Why Big Lies Work in Propaganda
-
@AsadZ I think the hard part about those goals are that they are very qualitative. How can one identify success re: draining the swamp or making America great? What is the specific criteria for identifying someone as part of the swamp? I believe it’s possible to identify a standard criteria for people or policies thst must go, and targeting people or policies who meet those criteria. Making America great seems entirely subjective no matter how you slice it.
Repealing ACA is a tangible goal. But I won’t be in favor of that unless something better is put in place. And again I think it would be beneficial if we had a set of benchmarks that we are attempting to achieve with a new plan that are identified as deficiences in the current plan.
-
@approxinfinity We have to kill Obamacare, no matter what, its got to go. Our President is working so hard but the damn Senators. Why don’t they do it, its not so hard.
Fake News is another distraction. They cant let him do anything, everything about Russia. Its got to stop.
By the way I forgot one point. Not only he will make American great again, he will protect Americans. He will build for us a beautiful Wall. It will be see through.
-
@AsadZ I honestly can’t tell if you’re a parody troll or serious. LOL
-
@AsadZ He has already made America great by getting that Muslim fer’ner Hassein Osama out of the white house.
-
@mayjay Our President will provide more protection, complete ban of all Muslims, only if fake news can stop the Russia collusion garbage.
-
@AsadZ it’s the responsibility of the Congress to create a bill. Trump isn’t involved until they present him with something to sign.
What do you think Trump would accomplish if the Russian election investigation wasn’t happening?
Im not really sure of this President’s specific agenda once the roadblocks go away.
You mentioned the invisible border wall. I’ve often wondered if punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants isn’t the most direct and immediate approach to hindering illegal immigration. And it has always been my thought that since this has never been the proposed solution, that this issue seems to be more of a political chip than something people want to actually change.
-
@approxinfinity I think you are missing the facetiousness font…
-
@mayjay I meant in no part to be facetious. Just trying to be linear and forthright. Isn’t it true that punishing the employers for hiring illegal immigrants would be the most direct approach, if in fact legal Americans would take the same jobs in lieu of the illegal immigrants being hired? Are you suggesting that those employers would not be able to operate if they had to hire American citizens legally? Do you agree that many fewer people would stay in the US illegally if there were no employment opportunities for them?
-
@approxinfinity Ooops, I meant your replies were so serious I figured you didn’t see the facetiousness in someone else’s post. Ah, the intensity of youth…
I will ponder your questions later when I have more time!
-
@mayjay ah I see. Right on right on.
I was not sure if he was being facetious. But sarcasm doesn’t seem to further solutioneering, it is it’s own emotional endpoint, so I’ll take his comments at face value; it moves the conversation forward.
-
@approxinfinity Sarcasm is usually more pointed, and can seem hostile. Facetiousness, in my view, is more light-heartedness. I make facetious comments about both wings of the political spectrum. And about myself.
Puns, too, but is just a character flaw.
-
@mayjay I use puns all the time. Lol @ character flaw. You’re probably right about that, it’s also kind of like verbal scent marking isn’t it?
I never really had a feel for the difference between sarcasm and facetiousness.
I have a buddy at work that frequently interjects humor everywhere. While it can derail it can also bring levity. Levity is critical too. Its just that when you’ve got people with belief sets that have been juxtaposed against one another, the punchlines may sometimes be in two different endzones.
-
mayjay said:
@AsadZ He has already made America great by getting that Muslim fer’ner Hassein Osama out of the white house.
I believe the name is Barak Hussein Obama and no, Trump did not get him out of the White House, the Constitution of our country that prevented him from running for a third term did…not that he would have won a third term.
By the way, what is a fer’ner? I have seen “ferner” but I can’t say I have seen that spelling before.
-
@JayHawkFanToo who is Batak?
-
@JayHawkFanToo you don’t think Obama would have won a 3rd term? I always assumed he would have beaten either of the two candidates handily. Its hard to imagine he would have fallen in the pitfalls Hillary fell into, or neglected the rust belt like she did during the election. He did fail to bail out the auto industry like he did the banks. It seems like that has come back to haunt the Democrats. Please expound how he might have lost if you have some more thoughts about that you don’t mind sharing. It’s an interesting topic.
-
All this ceaseless and sustained boot licking of Mr. T in the presence of Mr. P., it has been suggested that their might exist unsightly videos or snapshots of Mr. T capering around in some backstage dressing room or Moscow bordello, nickers dropped to his bony ankles, backalong during Mr. T’s Moscow beauty pageant. How about that for a colorful scenario and plausible explanation for the current presidential kowtowing to the sly individuals currently perched in persuasive Soviet power?
-
@REHawk I’ve heard rumors of that. Who knows. Until it is proven it seems to be speculation and should be withheld from the court of public opinion. It seems it will be investigated and come up if it holds water.
-
@REHawk I went back and read the report on BuzzFeed. I’m sure most have probably already read it, but here’s the report. Ex MI-6 operative created the report for Trump’s opposition, so take it with whatever grain of salt.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html
If the activity you referred to occurred, admitting it as evidence would require proof beyond doubt, without access to the tape. However, the parts of the document regarding potential financial dealings with Chinese and Russian figures seem much more provable and undoubtedly is the angle that Muller’s team is taking.
-
So name one Billionaire that hasn’t and isn’t doing business with China or Russia?
Just name one?
Better yet name me one politician that isn’t taking money from a lobbyist? And who do the lobbyist work for? Big business? So now name me one big business that isn’t doing business with China or Russia?
Yep Trump is guilty.
-
What I would like to know is why is everybody just focusing on just Trump Jr’s meeting with this Russian lawyer? I mean why aren’t we looking at the bigger picture?
For instance
Why does a foreign country have so much dirt on Hillary?
Is sharing information actually Collison?
What has Hillary done that some foreign country could have information that could effect her so negatively?
If the FBI Contacts Russia in a fact finding mission is this considered Collison?
Is talking to some one about damning info on another really breaking the law?
Yet we won’t get those questions answered. Nah this is all about Trump. Fair and balanced.
-
@DoubleDD I’m sure there’s truth to the fact that other billionaires have business with Russia and China, but the document mentions corrupt business with both, and most specifically, I’m thinking that one of smoking guns would be this claim:
In terms of the substance of their discussion, SECHIN’s associate said that the Rosneft President was so keen to lift personal and corporate western sanctions imposed on the company, that he offered PAGE/TRUMP’s associates the brokerage of up to a 19 per cent (privatised) stake in Rosneft in return. PAGE had expressed interest and confirmed that were TRUMP elected US president, then sanctions on Russia would be lifted
Focusing on Hillary in response to allegations of corruption on the part of Trump doesn’t make sense to me. In no way would her corruption make corruption by Trump okay, right? Are you suggesting that identifying corruption in this presidency is made any less important because a losing candidate in the past election was also corrupt? Or are you suggesting that Trump isn’t corrupt? If so, how can you be sure of that?
I don’t know what to make of the fact that when Trump met Putin they deliberately had a second private one hour meeting that was only accompanied by Putin’s translator, and then he said it was fifteen minutes long when asked about it. That seems pretty sketchy. Not the kind of thing you do when under investigation for collusion with that country.
And I get that you could say that’s circumstantial evidence. But that’s why an official investigation is important. To examine strictly the facts and not appearances. In May, Trump’s team was saying that he welcomes the Russia investigation. What has changed since May that would make the investigation now unwelcome? The truth is the truth, isn’t it?
-
If a billionaire president has business dealings with a foreign power or with megacorps in that country, is it too much to ask to have some transparency and disclosure what those relationships are? I would ask the same if Hillary were president.
-
I think it’s quite fair and needed if you going to investigate some one or something.
I would also have to ask why Did Obama, and Lynch go out of their way to get this Russian lawyer into the country. A lawyer that just so happens to have the so called goods on Hillary, and a meeting with Trump Jr.
Lets not forget those that view this issue as very important. Also view this as an impeachable or removal from office type stuff. As if a great travesty has been done. Almost Treason.
I gave this some thought. The topic is Why lies work in Propaganda. Well this Trump investigation is the perfect example. Too many are seeing red. They have been filled with lies of Collison for how long? So it’s like a man walking in the desert that has no water. When at last he finds something wet to drink. He doesn’t care what It tastes like of even if it’s good for him. He drinks.
The media and those on the Dem side have been seeing Red since that wonderful night that Trump turned the tables on Hillary. What a sight it was to see so many media types dazed and confused after realizing their champion had indeed lost.
The thing about lies is two things. One, people start not to trust you. Which would explain the low approval ratings that the media has gotten. Two, even when you might be telling the truth? You’ve cried wolf so long nobody believes you any way.
Take for instance this so called chance meeting with this Russian lawyer. What is working in the Propaganda of the issue? When those seeing red, they become benevolent to the evidence. All they see is a smoking gun and just can’t wait to pile one.
Yet one piece of evidence that any investigator would find interesting. Is this lawyers connection and relationship with Obama and Lynch. I would think if one really cared about justice and not just smearing ones name. Then this question has to be answered or at least looked at. It’s like the guy sitting out in the get away car. Hey I didn’t rob the place I was just sitting in the car. LOL
Sadly the fervor to get President Trump has reached a point in the Propaganda. That it you went around and asked any joe or moe on the street. They would believe (and this important) that Trump himself set up this meeting with Russian lawyer and attended such meeting. Yet Trump didn’t. So in those in the haste to Get Trump are going to take down anybody and everybody that is connected or gets in the way.
This is why the Hillary part of this equation is important. Her server and her inability to turn over said hacked information. Remember everybody said the Russians hacked the DNC.
So what information did the Russians have?
Was the Information from Hillary’s server the info that was to be given to Trump Jr?
And were they really going to give that information to Trump Jr?
Also why did Obama do nothing when he knew what the Russians were doing?
Trump very much may need to be investigated, yet why aren’t we asking these very valid questions. Because this isn’t about justice. This is about beseeching a person and a movement.
This is indeed a Propaganda filled with lies.
-
The report by the former MI6 agent was part of the opposition research dossier generated by the Fusion GPS group whose client was the DNC. The report was leaked to Sen. McCain who turned over to the FBI. The entire dossier was debunked by the FBI who deemed it to be not credible. Interesting that the report indicated that the Russians have been feeding information to the Trump campaign for many years; however Trump did not have a campaign team until after he announced his candidacy in June of 2015. By the way, do you know who has links to the Fusion GPS group? The lawyer that met with a Trump Jr. I understand she has indicated she is available to testify in front of Congress; I would be curious to hear what she has to say.
When you continue to cite a discredited report that has been fully debunked by the FBI (who is no friend of Trump) you continue to spread what now is called fake news. While this information has been kept low key by the MSM (big surprise) it is readily available from multiple reputable sources.
As far as your previous question on whether Obama could have won a third term, the answer is no, Hillary was supposed to be Obama’s third term and the country rejected her and by extension Obama, who endorsed Hillary, campaigned extensively for her and repeatedly indicated that a vote against Hillary would be a vote against him.
-
@JayHawkFanToo I have not seen anywhere where the dossier has been debunked in it’s entirety. Do you have a link? The report was initially funded by Republicans who did not want Trump as a nominee, and then Clinton. Regardless, yes, it has ties to the election. The only thing I’ve heard in this regard is that some of the items in the report have been identified as “unverifiable”. If you have something that goes further to actively disprove parts of the report please share.
As far as the other thing, Clinton is not the same as Obama in terms of popularity, and Obama did not have the dirt on him that she had on her. I’d agree that maybe there were groups with whom Obama had worn out his welcome, but it seems there are a lot more factors to Clinton’s unsuccessful run that invalidate labeling it as a wholesale rejection of Obama.
-
Here is one from Forbes, a pretty respectable source.
Here is one where the author of the dossier admits his charges are unverified.
Here is one where one the banks implicated is suing the author of the dossier
Here is another with interesting background information on the links between the author(s) of the dossier and the Democratic Party.
Need more?
-
@JayHawkFanToo thanks.
The Forbes piece is an op-ed piece of well reasoned speculation, and a decent read. The rest of the cited sources I’m not too keen on and don’t seem to add much. In the case of who funded the report, my understanding is that it initially was opposition Republicans, then the Democrats. The bank sued BuzzFeed, who leaked the report, not the author as you indicated, which is an important distinction. The author said that parts of the report were unverified and not meant for MSM. Was it leaked intentionally? Probably?
Anyway, I don’t see this as debunked, just unverified, and there is certainly cause for doubt. I am assuming that if any of this information has merit to it, it would be vetted fully before brought forth as evidence. I get that it is damaging to the president’s image and it is very frustrating for those who believe it’s bogus.
-
I know this wont change your mind. Yet I thought it was an interesting read. As I’ve been told, " if you isn’t got anything to hide then just share it"
-
Could it be that Hillary and the Dems colluded with the Russians?
-
This might get ugly for the Dems. We shall see.
-
While the information was made public in January, it has been available to insiders since long before the election. If the information was good, don’t you think Hillary would have had it front and center? Bob Woodward of Watergate fame and still working for the ultra liberal Washington Post called the dossier a “garbage document.” Enough said.
-
@DoubleDD I haven’t had the opportunity to try to find sources regarding conspiracy around the lawyer that Donald Trump Jr met with and Clinton. I have been meaning to. Do you have a starting place on that angle with a source that doesn’t have a strong bias on this? I’ve admittedly been blind to that angle but would be open minded to a source that didn’t smell funny from the gate.
-
@approxinfinity According to one report last week, she has close ties to both the Russian mob and the government. Russia “experts” say that you can’t talk about Russia wiithout understanding how intricately entertwined business and criminal organizations are with the government. I want to read more on the inner workings. It sounds sort of like Tamany Hall or a combo of Mayor Daley and Capone.
One thing we know: journalists don’t enjoy the freedom to investigate over there that they do here. They tend, along with government reformers, to get taken out or locked up on spurious charges.
-
I’m afraid I really don’t have much accept a bunch or right leaning sites. Some better than others.
Time did a piece on it. It’s kind of interesting. It tells a little of the story about her. Yet the interesting part is Time says she set up the meeting. Hear Say? I don’t know. Really don’t have anything concrete to stand on.
-
@DoubleDD thanks. I read the piece you linked to. It didn’t look like they said anything about Clinton being involved with orchestrating the meeting, as you said.
There is certainly the question of what the Russian attorneys motives were. I get that there could be an agenda here that was possibly trying to harm or get leverage on Trump. But seriously, why did they walk into this trap in the first place? Be it chaos, lack of understanding, or deliberately doing things that are going to get themselves in trouble, it feels like this administration is taking daily jogs through spider webs. This doesn’t feel like being fresh and original in their approach. Why can’t they avoid these mistakes?
And it seems like maybe the narrative has been shifted to try to incriminate Clinton in being behind the attorney, because it would be more socially acceptable that the Trump cabinet was careless if it was entrapment by Clinton. What if it was entrapment but by Russia instead of Clinton. Doesn’t that become a problem when they walk right into it?
-
I don’t remember saying Clinton set up the meeting? I did say Obama and Lynch went out of their way to let this lawyer in.
And this isn’t an administration fault. This was before Trump was elected. Remember this wasn’t Trump senior.
I’m afraid this was a son thinking he could do something good for his father.
So sad that Trump Jr. is going to be fried for his actions. While Hillary and her actions walks away scot free?
-
You are forgetting that except for some consultants that were eventually hired, basically the entire Trunp campaign team was new to politics including Trump Jr. and his brother in law; competent business men, no doubt, but complete newbies when it came to politics. They probably saw an opportunity to get some oppo research and jumped to it and did not realize they were being setup until the meeting got underway and the topic was not what they were expecting.
When the full story is told, the Democrats might end up regretting having pushed it when it comes back to bite them in the butt.
-
@DoubleDD sorry, I misspoke. What I meant was that as you said, it wasn’t possible to verify an association beyond that, but I mistakenly said Clinton instead of Obama.
@JayHawkFanToo I get that they’re new to politics but it’s hard to believe that alarms weren’t going off when they were contacted. I’m not a politician but I would know to proceed with extreme caution in that situation. If this was even a reflection of their business acumen it seems to point to carelessness. Not a quality you want in a presidential advisor.
-
@DoubleDD I read the Forbes article…thanks for that. Good read. One thing I’m curious about is the claim that Fusion was already collecting material on Trump for a republican super PAC. I found this in Steele’s Wikipedia page. When I attempted to verify it what I found was that Paul Wood for BBC had reported that it was Jeb Bush’s PAC Right to Rise that funded it. The PAC denied it and BBC retracted the story.
I understand where you guys are coming from regarding frustration around the origin, credibility, and intent behind this document.
-
For an individual new to politics getting info on the other party would obviously seem like good news. Keep in mind that there is nothing illegal with what they did; unwise? yes, illegal? No.
-
And then lying about it is?
-
@Crimsonorblue22 …over and over and over again.
-
@mayjay judge, is that illegal or if you are new just count that as unwise? I didn’t know I was lying, I swear!
-
@Crimsonorblue22 Sort of like the excuse that you accidentally shot someone 12 times with a six-shooter.
-
What exactly was the lie?
-
@JayHawkFanToo https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/11/donald-trump-russia-timeline-campaign-denials
The lies were various forms of denial regarding contact with Russia, and I think mostly the person denying it was Trump himself. The Trump team took the easier road to electability by denying all contact, but they persisted with that lie up to the point of undeniable proof to the contrary.
Legally the line is drawn if one testifies and purjures oneself. I don’t understand why Kuschner, Jr, and Manifort were allowed to testify in private and not under oath this week, but lying in such a format is still purjury. The transcripts also could be released by Congress with classified information redacted. They should be.
When you so forcibly deny the truth on social media platforms you use to conduct other business, such as executive orders banning transgender people from military service, the legal lines get a little blurry as to the criminality of those false claims. Regardless, a case can be made that no legal lines were crossed, provided that the testimonies of those three admitted contact with Russia, refuting all their prior statements on the matter.
Either way, the president and his team have clearly repeatedly lied to date.
-
@approxinfinity Tweets have no legal effect whatsoever except as evidence used to show the intent of a later-issued executive order, as has been done with the travel ban(s). The Supremes will be deciding whether that use is okay, but they have used extraneous comments by legislators in the past to void legislation passed with bad motives (e.g., NC voter restrictions) so the same principle might apply.
There are other legal issues, chiefly Jared’s security clearance forms that have had to be amended 3 times, I believe, to add these contacts, change dozens of answers, and include over 100 people he had omitted initially. Might be excused as the work of a neophyte, but any ordinary federal employee would be cashiered for those. Obviously, Jared had no way of knowing how to answer and presumably with a net worth of 400 to 600 million, no assets to hire legal help.
-
@mayjay is that a legal issue? The initial omission of facts on a security clearance, then amendment? Should he have been denied clearance and is the granting of clearance despite these omissions something that can be scrutinized regarding legality? Or is this just really bad form, possibly unethical, but technically not illegal?
-
What contacts with Russia? There is zero evidence of any contact with rusians, which is implied to be the Russian government. There was one contact with one Russian attorney who is it and was not a member of the Russian government and who was personally authorized to enter our country by former AG Loretta Lynch after she was denied entry and led to nowhere.
By your definition, Kim Jon Un, the leader of North Korea must also be colluding with the American government, after all he met with Dennis Rodmam who is a friend of Trump.
-
@JayHawkFanToo i see what you’re saying here, but Trump’s language went beyond just dealing with the Russian government in his denials. No deals in Russia, fake news etc. Regardless, being truthful would be to explain the truth not just deny some partial truth by playing word games while going on the offensive espousing your innocence. The whole thing stinks. Illegal? I don’t think so with evidence to date. Untruthful? Yes.
