4 ms·

I disagree. Twitter literally censored facts and discussion about the Biden laptop, covid, and vaccines. They let Russia-gate accusations go unchallenged even

I disagree. Twitter literally censored facts and discussion about the Biden laptop, covid, and vaccines. They let Russia-gate accusations go unchallenged even after courts had decided it was false. I bet there are people here who still believe it was true and real. That's evidence. The bias is undeniable unless of course the media a person consumes tells them otherwise. In which case they'd have no facts or data to challenge the narrative they've been fed. Twitter censors the "right" at the drop of a hat. The "left" rarely ever. Honestly though I am not sure if the labels "right" and "left" really fit the discourse anymore. It seems more that the compass of the political spectrum [1] as defined by Nolan has shifted counter clockwise. Not unlike the shifting of the Overton window [2]. This shift roughly moves "Liberals" into the "Authoritarian" quadrant and "Conservatives" into the "Libertarian". So today we find ourselves in more of an "Authoritarian" vs "Libertarian" dynamic. The great centralization via the Internet and big technology services really gave the Authoritarian seed the fertile soil it needed to grow. There is a political realignment going on along those lines. I am ranting. Time for bed. Cheers. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

ModernMech 4y ago
> They let Russia-gate accusations go unchallenged even after courts had decided it was false. I bet there are people here who still believe it was true and real. What courts and what findings? What was found by the Special Counsel was that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign welcomed the help and then Trump personally obstructed the subsequent investigation into said interference. The Republican-lead Senate Select Committee on Intelligence then released a report that found the Trump campaign transferred internal campaign data to a Russian intelligence officer as they were in the process of running a psyops campaign targeting American citizens aimed at helping Trump, and they lied about it to everyone. If you believe Russia-gate was a hoax, please explain this finding of the Republican-lead Senate select committee: It is our conclusion, based on the facts detailed in the Committee's Report, that the Russian intelligence services' assault on the integrity of the 2016 U.S. electoral process[,] and Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity, represents one of the single most grave counterintelligence threats to American national security in the modern era.
- TrispusAttucks 4y ago
  "They made it all up." [1] "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." > ... please explain this finding ... A committee does not have the same requirements as a court of law and is permitted to be speculative in it's findings. Trump was acquitted on all impeachment charges and no criminal collusion with Russia was established. I suggest pulling on this thread [1] checkout these fines [2] regarding this debunked document [3] and follow this investigation [4] and consider the meaning of collusion. "Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty" -- [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/24/mueller-report-conclusions-donald-trump-russia-investigation-barr-deliver-congress/3256025002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/24/muel... [1] https://nypost.com/2021/11/04/the-real-collusion-was-the-creation-of-russiagate-out-of-absolutely-nothing/ https://nypost.com/2021/11/04/the-real-collusion-was-the-cre... [2] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/30/dnc-clinton-campaign-fine-dossier-spending-disclosure-00021910 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/30/dnc-clinton-campaig... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier [4] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/durham-cia-concluded-data-alleging-trump-russia-connection-not-technically-plausible-user-created https://www.foxnews.com/politics/durham-cia-concluded-data-a...
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > "They made it all up." [1] Yeah, this is the typical refrain. "It's all a hoax!". To debunk your sources all I need to do is refer you to the Mueller report Vols I and II, as well as the Senate Intel report Vol V. specifically. All of the posts you link fail to account for Manafort having contact and sharing information with a Russian intelligence officer while Russia was hacking Democrats. I get not wanting to engage with this fact, because it shows direct collusion with Russia at the highest level of the Trump campaign, and it's quite convenient for you to claim that it's just made up, but I really must insist. The Republican-lead Senate Intel Committee, chaired by Republican Senator Marco Rubio, authored a report that said the Trump campaign passed internal data to a Russian intel officer. What do you say to this? That they made it up? Why did Marco Rubio make this up? Why did all the other Republicans on the committee agree to publish this report with made up information that would hurt Trump, and be 100% counter to their message that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia? Republicans controlled that committee, so they could have written anything they wanted. Why did they write that specifically? What's your actual theory here? > A committee does not have the same requirements as a court of law and is permitted to be speculative in it's findings. You haven't presented any court findings yourself, so I'm not sure why you take issue with the Mueller Report and Republican-chaired Senate Intel report as not meeting a high enough standard for you. Anyway, your Wikipedia link about the Steele Dossier doesn't help your case. It says much of what the Steele Dossier contained turned out to be true or at least has not been disproven at this point. > Trump was acquitted on all impeachment charges and no criminal collusion with Russia was established. Trump was never charged or impeached for his conduct with Russia, not for reasons at all relating to his conduct mind you. But I must note the juxtaposition of "court of law" and "Trump was acquitted on all impeachment charges" in your reply. Impeachment is not a fact-finding process, and the standards of evidence during impeachment are actually far below what you would expect from a court of law. The verdict is rendered by politicians, so insisting on a standard of evidence and then pointing to a political process as proof of innocence doesn't track. But since you brought it up, the first impeachment acquittal shouldn't be taken to mean Trump was not guilty of extorting Ukraine. He absolutely was, and it was proven without rebuttal during the impeachment process. The defense raised was not that he didn't do it, but that he had the right and power to do it. Republicans acquitted Trump on that basis. It was an affirmation of the raw exercise of power for personal gain as a legitimate tool of statecraft. If you listen to the speeches given as rationales for their votes, plenty of Republican senators concede that Trump engaged in the alleged extortion scheme, but that he had learned a lesson and was sufficiently chastised by the mere blight of having been impeached. > "Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty" That's exactly what Trump did... he was called out on colluding with Russians, and then he turned around and said it was Hillary who actually colluded. Be honest, have you actually read the Mueller Report or Senate Intel Report? Because you don't make points I would expect someone who has read these documents would make. It seems like your entire knowledge of the events in question come from right wing media sources, and I really have to ask: if you haven't read these reports, why have you formed such strong opinions about them? And if you have read those reports, why don't you engage with the specific evidence raised in them instead of dismissing them outright and bringing up right wing media sources?
guelo 4y ago
You have anecdotes not data. If you aren't aware of banned accounts on the left that's bias in the media you consume, which is very common since there is barely any popular media on the left. Doesn't matter though, the extremely strong right wing propaganda has scored a victory today and they'll get to spew more of their propaganda on Twitter once again.

ModernMech 4y ago

> They let Russia-gate accusations go unchallenged even after courts had decided it was false. I bet there are people here who still believe it was true and real. What courts and what findings? What was found by the Special Counsel was that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign welcomed the help and then Trump personally obstructed the subsequent investigation into said interference. The Republican-lead Senate Select Committee on Intelligence then released a report that found the Trump campaign transferred internal campaign data to a Russian intelligence officer as they were in the process of running a psyops campaign targeting American citizens aimed at helping Trump, and they lied about it to everyone. If you believe Russia-gate was a hoax, please explain this finding of the Republican-lead Senate select committee: It is our conclusion, based on the facts detailed in the Committee's Report, that the Russian intelligence services' assault on the integrity of the 2016 U.S. electoral process[,] and Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity, represents one of the single most grave counterintelligence threats to American national security in the modern era.

TrispusAttucks 4y ago
"They made it all up." [1] "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." > ... please explain this finding ... A committee does not have the same requirements as a court of law and is permitted to be speculative in it's findings. Trump was acquitted on all impeachment charges and no criminal collusion with Russia was established. I suggest pulling on this thread [1] checkout these fines [2] regarding this debunked document [3] and follow this investigation [4] and consider the meaning of collusion. "Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty" -- [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/24/mueller-report-conclusions-donald-trump-russia-investigation-barr-deliver-congress/3256025002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/24/muel... [1] https://nypost.com/2021/11/04/the-real-collusion-was-the-creation-of-russiagate-out-of-absolutely-nothing/ https://nypost.com/2021/11/04/the-real-collusion-was-the-cre... [2] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/30/dnc-clinton-campaign-fine-dossier-spending-disclosure-00021910 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/30/dnc-clinton-campaig... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier [4] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/durham-cia-concluded-data-alleging-trump-russia-connection-not-technically-plausible-user-created https://www.foxnews.com/politics/durham-cia-concluded-data-a...
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > "They made it all up." [1] Yeah, this is the typical refrain. "It's all a hoax!". To debunk your sources all I need to do is refer you to the Mueller report Vols I and II, as well as the Senate Intel report Vol V. specifically. All of the posts you link fail to account for Manafort having contact and sharing information with a Russian intelligence officer while Russia was hacking Democrats. I get not wanting to engage with this fact, because it shows direct collusion with Russia at the highest level of the Trump campaign, and it's quite convenient for you to claim that it's just made up, but I really must insist. The Republican-lead Senate Intel Committee, chaired by Republican Senator Marco Rubio, authored a report that said the Trump campaign passed internal data to a Russian intel officer. What do you say to this? That they made it up? Why did Marco Rubio make this up? Why did all the other Republicans on the committee agree to publish this report with made up information that would hurt Trump, and be 100% counter to their message that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia? Republicans controlled that committee, so they could have written anything they wanted. Why did they write that specifically? What's your actual theory here? > A committee does not have the same requirements as a court of law and is permitted to be speculative in it's findings. You haven't presented any court findings yourself, so I'm not sure why you take issue with the Mueller Report and Republican-chaired Senate Intel report as not meeting a high enough standard for you. Anyway, your Wikipedia link about the Steele Dossier doesn't help your case. It says much of what the Steele Dossier contained turned out to be true or at least has not been disproven at this point. > Trump was acquitted on all impeachment charges and no criminal collusion with Russia was established. Trump was never charged or impeached for his conduct with Russia, not for reasons at all relating to his conduct mind you. But I must note the juxtaposition of "court of law" and "Trump was acquitted on all impeachment charges" in your reply. Impeachment is not a fact-finding process, and the standards of evidence during impeachment are actually far below what you would expect from a court of law. The verdict is rendered by politicians, so insisting on a standard of evidence and then pointing to a political process as proof of innocence doesn't track. But since you brought it up, the first impeachment acquittal shouldn't be taken to mean Trump was not guilty of extorting Ukraine. He absolutely was, and it was proven without rebuttal during the impeachment process. The defense raised was not that he didn't do it, but that he had the right and power to do it. Republicans acquitted Trump on that basis. It was an affirmation of the raw exercise of power for personal gain as a legitimate tool of statecraft. If you listen to the speeches given as rationales for their votes, plenty of Republican senators concede that Trump engaged in the alleged extortion scheme, but that he had learned a lesson and was sufficiently chastised by the mere blight of having been impeached. > "Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty" That's exactly what Trump did... he was called out on colluding with Russians, and then he turned around and said it was Hillary who actually colluded. Be honest, have you actually read the Mueller Report or Senate Intel Report? Because you don't make points I would expect someone who has read these documents would make. It seems like your entire knowledge of the events in question come from right wing media sources, and I really have to ask: if you haven't read these reports, why have you formed such strong opinions about them? And if you have read those reports, why don't you engage with the specific evidence raised in them instead of dismissing them outright and bringing up right wing media sources?

guelo 4y ago

You have anecdotes not data. If you aren't aware of banned accounts on the left that's bias in the media you consume, which is very common since there is barely any popular media on the left. Doesn't matter though, the extremely strong right wing propaganda has scored a victory today and they'll get to spew more of their propaganda on Twitter once again.