They're a joke, so much editorializing. I've started using Reuters and AP as my main news apps now, just using CNN for live coverage.

Putin has completely changed the way Russian propaganda works, I thought this was common knowledge.

You can debate its efficacy and effects but to say he is just cribbing from back in the day KGB is just false.
Russia and the Menace of Unreality How Vladimir Putin is revolutionizing information warfare

The Hidden Author of Putinism How Vladislav Surkov invented the new Russia

More on Sukov:

Only fake if you are the kind of person that just reads headlines and doesn't bother with the article.

Talking of which

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...trump-wiretaps

I'm just waiting for "UK ex-PM admits Trump wire-tapp"

When even adios can write a good post on a subject, you know you're getting clowned on.

Right, first off I'm going to say that I think what you wrote is little better than verbal diarrhea. But, unlike you, I am not going to start off by saying "Troll more?". And you know why? Because I am not a complete dick, that's why.

You seem top be confused by a few issues, including who is best positioned and responsible for gathering information/evidence and conducting a review. Why do you even think that independent public bodies ever conduct reviews in any country? Seems like you think that politicians should either obtain full 100% proof themselves (despite their limited power) or let it lie. No, sometimes you want the review to be independent and to include the power to interview people/obtain information that politicians do not have.

Just to be clear, nobody is saying that Putin has simply installed Trump as POTUS but that he played his part in the election result. If the dems had done thing differently he may not have succeeded. He probably won't succeed in getting Marine Le Pen elected either, but he sure is trying his best. Back to the US, this isn't over just because the election is - any bribes etc in place can impact on US policy for years if unchecked.

Yet, you brush all this off, refer to the investigation as boring, and call others trolls. Great. At least you didn't scream "FAKE NEWS" I guess so thanks for that at least.

There's no need to only focus on one thing or the other. It's a false dichotomy.

The Republican questioning of Gorsuch is so boring.

Much more entertaining when Democratic senators play the "I'm going to outsmart one of the greatest legal minds in the country" game, only to find out that it turns out their unpaid interns may actually not have as good a handle on the cases that Gorsuch decided as he does.

Of course some said before the election that they would push for confirming Garland if Hillary won.

Besides most Senators really want to retain their seat and the smart play would have been to get the issue off the table as soon as possible. There was no real political heat for waiting out the election but that would have changed in a hurry. No way they would have let it sit out there another 4 years. No way you would get a better nominee out of Hillary. There would have been enough defections to give the others cover.

It doesn't really matter what dems do on gorsuch, republicans are going nuclear option anyway.

How would there be political heat from waiting 200 days vs 2000? AT ALL? or any media coverage? It's old news. Mitch doesn't allow defections so words are meaningless and there's no chance he'd have allowed a hearing. They didn't lose a thing obstructing and arguably gained because of it ffs.

This is true, but when you have ****ing morons like Chris Coons talking about giving Gorsuch the fair hearing that Garland never got, it kinda seems like Democrats are only focusing on one thing, and the wrong one at that!

Chris Coons: (202) 224-5042

Literally how all of these hearings go though. Like, even extremely astute legal minds won't be able to put together a 30 second sound bite where they're just dunking on a well regarded federal judge.

Probably the most time honored tradition during these things is you find some case where the result sounds horrific on its face, and try to take the judge to task for it. Then the judge is like "I agree that the result is horrific but my hands were bound by the law." And it goes back and forth like that for five minutes.

The fascinating part for me is that the Dems are always trying to make it seem as if this judge might be particularly horrible when in fact he is abiding by the standard conservative line.

This guy isn't even liberal, and he also doesn't care about the Dems winning anything at all. He has a background in the CIA though:


https://twitter.com/Evan_McMullin/st...63918444580864

Uh, OK:


I guess I am just the cynical type but this doesn't feel new or different. You make it sound like Putin just invented lying and bull****, and packaging it together with the new technologies and entertainment. I remain skeptical. Isn't this just the tabloid style; yellow journalism and the Murdoch model? These stories sound a little old school; they sound like a well-worn playbook. Isn't the "pretend a small ethnic minority population is under attack by your opponents just across the border to justify your aggression and incursions" just the Gleiwitz incident? Isn't mixing propaganda and lies and entertainment just the modern day implementation of Leni Riefenstahl?

I dunno. RUSSIA COMPLETELY REWROTE THE BOOK by what, inventing lying? Fantastic bull****? Authoring pretend history? Mixing in technology and entertainment? Pretty sure this is not new but I suppose I don't really care, nothing in this article seems relevant here. That Putin is engaged in propaganda is not at all in question. It's efficacy is entirely in question but you don't want to talk about that. Instead we want to talk about all the new wrinkles he's added in, like different kinds of lies and fictions, and using TV. I maintain this is not new, interesting or qualitatively different form of propaganda.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU

Someone needs to primary this clown in 2020.

But the internet in it's current form (or close) is fairly new. As is how information is stored and communicated. Thus, hacking is fairly new. How would someone like Putin have got the message to US/French voters decades ago?

And that's before we even mention other technologies that aide spying etc.

And of course when they switch to a Dem questioning him, CNN cuts to Spicer. Dammit.

My fwiw thoughts

1) It is possible for Congress to focus on more than one thing at a time. They do it every day. Hell they did it yesterday (Gorsuch's hearing was happening while Comey's was also happening). Ein is correct...it's a false dichotomy

2) OF COURSE Dems are gonna milk the Russia thing for every drop they can get, that's how these things have gone since The Beginning. It's truly a scandal and deserves maximum scrutiny and investigation. Never mind what's in their "playbook," Dems and indeed all of Congress would be derelict in its duty not to vigorously pursue.

3) If I'm reading the takes itt correctly, it's being argued that the Dems should not be doing what the GOP has been doing since Obama was sworn in, even though it has brought them massive Congressional electoral success? That doesn't make sense to me if that's what is being argued.


And yeah, the Dems should force McConnell to go nuclear on Gorsuch, but they'd be doing this fail act even without the Russia issue(s) because they actually think government should work, rightly or wrongly. But then the notion that no one on the left WANTS them to 'just get along and do their jobs' makes not a lot of sense here...we should be like the GOP when it comes to SCOTUS noms but not be like the GOP when it comes to executive-level scandals, real or imagined?

Switched to cspan in time to see Whitehouse confused by the idea that SCOTUS uses precedents in its decisions.

I wasn't saying you were trolling. I was answering the question:

My answer was "troll more?"

But understandable confusion. Not calling you a troll though.

I agree law enforcement are the correct parties to be doing the investigation. And I don't think it's boring. But at this point, I don't find the narrative politically useful without some kind of reinforcement from law enforcement. Democrats have focused on it before the election and now after. Trump seems deeply unpopular but that could be caused by a whole different set of things. GOP remains in total control of the government and they are largely remaining untainted by the Russian stuff. And the Russian stuff largely does nothing for the left to further their agenda but embarrass and weaken Trump. Those are laudable goals but we can do it in a different way that also furthers what we want and damages many of our political opponents and holds them accountable for violating popular consensus on policies like health care.

obv wasn't talking about Ivanka here

It makes sense from the perspective that the parties' bases don't think all that much alike so you can't necessarily follow what was successful with the other side and expect to have similar success. Being obstructionists works great for conservatives because it's the ultimate way to ensure no progress is made. It probably won't work as well for progressives (in comparison to Rs, not saying the current Dems are all that progressive) because it's the opposite of what they're for.

That said, Dems should be much more obstructionist than they're being currently, especially on things that will matter for decades like SC Justices, otherwise as has been pointed out over and over they're basically giving up on ever nominating a Justice ever again.

Surkov took it to a whole new level.
master of 6D chess

Whitehouse killing it