[long_time_gone]

> a result of the whole “Russia Russia Russia” thing.

Can you explain who the "boy" was and how they "cried wolf"? Did you read the Senate Intelligence report? PBS: Senate panel finds Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election [1].

"The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and says other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin’s aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers."

[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senate-panel-finds-rus...

[sfblah]

That second quote you gave is just really slanted. The right framing here is Trump is not a smart man. Sure, his folks talked to Russian operatives. That's for two reasons:

1. They're stupid and easy to manipulate.

2. They urgently wanted negative stories to publish about Hillary.

Yes, Russia was trying to influence our election. But, no, Trump isn't some clever Manchurian Candidate taking over our country on behalf of another country.

The right framing here is that famous SNL sketch about Reagan from the 80s, where Reagan acts like a bumbler but then when the doors close suddenly becomes some kind of genius mob figure. That skit was funny, because the "mob boss" version of Reagan was obviously just not true. Same thing for Trump.

Turning to American media. Sure, they can dig up stuff about Trump's behavior with Russia. Along the same lines, there are tons of stories across decades painting the Clintons as pretty terrible people.

The difference here, and this is important, is that outlets like CNN do have a massive bias in favor of Democratic candidates. That's where the "Russia Russia Russia" narrative by Trump supporters is actually right. Mainstream media's treatment of events like the Russia story, Jan 6, BLM protests, etc. is absolutely biased. That's where the suspicion comes from.

The solution is for mainstream journalists to reduce their bias. Easy places to start:

* Tell the truth about the relative propensity of a white versus black suspect to be shot by police.

* Investigate political candidates in an evenhanded way, and be as honest as possible about errors on stories like Hunter Biden's laptop.

[long_time_gone]

> But, no, Trump isn't some clever Manchurian Candidate taking over our country on behalf of another country.

A claim neither I nor the article made. The Trump Campaign, however, had many ties to Russia (Manafort, Rick Gates) and clearly served Russian interests (changing the party platform on Ukraine, ghost written op-eds). Some of them even went to prison for it and you are still trying to claim it never happened. Did we ever figure out why his campaign manager gave campaign polling data to a Russian oligarch?

> Sure, they can dig up stuff about Trump's behavior with Russia. Along the same lines, there are tons of stories across decades painting the Clintons as pretty terrible people.

Whatabout-ism in plain sight.

> The difference here, and this is important, is that outlets like CNN do have a massive bias in favor of Democratic candidates.

It was a PBS article, so this is not relevant comment. Even so, the article was referencing a release from the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee. Why would they repeat Democratic talking points?

[sfblah]

It wasn't whataboutism. I was pointing out that much of the media's objective is just to create controversy, not to clarify issues. They do it in both directions. Yes, the article didn't explicitly say he was a Manchurian Candidate, but that's the implication, and it's a bad read.

Someone can commit a crime without being a Russian agent. Same goes for Hunter Biden and his stupid laptop and weird deal with that company in Ukraine. I don't think he was a spy. I just think he's an idiot and greedy. He and Trump are the same.

The core issue here is thinking there's some real moral difference between left and right. There isn't. Think of the political spectrum in absolute value terms. People in the middle are the best people. People on both wings are the bad people.

Edit: Also, you know full well no one is going to read all 1,000 pages of this report. PBS is well known to have a large liberal bias. I downloaded the report and went through a bit of it. One thing I noticed is there's a big partisan split in the report itself about what the report means. Democrats say it essentially means Trump is a Russian spy. Republicans say it shows there was no collusion. Note which story PBS published.

[long_time_gone]

> Yes, the article didn't explicitly say he was a Manchurian Candidate, but that's the implication, and it's a bad read.

The article is inconsequential, the report it is describing (and the evidence within that report) is the thing you keep dancing around. The report lays out in great detail all of the activities and connections.

> Someone can commit a crime without being a Russian agent.

Another thing nobody claimed. You have failed to engage in any of the substance. It's just deflection after deflection.

> The core issue here is thinking there's some real moral difference between left and right. There isn't. Think of the political spectrum in absolute value terms. People in the middle are the best people. People on both wings are the bad people.

Sounds like you've figured it all out. No need to continue.

[emerged]

The boy was the media and left wing politicians for about 1-2 years straight. The supposed wolf was something like a puppy was seen in one of Trumps cars once and it looked Russian, according to XYZ political enemies of Trump.

[long_time_gone]

The Senate Intelligence Report was released by a Republican-led committee and clearly outlined the many connections between the campaign and Russia. That committee and it's findings had nothing to do with "the media", "left wing politicians", or "XYZ political enemies of Trump".

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...

[sfblah]

I guess you've decided not to count the letters in the report from Republican senators specifically saying there was no collusion as part of the report. Also, the word is "its" not "it's".

[long_time_gone]

I didn't decide not to count anything nor have I used the term collusion. Are there particular excerpts in the letters that prove the campaign didn't work closely with Russians? Because the report provides plenty of evidence that they did.

Did we ever find out why Manafort gave Konstantin Kilimnik polling data from the campaign? Did we ever learn why he worked for "free" on the campaign? just to come full circle, he went to prison, in part, for his fraudulent actions helping the Russian government (attempt to) destabilize Ukraine.

> Also, the word is "its" not "it's".

Thanks for that, hope it wasn't too confusing. FYI, the period should be inside the quotes for "it's."

[sfblah]

I purposely leave the period outside the quotes in situations like that, as I think it's more confusing for the reader if it's inside.