As I've said before, this was first mentioned by the Larouche organisation in the late 80s - Larouche being the thinking man's Alex Jones. It's worth re-linking if only for their amusing verdict on Biden in the next column:
Now, this current allegation may well be worth investigating, but it's best to stay away from the idea that everything bad in America is Russia's fault actually and the country would Just Work if not for Putin.
As I've said before, this was first mentioned by the Larouche organisation in the late 80s - Larouche being the thinking man's Alex Jones.
As conspiracy theorists go, Larouche outranks Jones immeasurably. The latter just repeats recycled Illuminati crap with an overlay of gun-crazed libertarianism, whereas the former constructed a whole new worldview and historical analysis, custom-made for a nation birthed in violent anglophobia.
Their reportage on Trump there does sound fairly plausible. Interestingly, around the same time they were collaborating with Roy Cohn's ex-lover to publish a local NYC newsletter dedicated to trashing Cohn.
Now, this current allegation may well be worth investigating, but it's best to stay away from the idea that everything bad in America is Russia's fault actually and the country would Just Work if not for Putin.
Yes. Malevolent foreign actors certainly exist, and Putin seems pretty clearly to be an example. But, the hard russiagate position often sounds something like Englishmen during The Troubles whose first reaction to news of an IRA bombing was "The friends of Senator Kennedy strike again." Not entirely unreflective of the reality, but pretty clearly oversimplified for the purposes of self-absolution.
The bombshell allegation was made by Alnur Mussayev, a former Kazakh intelligence chief, in a Facebook post,
I think it has already been established on another thread that Facebook posts cannot be verified.
Yeah, I suppose it's good that American media are so scrupulous about sticking to information that's verifiable, otherwise we'd spend endless news cycles on rumors that the Secretary of State might not have adhered to email server management best practices. What a useless waste of time that would have been!
Seriously, am I the only one who notices that mainstream media only manages to find their "principles" when it comes to covering Donald Trump?
So it seems the main stream media over there are the same as over here when Boris was in charge.
More news. Several important artistic figures are abandoning the Kennedy Centre now Trump has put him self and his Cronies in charge. Not surprised
Sorry to double post. The Daily Mirror has posted this article https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/donald-trump-recruited-kgb-codename-34726995
It says that Trump was hired by Russia as an agent. The person in the article is ex KGB and says that Trump was given an agent name. True or not, who knows but after his chats with Putin it could give some stability to various rumours.
I listen to the Rest is Politics US and this week they were wondering what Putin has on Trump to make him be happy to be his lapdog. I assumed it was something of a sexual nature, but who knows.
Yes. Malevolent foreign actors certainly exist, and Putin seems pretty clearly to be an example. But, the hard russiagate position often sounds something like Englishmen during The Troubles whose first reaction to news of an IRA bombing was "The friends of Senator Kennedy strike again." Not entirely unreflective of the reality, but pretty clearly oversimplified for the purposes of self-absolution.
Right, and there's a particular type of Reds-Under-The-Bed approach that's also entirely American.
I listen to the Rest is Politics US and this week they were wondering what Putin has on Trump to make him be happy to be his lapdog. I assumed it was something of a sexual nature, but who knows.
I don’t think that British spy’s dossier was ever actually disproved.
I listen to the Rest is Politics US and this week they were wondering what Putin has on Trump to make him be happy to be his lapdog. I assumed it was something of a sexual nature, but who knows.
I don’t think that British spy’s dossier was ever actually disproved.
Insofar as the claim of the tape, investigation since then has tended to cast mild doubt on it:
Yes. Malevolent foreign actors certainly exist, and Putin seems pretty clearly to be an example. But, the hard russiagate position often sounds something like Englishmen during The Troubles whose first reaction to news of an IRA bombing was "The friends of Senator Kennedy strike again." Not entirely unreflective of the reality, but pretty clearly oversimplified for the purposes of self-absolution.
Right, and there's a particular type of Reds-Under-The-Bed approach that's also entirely American.
Well, not reds per se, but yes, some variation on the same themes.
British Tory hearing about IRA crimes...
"Bloody hell, Kennedy, that's not cricket."
American Democrat hearing about Russian interference in US politics...
"Our great democracy besmirched by the forces of totalitarian horror setting foot upon our shining shores!"
Not that any form of self-redemptive xenophobia is helpful for anyone. Just noting a difference in style.
Yes. Malevolent foreign actors certainly exist, and Putin seems pretty clearly to be an example. But, the hard russiagate position often sounds something like Englishmen during The Troubles whose first reaction to news of an IRA bombing was "The friends of Senator Kennedy strike again." Not entirely unreflective of the reality, but pretty clearly oversimplified for the purposes of self-absolution.
Right, and there's a particular type of Reds-Under-The-Bed approach that's also entirely American.
Well, not reds per se, but yes, some variation on the same themes.
Yes, I'm thinking of Hofstadter's Paranoid Style meets Bircherism.
Yes. Malevolent foreign actors certainly exist, and Putin seems pretty clearly to be an example. But, the hard russiagate position often sounds something like Englishmen during The Troubles whose first reaction to news of an IRA bombing was "The friends of Senator Kennedy strike again." Not entirely unreflective of the reality, but pretty clearly oversimplified for the purposes of self-absolution.
Right, and there's a particular type of Reds-Under-The-Bed approach that's also entirely American.
Well, not reds per se, but yes, some variation on the same themes.
Yes, I'm thinking of Hofstadter's Paranoid Style meets Bircherism.
Exactly. Though your directional metaphor is a little off, since Bircherism would be a manifestation of the Paranoid Style, not a separate entity that could "meet" it. So...
"Hofstadter's Paranoud Style, as represented eg. by Bircherism" would be more precise.
Yes. Malevolent foreign actors certainly exist, and Putin seems pretty clearly to be an example. But, the hard russiagate position often sounds something like Englishmen during The Troubles whose first reaction to news of an IRA bombing was "The friends of Senator Kennedy strike again." Not entirely unreflective of the reality, but pretty clearly oversimplified for the purposes of self-absolution.
Right, and there's a particular type of Reds-Under-The-Bed approach that's also entirely American.
Well, not reds per se, but yes, some variation on the same themes.
British Tory hearing about IRA crimes...
"Bloody hell, Kennedy, that's not cricket."
American Democrat hearing about Russian interference in US politics...
"Our great democracy besmirched by the forces of totalitarian horror setting foot upon our shining shores!"
Not that any form of self-redemptive xenophobia is helpful for anyone. Just noting a difference in style.
I'm not sure what point you're making here. That the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate publishedafivevolumereport on Russian interference in the 2016 election, plus supplemental declassifications from Volume IV, detailing a bunch of ways Russia had indeed screwed with the 2016 election, because acting Committee Chairman Marco Rubio (now serving as Secretary of State) and his fellow Republican committee members Roy Blunt and Tom Cotton were overly paranoid about Russians working to get Donald Trump in the White House? I'd say that's a more paranoid conspiracy theory than anything detailed in the more than a thousand pages of the Senate report.
Yes. Malevolent foreign actors certainly exist, and Putin seems pretty clearly to be an example. But, the hard russiagate position often sounds something like Englishmen during The Troubles whose first reaction to news of an IRA bombing was "The friends of Senator Kennedy strike again." Not entirely unreflective of the reality, but pretty clearly oversimplified for the purposes of self-absolution.
Right, and there's a particular type of Reds-Under-The-Bed approach that's also entirely American.
Well, not reds per se, but yes, some variation on the same themes.
British Tory hearing about IRA crimes...
"Bloody hell, Kennedy, that's not cricket."
American Democrat hearing about Russian interference in US politics...
"Our great democracy besmirched by the forces of totalitarian horror setting foot upon our shining shores!"
Not that any form of self-redemptive xenophobia is helpful for anyone. Just noting a difference in style.
I'm not sure what point you're making here. That the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate publishedafivevolumereport on Russian interference in the 2016 election, plus supplemental declassifications from Volume IV, detailing a bunch of ways Russia had indeed screwed with the 2016 election, because acting Committee Chairman Marco Rubio (now serving as Secretary of State) and his fellow Republican committee members Roy Blunt and Tom Cotton were overly paranoid about Russians working to get Donald Trump in the White House? I'd say that's a more paranoid conspiracy theory than anything detailed in the more than a thousand pages of the Senate report.
I'm certainly not denying there was Russian interference in the election. And some of it might have involved criminal activity by American collaborators, who can and should be prosecuted(*).
But the fact that a significant enough portion of Americans have now shown themselves willing to vote for Trump twice, the second time AFTER widespread reportage of Russian interference, would seem to indicate to me that Trump's popularity always rested on a lot more than just Russian propaganda efforts.
Sure, had there been no Russian meme farms or wikileak dumps, it's possible a few fractions of a percentage point in key states could have swung the other way and made those states blue. But I think that's pretty close to unprovable either way.
(*) Though as far as I know, after all the investigations, the only American who was ever convicted of anything was Flynn, who was nicked for perjury ABOUT Russian interference, not for participating in the interference itself.
I'm certainly not denying there was Russian interference in the election. And some of it might have involved criminal activity by American collaborators, who can and should be prosecuted(*).
<snip>
(*) Though as far as I know, after all the investigations, the only American who was ever convicted of anything was Flynn, who was nicked for perjury ABOUT Russian interference, not for participating in the interference itself.
In addition to Flynn 01275-049, Paul Manafort 35207-016, Trump's 2016 campaign manager, was also convicted on charges of filing false tax returns, two counts of bank fraud, one count of failing to disclose a foreign bank account, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and witness tampering. Manafort 35207-016's lacky Rick Gates 35208-016 was convicted of similar offenses, though his sentence was reduced for testifying against Manafort 35207-016. Manafort 35207-016 was also identified in the Senate report mentioned above as having shared Trump campaign internal polling data with likely Russian agent Konstantin Kilimnik (a fact which Manafort 35207-016 himself later confirmed). I've never heard an innocent explanation for why this would be a reasonable thing to do, given how tightly most campaigns guard their internal polling data. Maybe you can offer one?
George Papadopoulos 91344-083, who seems to have instigated the investigation by incriminating remarks to the Australian ambassador to the UK, was convicted of lying to the FBI. That was part of a plea deal so there were probably more serious charges he could have been convicted of had he decided not to cooperate.
Roger Stone was convicted on seven various counts of obstruction of an official proceeding, making false statements, and witness tampering relate to Russian election interference. Stone was pardoned by Trump not long after conviction so he could be free to help plot the January 6 uprising, which is why he doesn't have a Bureau of Prisons inmate number.
I'm sure I'm forgetting some folks, but that seems like a lot of omitted information for someone who's so sure there's nothing to worry about here.
But the fact that a significant enough portion of Americans have now shown themselves willing to vote for Trump twice, the second time AFTER widespread reportage of Russian interference, would seem to indicate to me that Trump's popularity always rested on a lot more than just Russian propaganda efforts.
Have you ever considered that this was the result of a fairly relentless whitewashing campaign by people like you to deny or minimize the idea that Russia conducted a well funded and far-reaching psyop campaign to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election? Even if we accept your blithe assertion that propaganda never works (I do not accept this assertion) so we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about it, the fact that Russia conducted a well funded and far-reaching psyop campaign to influence the outcome of American elections would seem to be worthy of more than your rhetorical shruggy emoji.
Have you ever considered that this was the result of a fairly relentless whitewashing campaign by people like you to deny or minimize the idea that Russia conducted a well funded and far-reaching psyop campaign to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election? Even if we accept your blithe assertion that propaganda never works (I do not accept this assertion) so we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about it, the fact that Russia conducted a well funded and far-reaching psyop campaign to influence the outcome of American elections would seem to be worthy of more than your rhetorical shruggy emoji.
So, you think that there was a whitewashing campaign to deny people info about Russian psy-ops? And that if this hadn't happened, Trump never would have gotten as far in politics as he has?
Because my own view is that there was enough information about it available that anyone interested could have found out, and that the reason it had little effect was that enough Americans simply did not care about it. Which would be the fault of those Americans for not caring.
But, okay. What info about Russian interference do you think should have been more reported, but wasn't, that would have made a difference to someone who couldn't be bothered to explore the issue based on the info that was reported?
Slate Magazine has published an article wondering what Trump and Hegseth may be up to in two critical areas.
The first area is dealing with Mexico. Trump has already placed 5,000 troops along the border with another 5,000 additional troops on the way. The CIA is flying surveillance drones over Mexican airspace. Trump has said he would want to be able to use our Patriot Missiles to take out fentanyl labs in Mexico. And he wants to deploy Stryker vehicles along the border.
Just a small problem concerning the Patriots--they are an air defense system, but we have other kinds of missiles and drones that could be used.
The other problem is he is also talking about using the North American Command to quell domestic disturbances in the United States, This would be illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act,
Slate is saying this may be why Trump has fired all the top brass in the Pentagon because they would have stood up to him citing constitutional and legal barriers.
This could be why he has appointed a Lt. General (retired) tas Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff even through the job requires four stars, not three, and be active duty. He also has to be a former member of the Joint Chief of Staff. Of course, Trump can waive all these requirements if it is in the national interest. It certainly appears it is in Trump's interest.
It should be noted that the sacked "top brass" includes the senior officers in the JAG corps of each service i.e. the people specifically charged with making sure the US armed forces obey the law.
And it doesn't bother anyone that he just might send the military in against the Mexican cartels (which he has defined as terrorist groups) or shoot a few missiles/drones into suspected fentanyl labs in Mexico resulting in civilian deaths? Nah, won't happen.
Hmm. It might, though, I suppose, but wouldn't Mexico regard any such overt action as virtually an act of war?
Not that I support the cartels, you understand, but the situation is likely to be rather more complex than Trump cope with.
Generally countries only treat something as an act of war if they (a) think they can win or (b) fear the consequences of doing nothing more than the consequences of retaliating. I think Mexico might protest loudly and vociferously and call on its allies to do so. I'm not convinced they'd risk armed confrontation with the US when the US has such deeply unserious and unhinged people in charge and no guard rails left.
Hmm. It might, though, I suppose, but wouldn't Mexico regard any such overt action as virtually an act of war?
Not that I support the cartels, you understand, but the situation is likely to be rather more complex than Trump cope with.
Generally countries only treat something as an act of war if they (a) think they can win or (b) fear the consequences of doing nothing more than the consequences of retaliating. I think Mexico might protest loudly and vociferously and call on its allies to do so. I'm not convinced they'd risk armed confrontation with the US when the US has such deeply unserious and unhinged people in charge and no guard rails left.
No, I expect you're right. However provoked and angry they might be, the Mexicans are indeed hardly likely to risk being invaded - because that, I think, is what the unhinged regime in the US might end up doing...
Any country which elects as Supreme Leader a man who paints his face orange, and sticks his hair (what's left of it) on with glue, is no longer to be trusted.
Apparently, some of Trump's conservative xtian supporters aren't happy about his Gaza video with the gold statue. The Guardian quotes one from Truth Social...
Only one deserves the glory and the honor Mr. President. The statue is a symbol of the antichrist. Please humble yourself to God.
Tackiness aside, I'm not sure why this particular statue would be a symbol of the antichrist more than any other. Though I suppose the combination of gold(as in the calf) and it being a giant representation of a worldly leader(as in Nebuchadnezzar's dream), along with its imagined setting in the Holy Land, would probably push some buttons.
I do find it amusing that these MAGA Christians are only NOW discovering that their hero is a self-deifying narcissist. I guess they missed Paula White declaring him "My son, in whom I am well pleased."
The reports I'm seeing are that the video wasn't created by anyone in Team Trump, and it's possible that it was actually created as satire. Trump doesn't appear to have engaged brain before sharing something ... so, nothing new there.
The reports I'm seeing are that the video wasn't created by anyone in Team Trump, and it's possible that it was actually created as satire. Trump doesn't appear to have engaged brain before sharing something ... so, nothing new there.
The video does bear a family resemblance to a game-showish video he sent to the North Koreans before the Singapore Summit, except the latter didn't feature the personal glorification of Trump himself.
In any event, parody or not, once Trump endorsed it on his account, he basically took ownership.
I'm kind of hoping it was satire. Because, then he'd have been trolled. A small bit of hilarity in the midst of the tragedy that is the second Trump term.
The reports I'm seeing are that the video wasn't created by anyone in Team Trump, and it's possible that it was actually created as satire. Trump doesn't appear to have engaged brain before sharing something ... so, nothing new there.
In other news, Republican party apparatchiks are "advising" members of Congress not to hold Town Hall meeting with their constituents, because they don't want the bad press of seeing people complain about cuts to things they care about in order to fund tax cuts for billionaires, and they don't want the bad press of seeing people complain about Elon Musk.
Trump supports Musk. You engaging with the public makes Musk look bad, so you shouldn't do that.
In other news, Republican party apparatchiks are "advising" members of Congress not to hold Town Hall meeting with their constituents, because they don't want the bad press of seeing people complain about cuts to things they care about in order to fund tax cuts for billionaires, and they don't want the bad press of seeing people complain about Elon Musk.
Trump supports Musk. You engaging with the public makes Musk look bad, so you shouldn't do that.
To be optimistic, it's good to see the Republicans scared to face the public right now, because it indicates their agenda is not as popular as they would hope, and that they currently don't have any surefire methods for squelching the panic.
True to form, the estimable 'Daily Star' had stills from the video on it's front page with some disparaging comments. I watched the video. Priceless. Surely the guys who made this were taking the p*ss?
True to form, the estimable 'Daily Star' had stills from the video on it's front page with some disparaging comments. I watched the video. Priceless. Surely the guys who made this were taking the p*ss?
It didn't quite seem like what I'd expect from a direct satire. More like a troll, intended to appear pro-Trump in the hopes that MAGA people would re-post it approvingly and make themselves look stupid.
That said, the fact that Trump DID express approval indicates that he is just fine with being portrayed that way.
For a real troll, someone should show that to Trump, and tell him it's the Bible instructing people to worship the golden statue, and see if he re-posts it.
For a real troll, someone should show that to Trump, and tell him it's the Bible instructing people to worship the golden statue, and see if he re-posts it.
For a real troll, someone should show that to Trump, and tell him it's the Bible instructing people to worship the golden statue, and see if he re-posts it.
A fun idea, though...
Glad you like it.
And reading Daniel 3, I think I had forgotten, if I ever knew, that there was a reall statue in Daniel, not just the one in the king's dream. Also I don't think I knew that's the passage where Shadrach etc were tossed into the furnace.
Shake The Bed, Make The Bed, and In The Bed You Go!
Trump himself may well find himself in a hot place, sooner rather than later...
Meanwhile, I see that our PM Starmer is visiting the Orange Emperor in the latter's Court today. No doubt Sir Keir will be respectful and pragmatic, but I do most sincerely hope that he will refrain from inviting the Orange Emperor to the UK...
Others will know more about the protocols than I, but I expect it's hard to refuse a formal visit by another Head of State, no matter what one might think of the latter.
Shake The Bed, Make The Bed, and In The Bed You Go!
I'd never heard that one before. Google gave me one or two relevant links, along with some stuff on a current urban legend about romantic practices among horny Mormons.
My dad used to use "Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego" as a humorously dismissive placeholder for unknown individuals.
ME: Who do you think is gonna show up to the party?
DAD: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego!
I assume this was a common joke he heard growing up among bible-based protestants, but I really don't know.
I suspect the names are mostly remembered because they sound kinda quirky to the anglophone ear, rather than due to any widespread interest in the story itself.
I mean, yeah, guys getting tossed into a furnace would normally be pretty memorable, but doesn't really stand out too much from the rest of the ubiquitous wackiness in the Old Testament.
Comments
https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1987/eirv14n29-19870724/eirv14n29-19870724_067-elephants_and_donkeys.pdf
Now, this current allegation may well be worth investigating, but it's best to stay away from the idea that everything bad in America is Russia's fault actually and the country would Just Work if not for Putin.
As conspiracy theorists go, Larouche outranks Jones immeasurably. The latter just repeats recycled Illuminati crap with an overlay of gun-crazed libertarianism, whereas the former constructed a whole new worldview and historical analysis, custom-made for a nation birthed in violent anglophobia.
Their reportage on Trump there does sound fairly plausible. Interestingly, around the same time they were collaborating with Roy Cohn's ex-lover to publish a local NYC newsletter dedicated to trashing Cohn.
Yes. Malevolent foreign actors certainly exist, and Putin seems pretty clearly to be an example. But, the hard russiagate position often sounds something like Englishmen during The Troubles whose first reaction to news of an IRA bombing was "The friends of Senator Kennedy strike again." Not entirely unreflective of the reality, but pretty clearly oversimplified for the purposes of self-absolution.
Yeah, I suppose it's good that American media are so scrupulous about sticking to information that's verifiable, otherwise we'd spend endless news cycles on rumors that the Secretary of State might not have adhered to email server management best practices. What a useless waste of time that would have been!
Seriously, am I the only one who notices that mainstream media only manages to find their "principles" when it comes to covering Donald Trump?
More news. Several important artistic figures are abandoning the Kennedy Centre now Trump has put him self and his Cronies in charge. Not surprised
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/donald-trump-recruited-kgb-codename-34726995
It says that Trump was hired by Russia as an agent. The person in the article is ex KGB and says that Trump was given an agent name. True or not, who knows but after his chats with Putin it could give some stability to various rumours.
Right, and there's a particular type of Reds-Under-The-Bed approach that's also entirely American.
That rather assumes that Trump doesn't get something out of whatever arrangement results.
I don’t think that British spy’s dossier was ever actually disproved.
As day succeeds day, it looks more and more as though the Muskrat and Putin are calling the tune...
Insofar as the claim of the tape, investigation since then has tended to cast mild doubt on it:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/pee-tape-mueller-report.html
And Steele's main source has disagreed with the way in which the dossier characterized what he said:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/11/igor-danchenko-and-the-crippling-blow-for-the-steele-dossier.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/us/politics/igor-danchenko-steele-dossier.html
Well, not reds per se, but yes, some variation on the same themes.
British Tory hearing about IRA crimes...
"Bloody hell, Kennedy, that's not cricket."
American Democrat hearing about Russian interference in US politics...
"Our great democracy besmirched by the forces of totalitarian horror setting foot upon our shining shores!"
Not that any form of self-redemptive xenophobia is helpful for anyone. Just noting a difference in style.
Yes, I'm thinking of Hofstadter's Paranoid Style meets Bircherism.
Exactly. Though your directional metaphor is a little off, since Bircherism would be a manifestation of the Paranoid Style, not a separate entity that could "meet" it. So...
"Hofstadter's Paranoud Style, as represented eg. by Bircherism" would be more precise.
I'm not sure what point you're making here. That the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate published a five volume report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, plus supplemental declassifications from Volume IV, detailing a bunch of ways Russia had indeed screwed with the 2016 election, because acting Committee Chairman Marco Rubio (now serving as Secretary of State) and his fellow Republican committee members Roy Blunt and Tom Cotton were overly paranoid about Russians working to get Donald Trump in the White House? I'd say that's a more paranoid conspiracy theory than anything detailed in the more than a thousand pages of the Senate report.
I'm certainly not denying there was Russian interference in the election. And some of it might have involved criminal activity by American collaborators, who can and should be prosecuted(*).
But the fact that a significant enough portion of Americans have now shown themselves willing to vote for Trump twice, the second time AFTER widespread reportage of Russian interference, would seem to indicate to me that Trump's popularity always rested on a lot more than just Russian propaganda efforts.
Sure, had there been no Russian meme farms or wikileak dumps, it's possible a few fractions of a percentage point in key states could have swung the other way and made those states blue. But I think that's pretty close to unprovable either way.
(*) Though as far as I know, after all the investigations, the only American who was ever convicted of anything was Flynn, who was nicked for perjury ABOUT Russian interference, not for participating in the interference itself.
In addition to Flynn 01275-049, Paul Manafort 35207-016, Trump's 2016 campaign manager, was also convicted on charges of filing false tax returns, two counts of bank fraud, one count of failing to disclose a foreign bank account, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and witness tampering. Manafort 35207-016's lacky Rick Gates 35208-016 was convicted of similar offenses, though his sentence was reduced for testifying against Manafort 35207-016. Manafort 35207-016 was also identified in the Senate report mentioned above as having shared Trump campaign internal polling data with likely Russian agent Konstantin Kilimnik (a fact which Manafort 35207-016 himself later confirmed). I've never heard an innocent explanation for why this would be a reasonable thing to do, given how tightly most campaigns guard their internal polling data. Maybe you can offer one?
George Papadopoulos 91344-083, who seems to have instigated the investigation by incriminating remarks to the Australian ambassador to the UK, was convicted of lying to the FBI. That was part of a plea deal so there were probably more serious charges he could have been convicted of had he decided not to cooperate.
Roger Stone was convicted on seven various counts of obstruction of an official proceeding, making false statements, and witness tampering relate to Russian election interference. Stone was pardoned by Trump not long after conviction so he could be free to help plot the January 6 uprising, which is why he doesn't have a Bureau of Prisons inmate number.
I'm sure I'm forgetting some folks, but that seems like a lot of omitted information for someone who's so sure there's nothing to worry about here.
Have you ever considered that this was the result of a fairly relentless whitewashing campaign by people like you to deny or minimize the idea that Russia conducted a well funded and far-reaching psyop campaign to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election? Even if we accept your blithe assertion that propaganda never works (I do not accept this assertion) so we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about it, the fact that Russia conducted a well funded and far-reaching psyop campaign to influence the outcome of American elections would seem to be worthy of more than your rhetorical shruggy emoji.
So, you think that there was a whitewashing campaign to deny people info about Russian psy-ops? And that if this hadn't happened, Trump never would have gotten as far in politics as he has?
Because my own view is that there was enough information about it available that anyone interested could have found out, and that the reason it had little effect was that enough Americans simply did not care about it. Which would be the fault of those Americans for not caring.
But, okay. What info about Russian interference do you think should have been more reported, but wasn't, that would have made a difference to someone who couldn't be bothered to explore the issue based on the info that was reported?
The first area is dealing with Mexico. Trump has already placed 5,000 troops along the border with another 5,000 additional troops on the way. The CIA is flying surveillance drones over Mexican airspace. Trump has said he would want to be able to use our Patriot Missiles to take out fentanyl labs in Mexico. And he wants to deploy Stryker vehicles along the border.
Just a small problem concerning the Patriots--they are an air defense system, but we have other kinds of missiles and drones that could be used.
The other problem is he is also talking about using the North American Command to quell domestic disturbances in the United States, This would be illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act,
Slate is saying this may be why Trump has fired all the top brass in the Pentagon because they would have stood up to him citing constitutional and legal barriers.
This could be why he has appointed a Lt. General (retired) tas Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff even through the job requires four stars, not three, and be active duty. He also has to be a former member of the Joint Chief of Staff. Of course, Trump can waive all these requirements if it is in the national interest. It certainly appears it is in Trump's interest.
You think the Senate will stand up to this?
Probably not.
Mostly I think he's trying to make sure they won't defy him when he orders them to break the Posse Comitatus Act.
Ah yes - ISWYM.
Not that I support the cartels, you understand, but the situation is likely to be rather more complex than Trump cope with.
Generally countries only treat something as an act of war if they (a) think they can win or (b) fear the consequences of doing nothing more than the consequences of retaliating. I think Mexico might protest loudly and vociferously and call on its allies to do so. I'm not convinced they'd risk armed confrontation with the US when the US has such deeply unserious and unhinged people in charge and no guard rails left.
No, I expect you're right. However provoked and angry they might be, the Mexicans are indeed hardly likely to risk being invaded - because that, I think, is what the unhinged regime in the US might end up doing...
Any country which elects as Supreme Leader a man who paints his face orange, and sticks his hair (what's left of it) on with glue, is no longer to be trusted.
Tackiness aside, I'm not sure why this particular statue would be a symbol of the antichrist more than any other. Though I suppose the combination of gold(as in the calf) and it being a giant representation of a worldly leader(as in Nebuchadnezzar's dream), along with its imagined setting in the Holy Land, would probably push some buttons.
I do find it amusing that these MAGA Christians are only NOW discovering that their hero is a self-deifying narcissist. I guess they missed Paula White declaring him "My son, in whom I am well pleased."
"My son, with whom I am well pleased."
"with"
I've never claimed to be a bible scholar, but as an English teacher, I should have noticed my snafu.
The video in question, for those who want to see this tacky monstrosity for themselves.
The video does bear a family resemblance to a game-showish video he sent to the North Koreans before the Singapore Summit, except the latter didn't feature the personal glorification of Trump himself.
In any event, parody or not, once Trump endorsed it on his account, he basically took ownership.
I thought the same.
Trump supports Musk. You engaging with the public makes Musk look bad, so you shouldn't do that.
To be optimistic, it's good to see the Republicans scared to face the public right now, because it indicates their agenda is not as popular as they would hope, and that they currently don't have any surefire methods for squelching the panic.
As @RockyRoger and others suggest, this may be a most glorious and beautiful piss-take.
It didn't quite seem like what I'd expect from a direct satire. More like a troll, intended to appear pro-Trump in the hopes that MAGA people would re-post it approvingly and make themselves look stupid.
That said, the fact that Trump DID express approval indicates that he is just fine with being portrayed that way.
For a real troll, someone should show that to Trump, and tell him it's the Bible instructing people to worship the golden statue, and see if he re-posts it.
A fun idea, though...
Glad you like it.
And reading Daniel 3, I think I had forgotten, if I ever knew, that there was a reall statue in Daniel, not just the one in the king's dream. Also I don't think I knew that's the passage where Shadrach etc were tossed into the furnace.
Trump himself may well find himself in a hot place, sooner rather than later...
Meanwhile, I see that our PM Starmer is visiting the Orange Emperor in the latter's Court today. No doubt Sir Keir will be respectful and pragmatic, but I do most sincerely hope that he will refrain from inviting the Orange Emperor to the UK...
Others will know more about the protocols than I, but I expect it's hard to refuse a formal visit by another Head of State, no matter what one might think of the latter.
I'd never heard that one before. Google gave me one or two relevant links, along with some stuff on a current urban legend about romantic practices among horny Mormons.
My dad used to use "Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego" as a humorously dismissive placeholder for unknown individuals.
ME: Who do you think is gonna show up to the party?
DAD: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego!
I assume this was a common joke he heard growing up among bible-based protestants, but I really don't know.
I mean, yeah, guys getting tossed into a furnace would normally be pretty memorable, but doesn't really stand out too much from the rest of the ubiquitous wackiness in the Old Testament.