Old Thread About Election Consequences
nan said:Again--Where has RT said Jill Stein is a Russian spy??????? You previously said it came from a Titter made by a prominent Democrat. Now, you are claiming RT. You are the one bringing up RT. I never mentioned RT. What gives?
Also - I didn't say they said it - they're using that one meaningless tweet in their propaganda. Over and over again - sort of like "Hillary's emails" or Benghazi.
nohero said:
nan said:The "facts on this" are that's it relatively simple to identify where they differ, on some pretty basic principles and issues.
nohero said:OK, so let's look at the facts on this, for a change. What are the differences on foreign policy for the Republicans and Democrats? Who voted for Trump's military budget? Republicans or Democrats? Who said, when billions in an increase was proposed for the military, "How are we going to pay for that?"
On Mr. Surovell's sweeping epic of a thread (the "Hillary Colluded More" one), he recommended an interview with Professor Gerald Horne. I read that, and then some of Dr. Horne's other works. As I discussed there with Mr. Surovell, Dr. Horne identified a significant cause of the election of Trump.
It seems that the GOP "led many voters to think that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans. And that created an opening for Donald Trump and allowed him to win."
Of course, the GOP had some help in making that claim.
Some of those "facts" are actually people, some of whom are right in our community, and are nearby, and in our state, and throughout our country. I've given up hope in convincing Ms. Nan that the consequences to them should be given any thought when deciding how to vote.
@nohero oversimplifies Dr. Horne's position. In fact Horne is a harsh critic of the Democratic Party and his position was that a higher vote for the Green Party would be a good influence on the Democratic Party going forward. He encouraged voters on the left to vote Green in states where the polls showed Hillary with a big lead (like New Jersey).
https://therealnews.com/stories/ghorne0927debate
HORNE: Well fortunately the ramshackle electoral college applies some options for progressive voters. As Al Gore could readily tell you, the person who gets the most votes in a US presidential election does not necessarily win. A US presidential election is actually 51 different elections. 50 states plus the District of Columbia. We know already who’s going to win in the mountain west, in Dixie, on the pacific coast, on the north east, and on the Midwest, that is to say the upper Midwest.
That’s why the candidates are frequently flying in to North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Colorado. So it seems to me in those 40 plus states where we already know the result in advance, the progressive electorates should try to send a signal to the eventual winner by casting a vote for a left wing candidate. For example, the Greens. I think that that will be a vote that is not only counted but weighed and will weigh very heavily upon any trigger happy president who is sworn in on January 2017.
JAY: And what about in the swing states?
HORNE: Well that’s hearts of a different color. I would urge and encourage the voters in the swing states to study the polls very carefully. For example, I may vote in North Carolina this year, where I’ve voted in the past 2 decades and I’m going to study the polls almost up to election day to determine whether or not it is a worthwhile vote to vote against the two party system, the duopoly, that has brought us this disaster and catastrophe.
JAY: So what exactly does that mean? If you’re in a state where Trump has a chance to win, how do you vote? I say assuming the Green Party does not do significantly better than it is. Because right now it’s polling at best, at some of the swing states, at best 2-4% if that.
HORNE: Well first of all, let me say that I think that the strategy of trying to defeat Trump by focusing on that 2-4% that’s voting for the Greens and trying to encourage them to vote for Hillary, is not a very wise strategy. First of all, we’re not talking about that many people. I’m baffled and befuddled why the progressive constituency is not going after that double digit constituency in the US working class. Particularly the Euro-American working class pledges its vote to Donald Trump. That’s who we need to encourage. That’s who we need to be lobbying. That’s who we need to be browbeating rather than browbeating the 2-4%.
JAY: But encouraging them to do what?
HORNE: Encouraging them to change their vote from voting for Donald Trump.
JAY: To voting for who?
HORNE: Well, at least vote for Clinton. Or perhaps vote for Jill Stein. Perhaps Jill Stein is a bridge too far. But at least not to vote for Donald Trump.
jamie said:
ok, who on this board has repeated the line "Jill Stein is a Russian Spy" more then you - or at all? You said that anyone (though no one has said it) believes this should get better news sources. Yet, any news source I've found that constantly repeats this phrase - are the very sites you claim to get your news from.
I have NEVER said Jill Stein is a Russian spy. I said that was crazy talk. Still waiting for evidence showing anyplace other than a prominent Democratic tweet stating this nonsense. Why do continue to feign ignorance about what I am saying? Is this early April Fools?
jamie said:
nan said:Also - I didn't say they said it - they're using that one meaningless tweet in their propaganda. Over and over again - sort of like "Hillary's emails" or Benghazi.
Again--Where has RT said Jill Stein is a Russian spy??????? You previously said it came from a Titter made by a prominent Democrat. Now, you are claiming RT. You are the one bringing up RT. I never mentioned RT. What gives?
Again whom are you talking about? Please provide evidence.
nan said:
jamie said:I have NEVER said Jill Stein is a Russian spy. I said that was crazy talk. Still waiting for evidence showing anyplace other than a prominent Democratic tweet stating this nonsense. Why do continue to feign ignorance about what I am saying? Is this early April Fools?
ok, who on this board has repeated the line "Jill Stein is a Russian Spy" more then you - or at all? You said that anyone (though no one has said it) believes this should get better news sources. Yet, any news source I've found that constantly repeats this phrase - are the very sites you claim to get your news from.
ok, the phrase "Jill Stein is a Russian spy" was said by who on here - besides you? Let's start there.
sbenois said Jill Stein is likely a Russian agent. BG9 brought up the possibility in the first place.
ridski said:
sbenois said Jill Stein is likely a Russian agent. BG9 brought up the possibility in the first place.
ok, thanks - that was what I was looking for. When nan said people were finding this on news sources - the only ones I found that were regurgitating that tweet were the Russian propaganda ones. I was expecting nan would point to MSM news sources that were pushing this narrative.
jamie said:
This thread will be heading to the alternative news subforum shortly.
Great news
jamie said:
nan said:ok, the phrase "Jill Stein is a Russian spy" was said by who on here - besides you? Let's start there.
jamie said:I have NEVER said Jill Stein is a Russian spy. I said that was crazy talk. Still waiting for evidence showing anyplace other than a prominent Democratic tweet stating this nonsense. Why do continue to feign ignorance about what I am saying? Is this early April Fools?
ok, who on this board has repeated the line "Jill Stein is a Russian Spy" more then you - or at all? You said that anyone (though no one has said it) believes this should get better news sources. Yet, any news source I've found that constantly repeats this phrase - are the very sites you claim to get your news from.
It was said in this thread!!!!!! And NEVER by me cause it's ignorant BS.
jamie said:
ridski said:ok, thanks - that was what I was looking for. When nan said people were finding this on news sources - the only ones I found that were regurgitating that tweet were the Russian propaganda ones. I was expecting nan would point to MSM news sources that were pushing this narrative.
sbenois said Jill Stein is likely a Russian agent. BG9 brought up the possibility in the first place.
So, now that someone else has said what I said will you believe it?
I'll take Ridski's word - still can't find the original post that states "Jill Stein is a Russian Spy". The only news sources I found repeating or using that one tweet have been RT resources.
jamie said:
I'll take Ridski's word - still can't find the original post that states "Jill Stein is a Russian Spy". The only news sources I found repeating or using that one tweet have been RT resources.
Not that I took it seriously, but FWIW from Friday morning:
sbenois said:
It's likely that she is a Russian agent.
Would everyone please try to not quote in full prior posts. Please do a little editing.
I Googled "Is Jill Stein a Russian Spy"?
This was Tweeted by Zac Petkanas who was Director of Rapid Response for Hillary's campaign. I posted it on the collusion thread in December 2017:
paulsurovell said:
This was Tweeted by Zac Petkanas who was Director of Rapid Response for Hillary's campaign. I posted it on the collusion thread in December 2017:
Are "spy" and "agent" interchangeable for purposes of this discussion? If "yes", does that send this thread to "alternative news from Russia" Siberia more quickly?
Maybe Jill Stein is the rumored sole survivor of the Bolshevik massacre of the Romanov royals.
As such that would make her a double agent. But would she use her own server on vital matters of State.
What if she had been elected? Would we have been forced to eat Borscht for lunch. I don't like Borscht.
paulsurovell said:
This was Tweeted by Zac Petkanas who was Director of Rapid Response for Hillary's campaign. I posted it on the collusion thread in December 2017:
yup - and I would post all RT affiliated articles using Zac's tweet but would prefer not to have those links on my site.
And thanks Paul for acknowledging that you are guilty of amplifying this tweet as well.
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:yup - and I would post all RT affiliated articles using Zac's tweet but would prefer not to have those links on my site.
This was Tweeted by Zac Petkanas who was Director of Rapid Response for Hillary's campaign. I posted it on the collusion thread in December 2017:
And thanks Paul for acknowledging that you are guilty of amplifying this tweet as well.
If you click on Lost's Google search, you will find that the idea of JIll Stein being a Russian spy/agent comes from the mainstream media.
So, do you agree this is fake news?
nan said:
If you click on Lost's Google search, you will find that the idea of JIll Stein being a Russian spy/agent comes from the mainstream media.
It was this sort of search I was doing https://www.google.com/search?ei=cXLfW-G8NI2UzwLHo5CICg&q=petkanas+%26+%22Russian+Agent%22&oq=petkanas+%26+%22Russian+Agent%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i299.4598.10171..10756...0.0..1.219.1613.17j0j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i22i30j33i160.hJVw5xAvskg
McCarthyism is also another prevalent term used on RT a lot lately.
jamie said:
It was this sort of search I was doing https://www.google.com/search?ei=cXLfW-G8NI2UzwLHo5CICg&q=petkanas+%26+%22Russian+Agent%22&oq=petkanas+%26+%22Russian+Agent%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i299.4598.10171..10756...0.0..1.219.1613.17j0j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i22i30j33i160.hJVw5xAvskg
McCarthyism is also another prevalent term used on RT a lot lately.
Yeah, and I think the search above gives that some evidence. Anyway, why do you keep insisting that RT says Jill Stein is a Russian spy, since we all know that 1) they don't and 2) she is not.
Ok so you concur that the MSM is not pushing the narrative that Stein IS a Russian spy. Your implication was that people were finding this narrative in their “news sources”. I read as your further bashing of the MSM.
nan said:Yeah, and I think the search above gives that some evidence. Anyway, why do you keep insisting that RT says Jill Stein is a Russian spy, since we all know that 1) they don't and 2) she is not.
What he’s saying is that RT gives that calumny oxygen by bringing it up, when hardly anybody else does.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:What he’s saying is that RT gives that calumny oxygen by bringing it up, when hardly anybody else does.
Yeah, and I think the search above gives that some evidence. Anyway, why do you keep insisting that RT says Jill Stein is a Russian spy, since we all know that 1) they don't and 2) she is not.
Do you agree that Senator Warner's statements -- that Jill Stein sat at a table with Putin and that she's said "complimentary things" things about Julian Assange were justifications for issuing subpoenas for Green Party campaign documents -- are also calumnies?
And this comment by Ari Melber?
MELBER: That`s a good point and we are dealing with a professional entertainer and reality star unless we forget. Bill Kristol and Matt Miller, thank you, both. Still to come, another lead in the Russia probe. Why was green party Candidate Jill Stein getting support apparently from WikiLeaks and the Kremlin? Also, my one on one tonight with former Trump Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski. I`m going to ask him about Russia and get reaction from Nick Akerman and a top Clinton aide.
And this spectacle by Rachel Maddow?
DaveSchmidt said:
^^^ Acknowledged by jamie last night.
But he didn't mention that I posted it previously, which is the direction that the conversation had taken (including your reference to @sbenois).
this has got to be the most worthless and annoying thread diversion ever.
Having said that - nan's post on the google search is pretty darn silly.
Nan- here's a clue. If you ask an actual question in a google search, you can't simply assume that the results are affirmative answers to your question. e.g. the first link in the results doesn't even have the word spy in it. (which is a common google annoyance)
ok, who on this board has repeated the line "Jill Stein is a Russian Spy" more then you - or at all? You said that anyone (though no one has said it) believes this should get better news sources. Yet, any news source I've found that constantly repeats this phrase - are the very sites you claim to get your news from.