates verbs incorrectly all the time; if it suts you, we can call it "bad". You can't tell because it's not your first language; he has broken spanish, it is understandable though. "pueden ir a un escuela público"was "este noche" "yo estoy coriendo" "ahora en la mismas escuelas" "somos una de los comunidades" etc, tons of examples 2 mins in the video you linked. I don't mind people speaking other languages, I think that's great. I mind pretending ancestry you don't have, wasn't "cultural appropiation" a left thing? why is he doing it? I speak english, I don't claim to be british or american on job interviews. I do stand corrected, his name is Robert, not "beto", which isn't even a real spanish name usually.
quoting me semantic (in the literal sense) mistakes where the sentence is still perfectly clear serves more towards my argument than yours, in my opinion. though the ‘estoy corriendo*’ is pretty funny. i could do the very same with your posts, and wouldn’t it be weird if i attacked your identity as an american over it? a) because you’ve not claimed american ancestry, and b) because it’s perfectly understandable english and i’m not an asshole.
twice you explicitly called out his spanish, so when you say ‘i don’t mind people speaking other languages,’ i have to admit i just don’t believe you.
if you want to make it about him claiming hispanic heritage, you’ll have to back that up with a little more than a persons nickname. he was born in el paso. having an hispanic nickname in an hispanic city(a city with a significant hispanic over-representation? pick whichever you’d prefer) is a far cry from appopriation. i mean he didn’t even pick it himself, i don’t know what more there is to say here.
‘not even a spanish name, usually.’ this isn’t true, but let’s say it is. then what the fuck are you even saying? if it’s not him speaking spanish, and it’s not his name, what exactly IS it?
On December 18 2018 04:38 GoTuNk! wrote:
i do believe he would get mocked for being a "fake mexican" if he were to run as president. It is dirty business.
so to be clear: all this ‘dirty business’ is outrage prep for a hypothetical 2020 run? this begs the question, if it’s dirty does that not imply it’s bullshit? and then why are you falling for it or peddling it here?
bonus question, do you know Cruz’s first name? hint, he goes by ‘Ted’
|
Looks like Mueller did file the original Flynn interview 302 under seal. Now the judge wants it filed openly. This should be interesting.
![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/3d03w503ax421.jpg)
EDIT: Here it is.
|
I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly Flynn would have lied about reading the original 302. He says that he doesn't remember what he talked with Kislyak about multiple times. Flynn acknowledges that might have talked with Kislyak about the expulsions. The only other thing that gets asked multiple times is whether Flynn asked Kislyak to have Russia vote a certain way on a UN vote regarding Israeli settlements, which Flynn denied.
EDIT: So here's a good exercise in fake news. The AP says:
Portions of the FBI interview notes at the center of the false statements case against Michael Flynn have been released.
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s office has publicly filed a redacted version of the document in the case of President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser. The move come in response to a federal judge’s order ahead of Flynn’s sentencing Tuesday.
The documents show that FBI agents interviewed Flynn about his contacts with Russia, including past trips to the country and his conversations with Sergey Kislyak, then Russia’s ambassador to the U.S.
Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about the contents of those conversations with Kislyak. The notes show Flynn told agents he didn’t tell Kislyak not to escalate its response to Obama sanctions on Russia. But he admitted last year that he did.
Here's what the notes actually say:
The interviewing agents asked FLYNN if he recalled any conversation with Kislyak in which the expulsions were discussed, where FLYNN might have encouraged KISLYAK not to escalate the situation, to keep the Russian response reciprocal, or not to engage in a "tit-for-tat." FLYNN responded, "Not really. I don't remember. It wasn't, 'Don't do anything.'"
That's an "I don't remember answer," not the basis for a criminal charge of lying to the feds. And again, McCabe's notes already show that Flynn knew that the FBI had the transcript of his call with Kislyak, so I'm not sure why Flynn would lie about not recalling the details of the conversation in the first place.
|
There are three sentences here and they each say different things. Only one says I don't remember.
"Not really. I don't remember. It wasn't, 'Don't do anything.'"
Seems like he's giving a bit of a conflicting answer there. But the last sentence actually seems to be providing some detail. And if he had actually said on the call with Kislyak, "don't do anything," I'm guessing that's the lie.
|
On December 18 2018 12:05 Doodsmack wrote:
There are three sentences here and they each say different things. Only one says I don't remember.
"Not really. I don't remember. It wasn't, 'Don't do anything.'"
Seems like he's giving a bit of a conflicting answer there. But the last sentence actually seems to be providing some detail. And if he had actually said on the call with Kislyak, "don't do anything," I'm guessing that's the lie.
Maybe. Considering 1) that Flynn said he was trying to preserve his relationship with Kislyak, 2) Flynn said he couldn't remember, and 3) the overall lack of materiality to the statement, the charge seems pretty weak sauce. We'll see what the judge has to say tomorrow. Regardless, I think the real leverage was the FARA charge. Given the recent indictments of the other Turkish agents, it's definitely clear that one of the investigations that Flynn assisted with had to do with Turkish lobbying.
|
Nate Silver finally saying what I said when this bs narrative first went around.
I'm hoping the lack of people on TL trying to push this yet again is a direct result of my effort to disabuse them of that propaganda. But I'll take it if Nate saying it is enough to kill this nonsense narrative for good.
|
5000 tweet says nothing, what matters is actual reach of the tweets. I didn't see the article clarifying on this. If some of the trollfarm tweets circulated enough to alter discourse, and with that voting patterns, that is already significant enough to want to focus upon.
|
On December 18 2018 21:05 plated.rawr wrote:
5000 tweet says nothing, what matters is actual reach of the tweets. I didn't see the article clarifying on this. If some of the trollfarm tweets circulated enough to alter discourse, and with that voting patterns, that is already significant enough to want to focus upon.
It really isn't. It's not even in the top 100 things as Nate says.
It's a narrative built to distract from far more problematic issues generated by far more influential domestic media and policy.
|
On December 18 2018 21:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2018 21:05 plated.rawr wrote:
5000 tweet says nothing, what matters is actual reach of the tweets. I didn't see the article clarifying on this. If some of the trollfarm tweets circulated enough to alter discourse, and with that voting patterns, that is already significant enough to want to focus upon. It really isn't. It's not even in the top 100 things as Nate says. It's a narrative built to distract from far more problematic issues generated by far more influential domestic media and policy.
Dunno. Those tweets often seem to end up on T_D, and more than one's ended up as the subject of one of Trump's tweets. It's overblown of course, but it's obvious that they get some good reach on those 5000 tweets.
|
On December 18 2018 23:04 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2018 21:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 18 2018 21:05 plated.rawr wrote:
5000 tweet says nothing, what matters is actual reach of the tweets. I didn't see the article clarifying on this. If some of the trollfarm tweets circulated enough to alter discourse, and with that voting patterns, that is already significant enough to want to focus upon. It really isn't. It's not even in the top 100 things as Nate says. It's a narrative built to distract from far more problematic issues generated by far more influential domestic media and policy. Dunno. Those tweets often seem to end up on T_D, and more than one's ended up as the subject of one of Trump's tweets. It's overblown of course, but it's obvious that they get some good reach on those 5000 tweets.
I'm sorta talking about the latest push by our corporate media blaming Russia for Hillary's poor performance with Black people but it's certainly applicable beyond that.
Part of the problem is when you look at a lot of the stuff that generated the most interactions they are the political equivalent of 2+2=4.
That Russia generates millions of impressions with stuff like that is incomparably less important than why stating it in public is supposed to be a nefarious act meant to compromise the integrity of our elections. Alternatively the stupid Jesus Satan meme's and so forth speak again to a far more important domestic problem than Russians adding .1% of it to our election.
Every story about Russia's influence would have been more valuable if those word counts were used to talk about the stories about why there are divisions for Russia to exacerbate in the first place.
|
There's no mystery as to why liberals in the media are starting to abandon the Russia collusion story. Not only is there zero corroborating evidence to support it, but it is inconsistent with the testimony of their new golden boy, Michael Cohen.
|
Trump is making a huge mistake by taking the Wall off of the table.
|
He's been offered funding for the wall multiple times earlier in the year. Turned it all down, even the bills with bipartisan support that were going to provide 20B~. Now they're scrounging for 5. Art of the deal.
|
On December 19 2018 01:20 xDaunt wrote:
Trump is making a huge mistake by taking the Wall off of the table.
Source?
He has two or three good things going for him among his base. First, he's pushed for wall funding and repeatedly cites its ongoing importance to national sovereignty. He strikes a good contrast to RINO politicians that talk a tough border security talk during election season, then advance legislation with amnesty now-security later bills. Hedging on this will cost him. Any substantial retreat from border wall promises will erode trust in supporters that don't want another politician that only talks tough. Secondly, he takes a no holds barred approach to doublespeak regarding culture wars, virtue signalling, and political correctness. MS-13 are animals for trafficking girls for sex and dismembering their victims. International climate change agreements are stupid and hurt or disadvantage the US. If you understand Trump and this current atmosphere at all, you get how necessary the point of these messages are, even disregarding the boorish manner of delivery (and sadly here, understanding is in short supply). Thirdly, he strikes an American first foreign policy. I'm opposed to the heavy-handed protectionism and trade war basket, but supportive of bold unilateral support of our ally Israel, striking trade deals with American interests at heart, and a tough approach to our longtime enemy and terrorist sponsor, Iran.
|
On December 19 2018 01:20 xDaunt wrote:
Trump is making a huge mistake by taking the Wall off of the table.
I'm curious for a source too. All I get when I google stuff about the wall are comments the Dems made at the start of December or way back in January.
|
|
|
Looks like the judge has serious misgivings about accepting Flynn's plea. He has given Flynn every opportunity and then some to back out of it. Let's see what he does after this recess.
EDIT: Of course, Flynn's real problem is likely the FARA offense. He can't withdraw his plea or he'll face prosecution for that.
|
Gentlemanly murderers don’t just dismember their slain. They put them in vats of hydrofluoric acid and dump them in the desert.
|
On December 19 2018 02:28 IgnE wrote:
Gentlemanly murderers don’t just dismember their slain. They put them in vats of hydrofluoric acid and dump them in the desert.
I’ll need a source for this.
|
Flynn's judge has successfully seen past the conservative conspiracy theories surrounding Flynn and is showing every sign that he'll give out the appropriate punishment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
