|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 28 2018 02:18 Mohdoo wrote:
Wikileaks' response to this recent news makes me think its definitely true.
Check out Glenn Greenwald. He is choosing to believe Wikileaks because it advances his political narrative. He says he is "waiting for evidence", but when you look at the raw panic in the rest of his tweets it is super clear that he isn't waiting for anything.
+ Show Spoiler +
He has even gotten to the point where he is pulling out whataboutisms about there being Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, and that makes liberal criticisms of Russian military aggression against Ukraine illegitimate?
+ Show Spoiler +
Glenn is going full bore raw Russian propagandist with a mix of weird anti-Ukraine stuff and panicked appeals to epistemology (the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion). This kind of panic pretty much confirms GG knew Assange met with Manafort.
|
On November 28 2018 02:26 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 02:18 Mohdoo wrote:
Wikileaks' response to this recent news makes me think its definitely true. Check out Glenn Greenwald. He is choosing to believe Wikileaks because it advances his political narrative. He says he is "waiting for evidence", but when you look at the raw panic in the rest of his tweets it is super clear that he isn't waiting for anything. + Show Spoiler +He has even gotten to the point where he is pulling out whataboutisms about there being Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, and that makes liberal criticisms of Russian military aggression against Ukraine illegitimate? + Show Spoiler +Glenn is going full bore raw Russian propagandist with a mix of weird anti-Ukraine stuff and panicked appeals to epistemology (the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion). This kind of panic pretty much confirms GG knew Assange met with Manafort.
You can generally tell a revelation ends up being true based on how many methods of deflection are offered in response. Don't forget, Glenn was adamant the Trump tower meeting never happened. It is important that we keep in mind people didn't believe things that are many levels down from where we are currently at.
|
There are a lot of things I'll accept as being under the increasingly sprawling umbrella of "neo-nazi symbols" Drinking milk is the line I draw between things they can corrupt and things they can't. I would posit that this is the bar we should accept for these things.
I don't really understand how the okay symbol is neo-nazi but I can accept if thats the thing they(the nazies) want to make into a thing
|
Attacking anonymous sources is the place you go when you have no counter argument to the story. And of course, the whataboutism, which is also the place you go when you have nothing to add, but don't like the story in front of you.
|
On November 28 2018 02:33 Plansix wrote:
Attacking anonymous sources is the place you go when you have no counter argument to the story. And of course, the whataboutism, which is also the place you go when you have nothing to add, but don't like the story in front of you.
Considering how many people related to all this have died, such as this guy: https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-official-linked-to-natalia-veselnitskaya-the-trump-tower-lawyer-is-dead
It is just common sense to remain anonymous. Being anything other than anonymous when you are ratting out Russia is downright retarded.
I still firmly believe that the assassinations in England were only done to show potential rats that they can't hide from Putin. England could be said to be the 2nd highest profile place to assassinate someone besides the US. People need to remember how many people connected to the dossier have died or gone into hiding.
|
Glenn has been talking about the Ukraine Neo-nazi issue for days now:
It seems like a worthless attempt to call it whataboutism. Anyone who posts at the volume Glenn has could just as easily be accused of whataboutism simply by talking about multiple topics at once.
And otherwise he's saying, "lets see more evidence" which seems alarming for people to say is a bad idea. If you don't believe the story I think you're more likely wrong than right, but that doesn't mean there's a big gap in evidence to the story as it is right now.
----
Also what's this about rats? That's a ridiculous conspiracy hole to go down. If this meeting did happen, and it was leaked, the leakers are probably US or Ecuadorian staffers that have some relatively mundane piece of evidence like a video tape or internal communication about the meeting.
The notion that such people would be the target of a Russian assassination is ridiculous.
|
On November 28 2018 02:54 Logo wrote:Glenn has been talking about the Ukraine Neo-nazi issue for days now: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1067038425591816193It seems like a worthless attempt to call it whataboutism. Anyone who posts at the volume Glenn has could just as easily be accused of whataboutism simply by talking about multiple topics at once. And otherwise he's saying, "lets see more evidence" which seems alarming for people to say is a bad idea. If you don't believe the story I think you're more likely wrong than right, but that doesn't mean there's a big gap in evidence to the story as it is right now. ---- Also what's this about rats? That's a ridiculous conspiracy hole to go down. If this meeting did happen, and it was leaked, the leakers are probably US or Ecuadorian staffers that have some relatively mundane piece of evidence like a video tape or internal communication about the meeting. The notion that such people would be the target of a Russian assassination is ridiculous.
Why would this be ridiculous, exactly? Do you have some expertise to back up this equally wild claim?
And Glenn doesn't seem to be waiting for more evidence to appear, but is simply saying the story isn't true. That isn't waiting or even following his own advice. So if he doesn't want to follow his own advice, why should I?
|
On November 28 2018 03:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 02:54 Logo wrote:Glenn has been talking about the Ukraine Neo-nazi issue for days now: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1067038425591816193It seems like a worthless attempt to call it whataboutism. Anyone who posts at the volume Glenn has could just as easily be accused of whataboutism simply by talking about multiple topics at once. And otherwise he's saying, "lets see more evidence" which seems alarming for people to say is a bad idea. If you don't believe the story I think you're more likely wrong than right, but that doesn't mean there's a big gap in evidence to the story as it is right now. ---- Also what's this about rats? That's a ridiculous conspiracy hole to go down. If this meeting did happen, and it was leaked, the leakers are probably US or Ecuadorian staffers that have some relatively mundane piece of evidence like a video tape or internal communication about the meeting. The notion that such people would be the target of a Russian assassination is ridiculous. Why would this be ridiculous, exactly? Do you have some expertise to back up this equally wild claim? And Glenn doesn't seem to be waiting for more evidence to appear, but is simply saying the story isn't true. That isn't waiting or even following his own advice. So if he doesn't want to follow his own advice, why should I?
Well first off the story isn't strictly Russian, the account is mostly between Assange and Wikileaks. Second the leak seems most likely connected to the US investigation given the timing and the information (the Russian side of the info is very vague if the source is coming from that angle). So then you're likely talking about an assassination attempt for something that's already within the Intelligence community of the US and/or Ecuador which makes the attempt pretty ridiculous.
So an assassination here would be the equivalent of Russia assassinating Reality Winner.
|
Let's step through this slower.
Step1: Russia attacks Ukranian boats, seizes straight
Step2: Liberals condemn this military aggression as aggression
Step3: GG complains that liberals are hypocrites because there are neo-Nazis in Ukrainian government (dubious claim) but liberals complain about neo-Nazis yet somehow missed these Nazis so this makes complaints about Russian aggression invalid.
Do you see how this is pure whataboutism? GG isn't even addressing the question of Russian military aggression. He pivots to utter nonsense to try and distract from real world military aggression. And did you read that article? Ukraine has some serious issues right now. They have been invaded by Russia and have been largely losing their war. Far Right militias have been successful in picking off Russians here and there and their political party got some seats. That sucks? But whose fault is it that paramilitaries and militias are forming up to fight the foreign invaders?
Oh wait, it is liberals! Specifically the DNC! Podesta himself is leading this neo-Nazis in their terrorism against Novorussia! (PS it is actually Russian military aggression that is to blame for the rise of fascist paramilitary groups in eastern Ukraine)
|
On November 28 2018 03:20 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 03:16 Plansix wrote:On November 28 2018 02:54 Logo wrote:Glenn has been talking about the Ukraine Neo-nazi issue for days now: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1067038425591816193It seems like a worthless attempt to call it whataboutism. Anyone who posts at the volume Glenn has could just as easily be accused of whataboutism simply by talking about multiple topics at once. And otherwise he's saying, "lets see more evidence" which seems alarming for people to say is a bad idea. If you don't believe the story I think you're more likely wrong than right, but that doesn't mean there's a big gap in evidence to the story as it is right now. ---- Also what's this about rats? That's a ridiculous conspiracy hole to go down. If this meeting did happen, and it was leaked, the leakers are probably US or Ecuadorian staffers that have some relatively mundane piece of evidence like a video tape or internal communication about the meeting. The notion that such people would be the target of a Russian assassination is ridiculous. Why would this be ridiculous, exactly? Do you have some expertise to back up this equally wild claim? And Glenn doesn't seem to be waiting for more evidence to appear, but is simply saying the story isn't true. That isn't waiting or even following his own advice. So if he doesn't want to follow his own advice, why should I? Well first off the story isn't strictly Russian, the account is mostly between Assange and Wikileaks. Second the leak seems most likely connected to the US investigation given the timing and the information (the Russian side of the info is very vague if the source is coming from that angle). So then you're likely talking about an assassination attempt for something that's already within the Intelligence community of the US and/or Ecuador which makes the attempt pretty ridiculous. So an assassination here would be the equivalent of Russia assassinating Reality Winner.
Given what we know about how Wikileaks obtained the DNC emails from the Russian hacks and Manafort’s close ties to the previous pro-Russian government in Ukraine, I don’t think it is a huge leap to suspect that the Ecuadorian staffers might be fearful. After all, they don’t know what they don’t know. And given that the lawyer who meet with Trump Jr and Manafort died in a helicopter crash, it is not completely unfounded.
Of course we could be wrong and completely off base, but we are working on imperfect information here.
|
On November 28 2018 01:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 01:18 Sadist wrote:![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/tdoct0R.jpg) Ive seen this sticker around at a few places lately. With all the hand signal stuff going around I was wondering if anyone thought this was worth reporting to a manager or if Im over reacting. Even if done ironically, the whole thing seems sketchy to me. What is this hand signal/ gesture/ potential undertone? I'm unfamiliar with this (except for the traditional "A-Okay" sign).
To me that star in the middle of the hand looks like it might have some kind of anal sex subtext. If not, then somebody needs to start google bombing so that is *exactly* what shows up when you try to figure out the subtext of that image.
|
On November 28 2018 03:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 03:20 Logo wrote:On November 28 2018 03:16 Plansix wrote:On November 28 2018 02:54 Logo wrote:Glenn has been talking about the Ukraine Neo-nazi issue for days now: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1067038425591816193It seems like a worthless attempt to call it whataboutism. Anyone who posts at the volume Glenn has could just as easily be accused of whataboutism simply by talking about multiple topics at once. And otherwise he's saying, "lets see more evidence" which seems alarming for people to say is a bad idea. If you don't believe the story I think you're more likely wrong than right, but that doesn't mean there's a big gap in evidence to the story as it is right now. ---- Also what's this about rats? That's a ridiculous conspiracy hole to go down. If this meeting did happen, and it was leaked, the leakers are probably US or Ecuadorian staffers that have some relatively mundane piece of evidence like a video tape or internal communication about the meeting. The notion that such people would be the target of a Russian assassination is ridiculous. Why would this be ridiculous, exactly? Do you have some expertise to back up this equally wild claim? And Glenn doesn't seem to be waiting for more evidence to appear, but is simply saying the story isn't true. That isn't waiting or even following his own advice. So if he doesn't want to follow his own advice, why should I? Well first off the story isn't strictly Russian, the account is mostly between Assange and Wikileaks. Second the leak seems most likely connected to the US investigation given the timing and the information (the Russian side of the info is very vague if the source is coming from that angle). So then you're likely talking about an assassination attempt for something that's already within the Intelligence community of the US and/or Ecuador which makes the attempt pretty ridiculous. So an assassination here would be the equivalent of Russia assassinating Reality Winner. Given what we know about how Wikileaks obtained the DNC emails from the Russian hacks and Manafort’s close ties to the previous pro-Russian government in Ukraine, I don’t think it is a huge leap to suspect that the Ecuadorian staffers might be fearful. After all, they don’t know what they don’t know. And given that the lawyer who meet with Trump Jr and Manafort died in a helicopter crash, it is not completely unfounded. Of course we could be wrong and completely off base, but we are working on imperfect information here.
I don't see how you see the huge leap from lawyer guy who is likely to have additional information that is otherwise very privileged and otherwise undiscoverable, and one of many staffers who may have information that's likely in the hands of an intelligence community so it would be impossible to prevent any sort of information spread.
Caution isn't a bad idea, and likely there's caution in the interest of keeping their current job, but there's tons of logic leaps and hoops being jumped through here.
|
On November 28 2018 02:54 Logo wrote:
The notion that such people would be the target of a Russian assassination is ridiculous.
Hahaha really? Russia tries to target people even for no real clear reason. nevermind people who are exposing Russia's undermining of American democracy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43315636
|
On November 28 2018 03:32 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 03:27 Plansix wrote:On November 28 2018 03:20 Logo wrote:On November 28 2018 03:16 Plansix wrote:On November 28 2018 02:54 Logo wrote:Glenn has been talking about the Ukraine Neo-nazi issue for days now: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1067038425591816193It seems like a worthless attempt to call it whataboutism. Anyone who posts at the volume Glenn has could just as easily be accused of whataboutism simply by talking about multiple topics at once. And otherwise he's saying, "lets see more evidence" which seems alarming for people to say is a bad idea. If you don't believe the story I think you're more likely wrong than right, but that doesn't mean there's a big gap in evidence to the story as it is right now. ---- Also what's this about rats? That's a ridiculous conspiracy hole to go down. If this meeting did happen, and it was leaked, the leakers are probably US or Ecuadorian staffers that have some relatively mundane piece of evidence like a video tape or internal communication about the meeting. The notion that such people would be the target of a Russian assassination is ridiculous. Why would this be ridiculous, exactly? Do you have some expertise to back up this equally wild claim? And Glenn doesn't seem to be waiting for more evidence to appear, but is simply saying the story isn't true. That isn't waiting or even following his own advice. So if he doesn't want to follow his own advice, why should I? Well first off the story isn't strictly Russian, the account is mostly between Assange and Wikileaks. Second the leak seems most likely connected to the US investigation given the timing and the information (the Russian side of the info is very vague if the source is coming from that angle). So then you're likely talking about an assassination attempt for something that's already within the Intelligence community of the US and/or Ecuador which makes the attempt pretty ridiculous. So an assassination here would be the equivalent of Russia assassinating Reality Winner. Given what we know about how Wikileaks obtained the DNC emails from the Russian hacks and Manafort’s close ties to the previous pro-Russian government in Ukraine, I don’t think it is a huge leap to suspect that the Ecuadorian staffers might be fearful. After all, they don’t know what they don’t know. And given that the lawyer who meet with Trump Jr and Manafort died in a helicopter crash, it is not completely unfounded. Of course we could be wrong and completely off base, but we are working on imperfect information here. I don't see how you see the huge leap from lawyer guy who is likely to have additional information that is otherwise very privileged and otherwise undiscoverable, and one of many staffers who may have information that's likely in the hands of an intelligence community so it would be impossible to prevent any sort of information spread. Caution isn't a bad idea, and likely there's caution in the interest of keeping their current job, but there's tons of logic leaps and hoops being jumped through here.
Manafort’s first visit to the embassy took place a year after Assange sought asylum inside, two sources said.
A separate internal document written by Ecuador’s Senain intelligence agency and seen by the Guardian lists “Paul Manaford [sic]” as one of several well-known guests. It also mentions “Russians”.
According to the sources, Manafort returned to the embassy in 2015. He paid another visit in spring 2016, turning up alone, around the time Trump named him as his convention manager. The visit is tentatively dated to March.
Manafort’s 2016 visit to Assange lasted about 40 minutes, one source said, adding that the American was casually dressed when he exited the embassy, wearing sandy-coloured chinos, a cardigan and a light-coloured shirt.
Visitors normally register with embassy security guards and show their passports. Sources in Ecuador, however, say Manafort was not logged.
Embassy staff were aware only later of the potential significance of Manafort’s visit and his political role with Trump, it is understood.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy
Guardian has a Senain intelligence document. This isn't just a few anonymous sources. (note the multiple sources in the embassy)
Also, more confirmation is already coming out. Carl Bernstein is saying that Mueller is investigating a 2017 meeting between Manafort and the Ecuadorians.
+ Show Spoiler +
Basically, you can pick between two options. (1) play dumb and pretend like some gaps in the record are enough to disbelieve conclusions you don't like or (2) accept that every other story on Trump/Russia has been confirmed over 48 hour periods. Remember that (2) tends to be especially probable when certain characters are freaking out. Note how Trump/GlennGreenwald have been going nuts on Mueller/Russia recently. This is a strong sign that we are in a (2) situation where all this stuff is going to get confirmed.
|
On November 28 2018 03:39 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 02:54 Logo wrote:
The notion that such people would be the target of a Russian assassination is ridiculous. Hahaha really? Russia tries to target people even when it isn't currently poltically advantageous. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43315636
Former Russian Spy is the same as "random Ecuadorian desk jockey that is functionally equivalent to 10 other desk jockeys"?
Basically, you can pick between two options. (1) play dumb and pretend like some gaps in the record are enough to disbelieve conclusions you don't like or (2) accept that every other story on Trump/Russia has been confirmed over 48 hour periods. Remember that (2) tends to be especially probable when certain characters are freaking out. Note how Trump/GlennGreenwald have been going nuts on Mueller/Russia recently. This is a strong sign that we are in a (2) situation where all this stuff is going to get confirmed.
There's a lot of other journalists calling for more evidence/information. None of that calling means the story isn't true. If more information comes out and confirms the story as true then great? I don't see why that's a hard concept to grasp.
So uh those 2 options are a false dichotomy. And that should be obvious.
|
Ecuadorian embassy has 10 receptionists? How many people do you think work there? And if one of them has a problem with radioactive tea, do you think the others would keep talking to the press?
Not to say that it is going to happen, but I would be concerned if I were even mildly close to all of this. This is not a game of rational actors.
|
Well, you did say On November 28 2018 02:54 Logo wrote:
The notion that such people would be the target of a Russian assassination is ridiculous.
It's not really a problem for Russia to assasinate people who aren't providing information. Russia regularily assassinate people. Former spies, political opposition, they don't even care for the lives of their soldiers, why wouldn't they have a problem killing people? Of course an anonymous source will stay anonymous. Even if russia does not regularily asasssinate and kill people, it makes perfect sense to stay anonymous when talking to journalists.
|
On November 28 2018 03:56 Plansix wrote:
Ecuadorian embassy has 10 receptionists? How many people do you think work there? And if one of them has a problem with radioactive tea, do you think the others would keep talking to the press?
Not to say that it is going to happen, but I would be concerned if I were even mildly close to all of this. This is not a game of rational actors.
Concern isn't the bar here, there's obviously a base level concern anytime you are being critical of a powerful entity in this way (be is Saudi Arabia, Russia, or someone else).
The bar was:
Considering how many people related to all this have died, such as this guy: https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-official-linked-to-natalia-veselnitskaya-the-trump-tower-lawyer-is-deadIt is just common sense to remain anonymous. Being anything other than anonymous when you are ratting out Russia is downright retarded. I still firmly believe that the assassinations in England were only done to show potential rats that they can't hide from Putin. England could be said to be the 2nd highest profile place to assassinate someone besides the US. People need to remember how many people connected to the dossier have died or gone into hiding.
Which paints a picture of imminent death to this leaker which is just a ridiculous level to take it to and then that ridiculous level is being reinforced by barely comparable situations.
|
Here is a better link for the <2 hour confirmation stories. The 24 hour confirmation link will be even stronger tomorrow. And the 48 hour confirmation link will be DJT saying ~So what if Manafort contacted Assange? Podesta has neo-Nazi connections in Ukraine and Ukraine tried to help Hillary!~
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/27/politics/paul-manafort-julian-assange-meetings/index.html
My dichotomy is not false. You can only (1) play dumb for maybe 48 hours. This is just the start of the confirmation stories. just like every other Trump/Russia story, we are in a (2) situation that will be confirmed in just the same manner.
|
On November 28 2018 03:59 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 03:56 Plansix wrote:
Ecuadorian embassy has 10 receptionists? How many people do you think work there? And if one of them has a problem with radioactive tea, do you think the others would keep talking to the press?
Not to say that it is going to happen, but I would be concerned if I were even mildly close to all of this. This is not a game of rational actors. Concern isn't the bar here, there's obviously a base level concern anytime you are being critical of a powerful entity in this way (be is Saudi Arabia, Russia, or someone else). The bar was: Show nested quote +Considering how many people related to all this have died, such as this guy: https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-official-linked-to-natalia-veselnitskaya-the-trump-tower-lawyer-is-deadIt is just common sense to remain anonymous. Being anything other than anonymous when you are ratting out Russia is downright retarded. I still firmly believe that the assassinations in England were only done to show potential rats that they can't hide from Putin. England could be said to be the 2nd highest profile place to assassinate someone besides the US. People need to remember how many people connected to the dossier have died or gone into hiding. Which paints a picture of imminent death to this leaker which is just a ridiculous level to take it to and then that ridiculous level is being reinforced by barely comparable situations.
What is ridiculous is that you think that information from one of the best newspapers in the world with one of the highest journalistic standards, does excellent investigative journalism, has unreliable journalism because of anonymous sources, which as is one of the foundations of investigative journalism, because you said so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
