A Message to Leo about Trump and the Russian Hoax

[Forestluv]

6 minutes ago, Bno said:

The same national intelligence you keep referring to concluded just the POSSIBILITY that there may have been interference.

No.

You keep projecting that. Your projector seems hardwired. You can stay immersed within the projection or transcend it and become aware of your projector. Up to you. You are creating your own reality.

[Revolutionary Think]

I just thought I'd add a little levity to this 

[Bno]

24 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

No.

You keep projecting that. Your projector seems hardwired. You can stay immersed within the projection or transcend it and become aware of your projector. Up to you. You are creating your own reality.

And you're not? What are they saying are the reasons they know Russia interfered? What's the evidence they're proposing?

[tenta]

Just now, Bno said:

Do you think presidents have a responsibility to meet with authorities to minimize nuclear tensions?

Like someone pointed out North Korea has been barking for very long without doing anything. Why do you think the meeting with Kim Jong Un doesn't tacitly endorse the dictatorship?

[Bno]

Just now, tenta said:

Like someone pointed out North Korea has been barking for very long without doing anything. Why do you think the meeting with Kim Jong Un doesn't tacitly endorse the dictatorship?

When Raegan met with Gorbachev, when FDR met with Stalin, when JFK met with Kruschev, and Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry met with Asaad, were they endorsing dictatorships?

[tenta]

Just now, Bno said:

When Raegan met with Gorbachev, when FDR met with Stalin, when JFK met with Kruschev, and Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry met with Asaad, were they endorsing dictatorships?

 

The US president who is known to be friendlier to dictators, meeting with a dictator to try to be friends with them and make sure a nuclear war doesn't break out (north korea's nukes can't reach the US) that clearly wouldn't have happened anyway, while the dictator is screwing over their people and the western leader has no problem with this, keeping up a front of progress while the dictatorship keeps going just like before: is tacitly endorsing dictatorships.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Bno said:

And you're not?

That is the first step to realizing one’s own projections. I am irrelevant. Your mind is creating what it wants to see. If a mind is engaged in a snake story it will see sticks as snakes.

1 hour ago, Bno said:

What are they saying are the reasons they know Russia interfered? What's the evidence they're proposing?

You think you know more than the top US intelligence, security advisors and diplomats? And you don’t even know their reasons? That would be like saying “I think Quantum mechanics is hoax”, without even looking into what the top phycisists say about quantum mechanics. Then asking “What reasons do the phycisists have? I know more than them”. . . This is a contracted mindset that will not allow learning and deeper understanding.

All the U.S. intelligence agencies and top national security advisors/diplomat to Russia have concluded and publicly stated there was Russian interference. They are more knowledgeable and smarter than you. If you want to know their reasons/evidence, do your research and learn.  Yet that’s not what your mind wants. Your mind wants to serve up a yummy dish of Russia Hoax pie. 

[Bno]

@Serotoninluv Phycisists provide evidence to their claims and they get verified through peer reviewed publishing processes. Even after they are published, other scientists can retest those claims or find and publish evidence through the same verification process to retract or build upon previous claims. This is why scientific research is considered reliable and research doesn't "prove" anything, it simply supports claims with evidence and accepts them as something that works until new evidence ever comes out and retracts these claims. This published information is publicly available or accessible.

I agree, these agencies do know more than me about this case. However, what evidence has the US intelligence agencies provided to the public? And, like WMDs and other instances of manufactured consent, why is there opposing evidence that retracts their claims?

Edited November 23, 2019 by Bno

[d0ornokey]

 

7 hours ago, The Don said:

I despise the fact that these leftists don't appreciate the necessity of capitalism for human growth and progress. They want Socialism which is a form of tyranny and control over others. Socialism spends what Capitalism creates.

I disagree - liberals don't want socialism like mao zedong or stalin 

Liberals want socialism like the modern day nordic countries

 

Liberals are coming from a place of empathy and love. Caring about people who have had less privilege. Those who are poor, injured/disabled, have mental health issues, minorities, immigrants 

A lot of those people have come from harder backgrounds and yes - success & happiness is available for everyone - but some people have more obstacles than others and aren't given the same resources/life events that helped us become successful 

The mindset is to give them a voice and equal opportunities

Capitalism has its limits. When capitalism moves into territory where 5% of the people have a majority of the income, that raises some red flags

Capitalism is great but as you know, extreme of good things can pose some negative consequences 

 

It really helps to talk to meet these people who come from marginalized communities. It helps you see from their perspective 

[Forestluv]

27 minutes ago, Bno said:

@Serotoninluv Phycisists provide evidence to their claims and they get verified through peer reviewed publishing processes. Even after they are published, new scientists can retest those claims or find and publish evidence through the same verification process to retract or build upon previous claims. This is why scientific research is considered reliable and research doesn't "prove" anything, it simply supports claims with evidence.

What evidence has the US intelligence agencies provided?

Yes and a person would need to research and learn about the physicists’ evidence. One could simply believe the physicists since they are authorities on the subject. If someone wants to learn about the evidence, they would need to actually learn about the evidence. For example, they could read the scientific articles, take physics classes and talk with physicists. This is very different than saying “I think QM is a hoax” and watching YT videos that says QM is a hoax. If someone believes QM is a hoax, they will not put n effort to learn about QM. Why spend time learning about something that doesn’t even exist? It’s just a Hoax!

Similiar to physicists,  US intelligence officials, national security advisors and diplomats are expert authorities that have done a  lot of research on Russia. They are much more knowledgeable, experience, skilled and smarter than you are. One could believe them since they are authorities on the subject. If someone wants to learn more, they can do research to learn more. You are responsible for your own learning and what you project. If you want to engage in a Russia Hoax story and watch Russia Hoax videos all day go for it. It’s your life. If you want to learn why every US intelligence official, national security advisor and diplomat to Russia say there was interference, then take responsibility, put in effort and do the work. Watching Russia Hoax videos and spending all day posting about Russia Hoax on Internet forums is not research and work - it will not lead to learning and understanding. Yet you don’t want to do the research and work - you want to eat Russia Hoax pie, which is fine - you just won’t learn anything. If someone sits around and eats Moon Landing Hoax pie, they will not learn about the moon landing. If someone sits around eating Holocaust Hoax pie, they will not learn anything about the Holocaust.

If someone believes in a Hoax and is attached to it, they will not take action to learn about it. For example, I believe Big Foot is a Hoax and I am not going to invest time and effort to learn about Big Foot. However, I do not watch videos about Big Foot Hoax or spend all day posting about Big Foot Hoax on internet forums. 

[Bno]

49 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yes and a person would need to research and learn about the physicists’ evidence. One could simply believe the physicists since they are authorities on the subject. If someone wants to learn about the evidence, they would need to actually learn about the evidence. For example, they could read the scientific articles, take physics classes and talk with physicists. This is very different than saying “I think QM is a hoax” and watching YT videos that says QM is a hoax. If someone believes QM is a hoax, they will not put n effort to learn about QM. Why spend time learning about something that doesn’t even exist? It’s just a Hoax!

Similiar to physicists,  US intelligence officials, national security advisors and diplomats are expert authorities that have done a  lot of research on Russia. They are much more knowledgeable, experience, skilled and smarter than you are. One could believe them since they are authorities on the subject. If someone wants to learn more, they can do research to learn more. You are responsible for your own learning and what you project. If you want to engage in a Russia Hoax story and watch Russia Hoax videos all day go for it. It’s your life. If you want to learn why every US intelligence official, national security advisor and diplomat to Russia say there was interference, then take responsibility, put in effort and do the work. Watching Russia Hoax videos and spending all day posting about Russia Hoax on Internet forums is not research and work - it will not lead to learning and understanding. Yet you don’t want to do the research and work - you want to eat Russia Hoax pie, which is fine - you just won’t learn anything. If someone sits around and eats Moon Landing Hoax pie, they will not learn about the moon landing. If someone sits around eating Holocaust Hoax pie, they will not learn anything about the Holocaust.

If someone believes in a Hoax and is attached to it, they will not take action to learn about it. For example, I believe Big Foot is a Hoax and I am not going to invest time and effort to learn about Big Foot. However, I do not watch videos about Big Foot Hoax or spend all day posting about Big Foot Hoax on internet forums. 

I did the research and the work. I am presenting them to you. I read the entirety of the Mueller Report. I heard numerous claims that the mainstream media put out. I read the work by credible journalists that debunked mainstream news narratives. These authorities presented their investigation (the Mueller Report) and concluded no collusion but PROBABLE interference, which you claim they said was actual interference. Something being probable is not something actual. I have stated that I do not know if they actually interfered and that their PROBABLE interference displays no evidence of impacting the election.

What I mean by hoax is the mainstream media's previous narrative of collusion definitively happening and that the interference impacted the election results. 

Can we agree on this? On the interference being probable, not actual? And that there is no evidence to suggest that it swayed the election if it did happen? This is why I made this topic. That the idea of there being definitive collusion and that it definitively impacted the results of our election 1) has not been backed up and 2) saying this as truth isn't conscious politics.

Edited November 23, 2019 by Bno

[Forestluv]

41 minutes ago, Bno said:

PROBABLE interference, which you claim they said was actual interference.

Notice the change in the narrative. You went from “no interference”, to “possible interference” to “probable interference”. Just one more step. . . The top US intelligence officials said there was interference (and continues to be interference). Including top officials Mueller and Hill. They are the top authorities. Mueller was asked point blank if there was interference and he said yes. He also said it is ongoing. Fiona Hill said the same and that the alternative is a “fictional narrative”. All officials agree. The dispute is occurring in your mind, not amongst US intelligence, security advisors and diplomats.

How effective the interference was and wether Trumps campaign conspired with the interference are different questions.

41 minutes ago, Bno said:

Can we agree on this? On the interference being probable, not actual? 

What I think doesn’t carry any weight. I am not an expert on US-Russian relations. If I was testifying in Congress on this case, everyone would be shaking their head asking “wtf is this guy doing here? He isn’t an expert on Russia”. What matters are actual experts. The actual experts have clearly stated in personal testimony that there was Russian interference. To me, both Mueller and Hill seem like qualified non-partisan experts that sought the truth and know the truth. Imo, they have no reason to lie. . . You seem to have a different interpretation, which is fine. You get to create anything you want.

[Bno]

Fair enough! I can see now why you and Leo would think that I was just being a deluded nonbeliever/believer. I failed to understand what you in particular did not know what I was using to form my conclusions. Well...

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

How effective the interference was and wether Trumps campaign conspired with the interference are different questions.

This is what I am saying has not been backed up and @Leo Gura has implied in his videos that he believes they are true, which can misinform people into believing it is true without looking into the actual substance. There is no investigation that has proven a Trump-Russia collusion nor if the hypothetical interference impacted the election.

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

What I think doesn’t carry any weight. I am not an expert on US-Russian relations. If I was testifying in Congress on this case, everyone would be shaking their head asking “wtf is this guy doing here? He isn’t an expert on Russia”. What matters are actual experts. The actual experts have clearly stated in personal testimony that there was Russian interference. To me, both Mueller and Hill seem like qualified non-partisan experts that sought the truth and know the truth. Imo, they have no reason to lie. . . You seem to have a different interpretation, which is fine. You get to create anything you want.

Ok, I see what you mean now. Fine, how about the fact that Mueller was having trouble recalling what was in his actual report. Saying things like "that's beyond my purview," when asked about Christopher Steele, a former British agent, relying on information from Russian agents. That's essentially him saying that Russians feeding information in order to interfere with our election had nothing to do with his investigation into Russia interfering with our election.

Also, when he was presented with clear conflicts of interest, like his assistant Andrew Weissman being a Clinton loyalist, and members of his team having actually represented Clinton, he responded with “I’m not going to get into that.”

He also testified under oath that he has no idea who Fusion GPS is... And he was even having trouble remembering which president appointed him with the investigation. David Axelrod, Obama's strategist, even admitted that this was an embarrassment.

I mean, this is the guy who also told the public back during the Bush Administration that Powell presented evidence that Baghdad has failed to disarm their WMDs... And we know how that turned out.

So, yes I agree. Was he telling the truth? That's for one to speculate. But it's important to acknowledge his past actions and associations that have conflicts of interest.

Edited November 23, 2019 by Bno

[Forestluv]

@Bno It’s not just Mueller. It’s that all the experts agree on interference. There is collective agreement among the expert community that carries a lot of weight for me. 

In this area, I’m more interested in the structure of how the situation is perceived and how meaning is created. I’m not so interested in engaging in the content of the situation. You seem more interested in discussing/debating content, which is fine. It looks like several others on the forum want to engage on content. So I’ll step aside. Nice chatting with you.

[Bno]

30 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Bno It’s not just Mueller. It’s that all the experts agree on interference. There is collective agreement among the expert community that carries a lot of weight for me. 

In this area, I’m more interested in the structure of how the situation is perceived and how meaning is created. I’m not so interested in engaging in the content of the situation. You seem more interested in discussing/debating content, which is fine. It looks like several others on the forum want to engage on content. So I’ll step aside. Nice chatting with you.

Gotcha, I just consider intelligence agencies' past actions having military, fossil fuel, and bank corporate interests. Them fueling tensions between US and Russia serves their financial interests (increasing military budget and securing the petro dollar currency)

Also, my goal, again, was to have @Leo Gura understand that the conclusions by US intelligence agencies suggested no Trump involvement with the Russian government's supposive interference and that the level of impact of this hypothetical interference on the election results have not been tested, nor does it seem like they ever will be. Also that Mueller's testimony should be questioned given his incompetence and past actions. Hillary Clinton and her associates' past relationships with the Russian government (selling Uranium, Padesta having pattons on certain Russian government companies, and there being documented evidence of Clinton associates seeking dirt on Donald Trump) should also be considered.

Nice chatting with you @Serotoninluv See ya around.

Edited November 23, 2019 by Bno

[Bno]

5 hours ago, tenta said:

 

The US president who is known to be friendlier to dictators, meeting with a dictator to try to be friends with them and make sure a nuclear war doesn't break out (north korea's nukes can't reach the US) that clearly wouldn't have happened anyway, while the dictator is screwing over their people and the western leader has no problem with this, keeping up a front of progress while the dictatorship keeps going just like before: is tacitly endorsing dictatorships.

Let's way out the pros and cons in the perspective of reducing human and environmental harm.

Cons:

The dictatorship continues in NK.

Pros:

We reduce the chance of nuclear catastrophe (i.e., possible human extinction and exacerbating ecological damages)

May I add that South Korea is happy that tensions are reduced.

[Nahm]

On 11/22/2019 at 10:39 AM, Bno said:

This is a corporate media talking point to distract from the real reasons why Hillary Clinton lost the election (her incompetence and horrible campaign and people being sick of the status quo).

Hilary won that election.

[Bno]

6 minutes ago, Nahm said:

Hilary won that election.

Popular vote - yes

Electoral College - no

Failed strategy to effectively win through the electoral college system? Well, it was her responsibility to know which states were most important to campaign in.

[Nahm]

@Bno That is a fair point. Given the history of the electoral, I see that more as the primary issue. 

[tenta]

7 hours ago, Bno said:

Let's way out the pros and cons in the perspective of reducing human and environmental harm.

Cons:

The dictatorship continues in NK.

Pros:

We reduce the chance of nuclear catastrophe (i.e., possible human extinction and exacerbating ecological damages)

May I add that South Korea is happy that tensions are reduced.

 

Then you're completely stuck thinking like this, you're fucked, nothing I can say will change this.

"reduce the chance of nuclear catastrophe (i.e., possible human extinction and exacerbating ecological damages)"

Read above, that is a completely biased strawman of the situation.

Edited November 24, 2019 by tenta