RUSSIA/РОССИЯ THREAD—ASSANGE CHRGD W/ SPYING—DJT IMPEACHED TWICE-US TREASURY SANCTS KILIMNIK AS RUSSIAN AGNT

Arithmetic

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
49,384
Reputation
14,493
Daps
262,374
I never got it twisted.

She's a conservative

Schindler is a conservative

Rick Wilson is a conservative

Tom Nichols is a conservative

McMullin is a conservative

Liz Mair is a conservative

I am not a conservative and outside of Trump issues, I disagree with all of them on a range of issues. Especially domestic policies.
Tell me which of the conservatives above also called Black Lives Matter a Russian plot, so I can mentally rebuke them for their role in downplaying the death's of unarmed black men murdered by police and the influence those deaths had in forming the movement that has galvanized many activists across the globe.
the real problem is y'all want "set it and forget it" sources of information. Y'all can't handle any diversity of sources and perspectives. You don't have to agree with 100% of what someone says before you believe them. Thats not how the world works.
No, we want to consume factual information. Tell Mensch her story on the SCOTUS Marshal is not how the world works. :pachaha:
And let me touch on Nance.

Nance did not work the Russia-desk. he did islamic shyt. he even says this.

Schindler worked the NSA/ East Europe/Russia desk. Mensch has Russian sources. Nichols actually is a Russian expert. McMullin did more high level CIA stuff than nance.

Nance has experience, but he's woefully out of his depth when probed.
Nance admitted to not being completely informed? That's the kind of reporters I like. :ehh: Those who don't pretend to know everything. That gives credence to what he does report on.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,928
Reputation
-34,259
Daps
616,278
Reppin
The Deep State
Tell me which of the conservatives above also called Black Lives Matter a Russian plot, so I can mentally rebuke them for their role in downplaying the death's of unarmed black men murdered by police and the influence those deaths had in forming the movement that has galvanized many activists across the globe.
First of all, Mensch was misunderstood because y'all did not follow the story:

1. She supports BLM

2. She asserts that the BLM protests were infiltrated with agitators

3. She is referring to attempts by Russian geopolitics to agitate protests from Dugin's "Foundations of Geopolitics:

Foundations of Geopolitics - Wikipedia

  • Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."[1]


She's wrong, I believe, but Russia DOES have an interest in agitating protestors to seed dissent and exploit aggression in American populations.
 

Black Panther

Long Live The King
Supporter
Joined
Nov 20, 2016
Messages
13,573
Reputation
10,198
Daps
70,946
Reppin
Wakanda
Tell me which of the conservatives above also called Black Lives Matter a Russian plot, so I can mentally rebuke them for their role in downplaying the death's of unarmed black men murdered by police and the influence those deaths had in forming the movement that has galvanized many activists across the globe.

THIS.

This is what turned me from :patrice: to :stopitslime: on Mensch. When people ask her to substantiate that claim, she just blocks them on Twitter. That's not something I feel like I can overlook.

That and her saying that the SCOTUS delivered letters of impeachment to the WH already, when we clearly know that's not how impeachment works. That's not a matter of preference, that's factually incorrect information.

Just because she's been correct ahead of MSM on certain things before does not mean that we should get excited over every new development she posts. Her rush to post new developments from her unrevealed sources cause her to make factual errors that damage her credibility.

You shouldn't want to be first, you should want to be correct.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,928
Reputation
-34,259
Daps
616,278
Reppin
The Deep State
Nance admitted to not being completely informed? That's the kind of reporters I like. :ehh: Those who don't pretend to know everything. That gives credence to what he does report on.
Nance has not broken ANY news

He's just doing surface level analysis.

Mensch has. And many of her stories have been confirmed circumstantially.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,928
Reputation
-34,259
Daps
616,278
Reppin
The Deep State
That and her saying that the SCOTUS delivered letters of impeachment to the WH already, when we clearly know that's not how impeachment works. That's not a matter of preference, that's factually incorrect information.
Thats not what she said.

She said the SCOTUS delivered subpoenas for documents on Flynn to Trump. Not impeachment letters.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,928
Reputation
-34,259
Daps
616,278
Reppin
The Deep State
Y'all need to come up off this "oh she's conservative therefore I can't..." bullshyt.

Compartmentalize what the fukk we're focused on, and move forward.

If you can't handle complex issues, backgrounds, motives, and personal views don't come in the thread. We're not obligated to resolve any ideological conflicts you have when we're trying to get information.

This is an Anti-Trump thread. This is not a thread about the ideological purity of our sources.

I don't agree with 100% of what everyone says. Don't act like you can't do this.
 

Black Panther

Long Live The King
Supporter
Joined
Nov 20, 2016
Messages
13,573
Reputation
10,198
Daps
70,946
Reppin
Wakanda
Louise Mensch said:
Sources further say that the Supreme Court notified Mr. Trump that the formal process of a case of impeachment against him was begun, before he departed the country on Air Force One. The notification was given, as part of the formal process of the matter, in order that Mr. Trump knew he was not able to use his powers of pardon against other suspects in Trump-Russia cases. Sources have confirmed that the Marshal of the Supreme Court spoke to Mr. Trump.

To say it in your style:

THIS IS NOT HOW IMPEACHMENT WORKS
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,928
Reputation
-34,259
Daps
616,278
Reppin
The Deep State
You shouldn't want to be first, you should want to be correct.
this sht is why the NYTimes refuses to retract several stories about Hillary's campaign

Their motive is "well this is what we had at the time..." they don't update and retract stories

And most of these sources have a lot of rules and standards that fast-moving intel doesn't

In fact, these faster-low level sources are breaking stories MSM passes on, only to have them come around months later.

i.e. everyone knew Melania was about to divorce Trump. No one reported it but it came out this week that all of MSM passed on the story.

Same with the dossier rumors.

Same with the FISA rumors.

If you want to stick to the front page of the NYTimes...you know what to do. This isn't the thread for people who are lazy about consuming information
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,928
Reputation
-34,259
Daps
616,278
Reppin
The Deep State
To say it in your style:

THIS IS NOT HOW IMPEACHMENT WORKS
Theres not one way to an impeachment FYI

and this is what her sources suggest. You disagree? Fine.

...and what?

I don't know what this story has to do with other stories she's been confirmed about and inspired

You want a shortcut and a single source of info.

Grow up and stop being lazy
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,928
Reputation
-34,259
Daps
616,278
Reppin
The Deep State
:why::why::why::why::why::why::why:


NATO's Keeping Russia Off Their Official Meeting Agenda Because They Want Trump Happy
Moscow won’t be a formal topic for the alliance’s first major meeting with Donald Trump, NATO officials tell BuzzFeed News. And that’s no coincidence.
John HudsonMay 24, 2017, at 10:53 a.m.
sub-buzz-28482-1495634355-4.jpg

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
Donald Trump never demanded that NATO leaders avoid discussing Russia during his meeting with the military alliance on Thursday.

He didn’t have to.

The alliance is so anxious about pleasing the US president that it tailored its first major meeting with him around topics that touch on his long-standing criticisms of the 28-member organization rather than the Kremlin’s latest provocations.

Russia, which dominated the alliance’s previous two summits in Wales and Warsaw, will not be a formal agenda item for the alliance’s meeting in Brussels this week, North Atlantic Treaty Organization spokesperson Oana Lungescu told BuzzFeed News.

"The meeting will be short, and focused on two main topics: stepping up NATO’s role in the fight against terrorism, and fairer burden sharing,” Lungescu said.

"While we do not expect any new decisions on Russia, NATO allies will reconfirm our long-standing twin-track policy: strong defense combined with meaningful dialogue,” she added.

The lack of a focus on Russia is not because Moscow’s behavior has improved in the eyes of NATO. The Kremlin continues to meddle in European elections, back separatists in Eastern Ukraine, and support the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Russia’s absence, European officials explained, is a tacit acknowledgement that the alliance’s most immediate crisis is currying the favor of the leader of the world’s most powerful military — a man who previously called the organization outdated and “obsolete.”

“You’ve got to remember that Trump still hasn’t explicitly stated his support for Article 5,” said a European official, referring to a clause in the alliance’s charter that requires NATO members to come to the defense of an ally. “First thing’s first.”

On Thursday, Trump will meet with leaders from across the 28-member alliance at NATO’s new headquarters in Brussels. After a ceremony commemorating NATO’s collective response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, leaders will engage in a two-hour working dinner where NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg will steer the discussion toward two main topics: burden-sharing and counterterrorism, issues Trump brought up repeatedly on the campaign trail. NATO officials stressed that during the working dinner, leaders may bring up any issue they please, which could include Russia.

But it’s clear that NATO officials believe Trump’s previous remarks that “NATO doesn’t discuss terrorism,” and that the alliance is “disproportionately” expensive must be addressed. Officials were particularly concerned after Trump’s first meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel when he said Berlin “owed vast sums,” which suggested that NATO members owe dues in a manner similar to the United Nations (they do not).

Even though Trump has since stated that NATO is “no longer obsolete” due to what he perceives as its renewed focus on terrorism, European officials still aren’t sure where Trump stands.

NATO officials contend that the alliance has long focused on terrorism, dating back to at least 2001, when it collectively took action in Afghanistan in response to 9/11, the only time Article 5 has been invoked in the alliance’s history.

Nevertheless, the job of pleasing Trump is so paramount that even Baltic countries, whose military planners are obsessed with deterring Russia, say that shelving the issue of Moscow is for the greater good of the alliance.

“It’s true. Russia is not a discussion topic for this meeting,” Saulius Gasiunas, a senior Lithuanian defense official, told BuzzFeed News. “But we’re not frustrated.”

Gita Leitlande, the defense counselor at the Latvian Embassy in Washington, agreed. “We are absolutely content,” she said.

Gasiunas emphasized that the key thing NATO countries are looking for from the meeting is for Trump to explicitly endorse Article 5, something he hasn’t done. “This commitment is supposed to be delivered by the president himself at the meeting,” Gasiunas said. “This will finalize the issue and put an end to uncertainties and ambiguities.”

Stefano Stefanini, Italy’s former ambassador to NATO, told BuzzFeed News that some Eastern European countries have privately expressed frustration with the lack of focus on Russia. “The Poles and the Baltics wanted a meeting that would show continuity with Wales-Warsaw,” he said. “That has already made some people unhappy. But NATO had to get with it,” he said.

To some extent, the NATO meeting’s focus on burden-sharing helps Trump argue that his tough line with the organization has already succeeded in changing its priorities. But it’s unclear if he’ll come away with a firm deliverable.

Only five members of the 28-nation club spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense, the amount NATO recommends each nation set aside. In 2015, Washington accounted for more than 72% of NATO members’ total defense expenditures -- about $649.9 billion. The other 27 NATO members combined to spend less than 28%, or about $251 billion.

In 2014, NATO members already made a commitment to reaching NATO’s 2% goal -- so a re-commitment to that figure won’t strike many as an impressive deliverable for Trump. However, Ian Lesser, a vice president at the German Marshall Fund, said Trump’s complaints about burden-sharing may result in allies offering more detailed “national action plans” for making good on the 2% spending level. “I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw more commitments to put in place measurable national plans, and Trump may rightly claim that as a victory,” he said.

But even if those commitments turn out to be little more than words on paper, at least Trump is getting NATO’s secretary general to embrace his agenda, albeit with a few awkward hiccups.

Reports surfaced in recent days that Stoltenberg told NATO leaders to shorten their speeches in order to accommodate Trump’s short attention span -- a fact that prompted a wave of snickering at Trump’s expense. “The president of the United States has a 12-second attention span,” Stoltenberg reportedly said, according to Politico. Stoltenberg’s spokesperson denied he ever made such statements. “Stop spreading this false quote,” Lungescu tweeted. “Stoltenberg did not say this, nor does it represent his views. Check your facts.”
 

AZBeauty

Stop lyin' nicca.
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
5,920
Reputation
2,305
Daps
35,594
Reppin
Chicago, Il
the real problem is y'all want "set it and forget it" sources of information. Y'all can't handle any diversity of sources and perspectives. You don't have to agree with 100% of what someone says before you believe them. Thats not how the world works.

Stop being lazy and focus on the information.

I'm putting your ass on ignore as soon as this Trump shyt has been wrapped up. Cornball.
 
Top