Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
It's not like Putin is known for having his opponents muzzled or killed.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:There are hundreds of millions of Twitter users. Why care about a post that was retweeted only 2,100 times?
Paul: Laurence Tribe tweeted a deranged Russian conspiracy theory and thousands of his gullible followers retweeted because they have been manipulated to believe anything negative about Russia regardless of the facts.
Or so I think I’ve heard pondered here before about the limited reach of fakery on social media. But I may be getting my fruits mixed up again.
Laurence Tribe matters because he's regarded as a leading member of the American "intelligentsia."
In the same article, Glen Greenwald explains why Tribe's tweet is important:
I’ll confess some personal disappointment with all of this, given that — as a law student and then a young lawyer wanting to practice constitutional law — Tribe was someone I had regarded with a great deal of admiration. He was a genuine scholar of constitutional law. But like so many people in the public arena, the combination of Trump’s 2016 victory and the fearmongering specter of Putin as an omnipotent mastermind seems to have broken his brain, or at least the part of it responsible for rational reasoning.
The more deranged he gets, the more Tribe — needless to say — becomes not just a social media star (his Twitter follower count, like most Russia-Trump conspiracists, has exploded over the last year), but has also become an MSNBC favorite, as they exploit his credentials and pedigree to depict his madness as some sort of insightful, investigative dot-connecting.
That’s because, as I documented this morning, false claims about Russia are now a routine part of the U.S. media diet. There has long been a fringe on the far right that believes the Clintons are responsible for murdering dozens of people in order to silence them. Sometimes, people who thought that way were in the mainstream, as evidenced by the leading role played by the Wall Street Journal editorial page in pushing the theory that Hillary Clinton had former White House attorney Vince Foster murdered.
But those people have been largely scorned and relegated to obscurity. The new conspiracy theorists — the ones who casually suggest that when a plane crashes, it is really a secret attempt by Putin and Trump to silence one of the passengers (who wasn’t even a passenger) — are found not on far right websites, but on MSNBC and at Harvard Law School, with constantly growing social media followings and increasingly viral tweets. The people who like to rail most about the dangers of “fake news” and conspiracy theorizing seem awfully uninterested in condemning them because their derangement is for the right cause.
paulsurovell said:Laurence Tribe matters because he's regarded as a leading member of the American "intelligentsia."
I hope that I am not the only one who thinks that if there were such a thing as "the American intelligentsia" its members would not communicate via Twitter.
The statement that kooky conspiracy theories "are found not on far right websites" destroys any credibility this guy might otherwise have. Right wing web sites are filled with kooky conspiracy theories and those sites are not, unfortunately, obscure. Do you disagree, Paul?
And since when did an oblique one sentence aside become a "theory"? When the guy rights an article propounding an actual theory about the downing of the plane, you can come back and tell us how crazy he is.
paulsurovell said:
In the same article, Glen Greenwald explains why Tribe's tweet is important:
I’ll confess some personal disappointment with all of this, given that — as a law student and then a young lawyer wanting to practice constitutional law — Tribe was someone I had regarded with a great deal of admiration. He was a genuine scholar of constitutional law. But like so many people in the public arena, the combination of Trump’s 2016 victory and the fearmongering specter of Putin as an omnipotent mastermind seems to have broken his brain, or at least the part of it responsible for rational reasoning.
Someone whose past work, which is admired, still leaves his views on current matters open to criticism? I think that’s something I’ve seen pondered here before, too.
I remember Prof. Tribe being terribly wrong before.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/27/opinion/l-the-warrant-in-the-elian-raid-982598.html
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:
Even given that Tribe had wrong information about Sergei Millian, all he said was "Probably just coincidence." That's no reason to get so upset.
Post edited to add - Seriously, there's no accusation by Tribe of any wrongdoing about the plane crash in that tweet.
paulsurovell said:
Russia madness afflicts even our "greatest minds."
Read the Tweet below.
Your faux anger has been replaced by faux naivete.
Your point being that it would be foolish and naïve to read the Tribe tweet without some background and context. We need a more complete understanding of his positions and motives to properly interpret what he said.
Good advice. You should follow it instead of posting and endorsing dispatches from News for Badly Informed Bigots about “Hillary-and-Obama-are-evil”-gate.
paulsurovell said:
In the same article, Glen Greenwald explains why Tribe's tweet is important:
The more deranged he gets, the more Tribe — needless to say — becomes not just a social media star (his Twitter follower count, like most Russia-Trump conspiracists, has exploded over the last year), but has also become an MSNBC favorite, as they exploit his credentials and pedigree to depict his madness as some sort of insightful, investigative dot-connecting.
And re my earlier point: To consider a following (or retweets) on the order of thousands noteworthy, in a sea of hundreds of millions, is to acknowledge the potentially exponential influence of social media manipulation.
Ridski spoiler alert:
South_Mountaineer
Good advice. You should follow it instead of posting and endorsing dispatches from News for Badly Informed Bigots about “Hillary-and-Obama-are-evil”-gate.
paulsurovell said:
Laurence Tribe matters because he's regarded as a leading member of the American "intelligentsia."
By who (whom)? Sources please.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
paulsurovell said:
Laurence Tribe matters because he's regarded as a leading member of the American "intelligentsia."
By who (whom)? Sources please.
He taught Constitutional Law to Barack Obama, and pretty much wrote the text book on it.
ridski said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:
paulsurovell said:
Laurence Tribe matters because he's regarded as a leading member of the American "intelligentsia."
By who (whom)? Sources please.
He taught Constitutional Law to Barack Obama, and pretty much wrote the text book on it.
I know who he is, just challenging the declaration that he is "a leading member of the American "intelligentsia."" Not to mention the inference that Tribe has no right to be dead wrong. And this, from the self-declared oracle of all things Russia-gate.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
I know who he is, just challenging the declaration that he is "a leading member of the American "intelligentsia."" Not to mention the inference that Tribe has no right to be dead wrong. And this, from the self-declared oracle of all things Russia-gate.
With his reliance on faulty arguments, Mr. Surovell is sort of the "OhNo60" of the Trump/Russia topic.
nohero said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:
I know who he is, just challenging the declaration that he is "a leading member of the American "intelligentsia."" Not to mention the inference that Tribe has no right to be dead wrong. And this, from the self-declared oracle of all things Russia-gate.
With his reliance on faulty arguments, Mr. Surovell is sort of the "OhNo60" of the Trump/Russia topic.
Probably sitting in the Maplewood Starbucks reading this now.
More on (with apologies to Ridski) Tribegate:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/2-Professors-Walk-Into-a/240405
Dennis_Seelbach said:
ridski said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:
paulsurovell said:
Laurence Tribe matters because he's regarded as a leading member of the American "intelligentsia."
By who (whom)? Sources please.
He taught Constitutional Law to Barack Obama, and pretty much wrote the text book on it.
I know who he is, just challenging the declaration that he is "a leading member of the American "intelligentsia."" Not to mention the inference that Tribe has no right to be dead wrong. And this, from the self-declared oracle of all things Russia-gate.
You have a point. I just googled "American Intelligentsia" and he wasn't even on the list.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
I think you're making way too much fuss over a tweet.
You should ask yourself a much more important question -- why would an otherwise intelligent person be taken in by a partisan memo that deliberately omitted a key fact about what was disclosed to the FISA court (so much so that you actually posted, "representing to the court that an unverified document represents probable cause that an American is a foreign agent and deliberately withholding from the court the source of the information because it is exculpatory is not only a corruption of moral and ethical standards but is likely a violation of law") thereby showing that he will believe anything he hears about any official investigating Trump as long as it is negative, regardless of the facts?
Paul: Laurence Tribe tweeted a deranged Russian conspiracy theory and thousands of his gullible followers retweeted because they have been manipulated to believe anything negative about Russia regardless of the facts.
nohero responds: What About the Memo? (as he diverts attention from the FISA application's material omission)
I commented on your rant about the Tribe "tweet". I thought it only deserved that single sentence. I wasn't "whatabouting" your "whatabout" diversion from the topic. The rest of my comment was a return to the topic from your diversion.
And I did not "divert attention from the FISA application's material omission". In the first instance, there was no "material omission". Turns out, it was mentioned - but just because it didn't have the lights and sirens that you think it should have had, doesn't mean there was a "material omission".
On the other hand, you initially believed that the GOP memo told the whole story, and that the FISA application didn't mention the political nature of Steele's assignment. You commented accordingly, and later we saw that you shouldn't have trusted them.
ridski said:
You have a point. I just googled "American Intelligentsia" and he wasn't even on the list.
And I can affirm that he never comes to our meetings.
nohero said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:
I know who he is, just challenging the declaration that he is "a leading member of the American "intelligentsia."" Not to mention the inference that Tribe has no right to be dead wrong. And this, from the self-declared oracle of all things Russia-gate.
With his reliance on faulty arguments, Mr. Surovell is sort of the "OhNo60" of the Trump/Russia topic.
Except that in this iteration you're the fear-mongerer and Russiagate is your Frankenstructure.
Why are we even talking about Tribe? This is the worst kind of internet flanking maneuver upon flanking maneuver, thread drift BS. Whether one particular distinguished law professor has gotten into the habit of tweating loose thoughts doesn't amount to "a hill of beans" in the world, to quote Bogie. His too easy belief in Russiagate (if it is that) does not discredit Russiagate any more than Trump's "it totally vindicates me" inanity discredits Russiagate, or its propents portentions boasts that the Nunes memo was going to be "bigger than Watergate" discredits Russiagate. Nor do those things substantiate Russiagate either. It's like your at a ballgame, Paul, and instead of watching the game to see who wins, you're trying to determine the winner by which team's fans cheer the loudest. Keep your eye on the ball.
Tribe's oblique and ironic aside, the kind of thing that might be muttered under your breath at a cocktail party only to say "never mind" when someone asks you to repeat it, is only "important" if you plan to beat it like a drum to vindicate Trump.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said: I wasn't "whatabouting"
Oh yes you were.
Come on boys and girls!
"Oh no he wasn't!"
nohero said:
ridski said:
You have a point. I just googled "American Intelligentsia" and he wasn't even on the list.
And I can affirm that he never comes to our meetings.
Having been to Law School I can affirm that being on the faculty of a leading law school and having written textbooks does not mean that one is not an idiot.
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:Come on boys and girls!
nohero said: I wasn't "whatabouting"Oh yes you were.
"Oh no he wasn't!"
But, he started it.
nohero said:
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:Come on boys and girls!
nohero said: I wasn't "whatabouting"Oh yes you were.
"Oh no he wasn't!"
But, he started it.
I like how you made your denial into a verb.
At a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing today, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coates said that there is no doubt that Russia views its efforts to interfere in the 2016 election as successful.
"Coats and other U.S. intelligence community leaders testified that Russia believes its interference in the 2016 campaign achieved its aim of undermining U.S. democracy, and that it sees the November elections as another chance."
“There should be no doubt that Russia perceives its past efforts as successful and views the 2018 U.S. midterm elections as a potential target for Russian influence operations,” Coats said.
https://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKCN1FX1Z8-OCATP
Your faux anger has been replaced by faux naivete.