***Official Political Discussion Thread***

ntlhd17wwqi51.jpg
 
Almost done reading the new Senate Intel report. It's pretty amazing that the committee was able and willing to put this together in a bipartisan manner.
However, the Republicans on the committee (aside from Richard Burr) quickly tried to downplay their own report's findings after they released it. :smh: :lol:
 
Almost done reading the new Senate Intel report. It's pretty amazing that the committee was able and willing to put this together in a bipartisan manner.
However, the Republicans on the committee (aside from Richard Burr) quickly tried to downplay their own report's findings after they released it. :smh: :lol:

Your thoughts on them being compromised by Trump And to an extension Russia? I think it’s been evident. But people really don’t wanna touch the issue.

Also, the RNC server emails that were hacked at the same time have still not been released.
 
So I can't wrap my head around why you thought Tulsi was the "pro-black" option
It's actually very simple. The GOP didn't attack Tulsi on the racial angle, and since her animosity has mostly been directed at Muslims, they have no need to highlight that. Believe or not, their messaging reaches the ears of the leftist base better than the Democratic messaging apparatus, so we get cats on our side who believe what GOP says; that's how you see them rambling about Black on Black crime, Joe Biden's alleged incoherence, and the failure of Democratic cities.

In war, if you make your enemy believe what you say, you control the message; through messaging (propaganda), you can direct their attention where you want in order to hide what you're doing against them; you can even get their own people to fight FOR you. That's why the first target of insurgents is always TV and radio stations. This is how you get cats who swear they are on the left of Biden/Harris to support Gabbard, who's actually closer to the GOP than anyone else in the primaries.
 
It's actually very simple. The GOP didn't attack Tulsi on the racial angle, and since her animosity has mostly been directed at Muslims, they have no need to highlight that. Believe or not, their messaging reaches the ears of the leftist base better than the Democratic messaging apparatus, so we get cats on our side who believe what GOP says; that's how you see them rambling about Black on Black crime, Joe Biden's alleged incoherence, and the failure of Democratic cities.

In war, if you make your enemy believe what you say, you control the message; through messaging (propaganda), you can direct their attention where you want in order to hide what you're doing against them; you can even get their own people to fight FOR you. That's why the first target of insurgents is always TV and radio stations. This is how you get cats who swear they are on the left of Biden/Harris to support Gabbard, who's actually closer to the GOP than anyone else in the primaries.

Bravo. The most convincing explanation for the Gabbard appeal I’ve read yet.
 
It's actually very simple. The GOP didn't attack Tulsi on the racial angle, and since her animosity has mostly been directed at Muslims, they have no need to highlight that. Believe or not, their messaging reaches the ears of the leftist base better than the Democratic messaging apparatus, so we get cats on our side who believe what GOP says; that's how you see them rambling about Black on Black crime, Joe Biden's alleged incoherence, and the failure of Democratic cities.

In war, if you make your enemy believe what you say, you control the message; through messaging (propaganda), you can direct their attention where you want in order to hide what you're doing against them; you can even get their own people to fight FOR you. That's why the first target of insurgents is always TV and radio stations. This is how you get cats who swear they are on the left of Biden/Harris to support Gabbard, who's actually closer to the GOP than anyone else in the primaries.
Agree 100% with this analysis. thanks for this.

I go so hard on buffoonery in supposedly leftist media outlets, especially the identity politics thing. So many of them just repackage bad faith Republican attacks of the Democratic Party and try to repackage them as principled progressive criticism.
 
Last edited:
Cory Booker 🤷‍♂️

Why don't you just admit you found her attractive and you liked looking at her.
giphy.gif

Brah, you don't know how frustrating it was for me as a Cory Booker supporter early in the primary. I admit dude is kinda corny, but ole boy came on scene with the most progressive criminal justice reform bill, was telling white folk they have to acknowledge systemic racism, and was proposing a plan that could have shrunk a large part of the racial wealth gap. Dude checked all the boxes, and person after person I talked to dismissed him on some BS.

:smh:
 
Your thoughts on them being compromised by Trump And to an extension Russia? I think it’s been evident. But people really don’t wanna touch the issue.

Also, the RNC server emails that were hacked at the same time have still not been released.
The RNC hack could definitely provide some kompromat but I think their behavior can be explained fully by Trump's vicegrip on the party. Much like the Barr summary of the Mueller report, they bet on taking advantage of the fact that not a whole lot of people are going to read a 900something page report, thus allowing them to shift the narrative.

Trying to have it both ways was actually a pretty smart move from them. Their talking points satisfy Trump and the report satisfies genuine readers. Putting aside the criminal investigation of his stock trades, Richard Burr did a great job putting this together and uniting the committee.

Depending on how one defines 'collusion', I think you can't really argue that what Manafort did falls under that umbrella.
Especially since the report goes further than Mueller on that aspect, describing Konstantin Kilimnik as a Russian intelligence officer instead of "assessed to have ties to Russian intelligence" as described in the Mueller report. They even obtained evidence indicating that Kilimnik played a role in the GRU's hacking operation, adding that Manafort may have been involved too but it remains unclear what, if anything, his role was.

Whether it was for personal gain or specifically to assist Russia’s interference operations, Manafort essentially acted as a spy on behalf of Oleg Deripaska. Collusion is exactly how I’d describe covertly providing Russian intelligence with not just confidential internal polling data but also a detailed walkthrough of the Trump campaign’s strategy, specifically in key states. Due to Manafort’s successful obstruction, it’s unknown what exactly Kilimnik did with all that information upon his return to Moscow but obviously he provided it to Deripaska. Viktor Boyarkin, Deripaska’s deputy, is also a GRU officer and communicated with Kilimnik and Manafort about their covert activities. Given their status as GRU officers, it’s a guarantee that either Kilimnik or Boyarkin provided Russian intelligence with all the data, otherwise the info would have had little value.

Whatever Kilimnik ended up doing, it says a lot that Manafort was willing to sabotage his own plea deal to obstruct any attempt to learn the full scope of Kilimnik’s activities.
 
Back
Top Bottom