Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Quest, Aug 3, 2017.
What a bunch of malarkey.
The first memo pretty much confirms that the origin of the FISA warrants was Carter Paige in 2013... Coupled together with Paul Manafort and Papadopoulous shooting off at the mouth to Austrailian ambassadors, how do you not launch surveillance into the campaign?
The gist, for those of us not forking out to get past the WaPo paywall?
You can get past the Post's meter by opening the link in an incognito window.
It is saying Trump isn't going to sit down with Mueller and Mueller shouldn't bother subpoena maing Trump as it would just slow things down and he would probably take the 5th anyway. It also completely dismantles the Republican talking point (which we have seen parroted by people here like Dayton) that obstruction of justice is no big deal.
As others have said just go incognito and you can read it.
Sadly those who limit themselves to viewing/reading only left-stream media source are missing out on quite a lot.
Possibly, but if I wanted paranoid delusions I'd use heroin.
Of garish, badly spelled, ad-riddled blog sites? Absolutely.
It's ok, I suspect stuff like ed. page content of WSJ would be a tough read for you anyway (written on a HS level). : P
[And you don't need any heroin for what you're seeking.]
WaPo should be paying idiots like you to read it. That's how bad it is.
I haven't read any, but I can already guess the topic du jour is the Susan Rice memo about Obama, which - to any reasonable person - says he didn't want to influence the investigation but wanted the FBI and DOJ to consider what info they needed to share with the incoming Trump admin, given that... y'know.... that admin included a few people who were actually the subjects of the probe.
Somehow in tinfoiler territory, this is the exact opposite of a reasonable action and there's some weird focus on Rice emailing it to herself (which is a quite convenient way of annotating a memo with the time and date, cc'ing it to others to avoid any claims of corrupting the timeline).
So then, you'd be @Tererun!
I read WSJ - I wasn't aware they were considered a right-wing source as they seem to need an IQ above 90.
There's nothing there lately that contradicts anything posted upthread from the "lefty" sources.
Imo, the Journal is largely a left-wing rag. Generally worth no more than a half-hour of skimming.
[Oh, and over here, by High School we're taught to read *all* the words.]
Then you shouldn't imply it's something that would challenge me if your contention was that I don't read right-wing sources. There's significant scope for misinterpretation - and I don't mean of the "we thought they wanted to discuss adoptions!" or "I thought she wanted it" sort.
If you've got right-wing news to share or link to, do so. You might be wasting your time, but you're certainly wasting mine so fuck it.
Sorry, bud, this is what I meant w the crack about "high school reading level." At the time it was just a gratuitous gibe.
<<ed. page content of WSJ >>
Oh, sorry, I thought you were implying high school reading level might be a step up from what I expect from right-wing sources and were presenting the WSJ as an example. If you guys could get your political compasses recalibrated it'd be easier to determine what's right/left in the US, because even the Dems are practically Randian by the standards of the rest of the planet.
This is something which was not even on my radar but which I think everyone should hear about. Navalny is the leader of tge opposition in Russia and he got there by exposing the endless corruption of the Putin regime including assassinating people who oppose the regime. The new media is completely controlled by the Putin regime and you won't hear anything Putin doesn't want you to hear. One of the few bright spots has been online streaming services like Youtube which hosts videos overseas so Putin's censors have a much more difficult time silencing them.
So Navalny has combed through videos of a high end prostitute favored by one of Putin's oligarchs and she accidentally posted a video which exposed a secret meeting about Russia's attenpts to influence the 2016 US election as well as to provide millions of dollars via strae donors to the Trump campaign and various front groups.
Putin is so angry about this release he is talking about ordering youtube and instagram being blocked in Russia.
The video is well worth watching.
Now we know @Tuttle's secret. He reads the opinions of his Wall Street masters and forms his "thoughts" therefrom. Facts? He don't need no stinkin' facts.
WaPo is left wing to you?
The WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch.
That's not exactly evidence of political leaning though - Murdoch owns FOX, for example. He also considers Trump a "fucking idiot" and shifts his support to whatever looks to be the winning side, provided said side will support his financial ambitions (a la Blair in the UK).
He's also a climate-change denier who now owns NatGeo.
When you declare the Wall Street Journal a "left-wing rag," you pretty much give up any claim to the right to be taken seriously.
Time Magazine thinks Trump should be impeached if he refuses to talk with Mueller.
the editorial page has always been considered right wing, nowdays it's just Sean Hannity in a nicer suit.
I've read the Journal for nearly 34 years. I can spot right wing, and balanced/mixed, and left wing. Not really that hard - the choice of what to report on and how it's reported, the packaging of what's covered, the explicit approval/disapproval of conflicting data when it's presented all contribute to bias vs balance. It's a left wing rag, slightly more reliable on its face than the NYT or Post.
I'll trust my eyes.
And leftforge hasn't a shred of credibility w anyone except for each other.
Get 'em checked.
If they pass the tests, then check the brain they're hooked to with an MRI.
Separate names with a comma.