WH pushes back after Rand Paul suggests Trump asked him to deliver letter to Putin

[Swordsmyth]

Right and if actions speak louder than words, why is the pen mightier than the sword. Think about that for a sec.

Because it can incite mass action whereas the sword is less likely to.

 

[AuH20]

There are many enemies inside the WH that harbor animosity towards Rand. They fear Rand's influence on Trump.

 

[juleswin]

Because it can incite mass action whereas the sword is less likely to.

Look at the whole question again before answering and consider the proposition made in the first part when giving your final answer.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Look at the whole question again before answering and consider the proposition made in the first part when giving your final answer.

The pen is only worth the actions it can inspire, actions always speak louder than words, words achieve nothing on their own.

 

[juleswin]

The pen is only worth the actions it can inspire, actions always speak louder than words, words achieve nothing on their own.

Well, the point is that the 2 popular phrases kinda contradict each other when examined together. Action speaking louder than words implying that direct action has more impact than words and the pen being mightier than the sword saying that written words have more impact than actions.

I wasn't really expecting any answer cos there is no correct answer to it, but thanks for playing

 

[RonZeplin]

No problems until after midterm elections

Do u not see a problem with a sitting senator being friendly with a country.... .

I don't anticipate any problems until after the midterm elections when the Trump snowflakes blame the huge losses by The Donald's deep state GOP candidates, on Ruskie election hacking and join with ANTIFA in demanding more crippling sanctions, and the nuclear annihilation of Putin.

When you start to hear a lot more whining about TDS, you'll know that the end is near.

 

[UWDude]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ump-asked-him-to-deliver-letter-to-putin.html

I knew this was a bad idea from the get go, everyone here knows that I am very pro Putin and Russia but the appearance of a US senator going to Russia with all the negative things the media and this administration has been accusing Russia and Putin with just looks very bad.

Plus, I have been saying that Trump is by far the most anti Russian US president we have had since Ronald Reagan and Rand trying to foster any outreach between the two sides will only backfire on him. He just looks like a spineless messenger boy for the deep state agent in Trump.

That's a lot of opinion, stemming from fake news... er, faux.. errr... Foxy legs... er... err... FOX.

 

[Valli6]

This is a non-story attempting to sound like a disagreement

The journalist is playing with words to make an inference that Rand never made.

All Rand said was:

I was honored to deliver a letter from President Trump to President Vladimir Putin’s administration.

He did not say:

I was honored that President Trump asked me to deliver his letter to Vladimir Putin for him.

They would've found something to complain about regardless of how he worded it.

 

[juleswin]

That's a lot of opinion, stemming from fake news... er, faux.. errr... Foxy legs... er... err... FOX.

I expected something like this to happen and I will keep my eye on this news and update later if it turns out to be fake. Right now, I believe the reporting to be mostly true and not fake news at all.

 

[angelatc]

Right now, I believe the reporting to be mostly true and not fake news at all.

Which is the opposite of what you usually say. Now those same CIA people who always lie about all those things that only you know the truth about are telling the truth this time.

#SeemsLegit

 

[juleswin]

Which is the opposite of what you usually say. Now those same CIA people who always lie about all those things that only you know the truth about are telling the truth this time.

#SeemsLegit

No special operations involved, no classified documents to analyze. This is a really a straight forwards story as they come and I see no reason to doubt them. I think Rand became to trusting of the admin and they decided to put one clean one to his back. Also I have never said MSM lies all the time, nobody lies all the time. They tell enough truth to gain credibility and they use said credibility to lie when its necessary.

You have to be able to judge these cases individually.

 

[UWDude]

I expected something like this to happen and I will keep my eye on this news and update later if it turns out to be fake. Right now, I believe the reporting to be mostly true and not fake news at all.

The law of Fake News clearly states that anything on Fake News is Fake News. You should know that by now.
If you had the fake news critical eye, you woudl read everything first as if it were fake news.
It rarely gets past the fifth sentence, according to experts.

Sometimes, it will be in the second paragraph, the small print, where anonymous reliable sources are quoted and verified by other anonymous reliable sources.

This one sucked by the first sentence. I don't see any push back. I see WWE. And of course there is real, news on fake news, but its always real fake news.

Libertarians don't know how to win. I WILL TEACH THEM.

 

[UWDude]

No special operations involved, no classified documents to analyze. This is a really a straight forwards story as they come and I see no reason to doubt them. I think Rand became to trusting of the admin and they decided to put one clean one to his back. Also I have never said MSM lies all the time, nobody lies all the time. They tell enough truth to gain credibility and they use said credibility to lie when its necessary.

You have to be able to judge these cases individually.

You are just mad Rand is working with Trump. It further diminishes your agenda here. You hated it here long ago, but like a bad smell, you linger, in the hate... ..looking for that next fix of red hot lava anger. You want to pop those shells off in the glorious revolution. You so mad. But you know, you are on the losing side.

It's a blessing in disguise, though, what you are doing just muddies the waters anyway.

It's all good though. People like you, and zip, and the count, cloud the thinking.
This could be a great place to understand a mindset. And it was studied by those looking for that extra 1% edge on the wage slave market.

But study means search for truth. The search for power, now clouds your access to truth.
You blinded yourselves.
The Chinese called it Assassin Mace.
Old trick.

 

[brushfire]

Racist, alt-right, Russians! They stole our democracy with a $100k facebook ad! They're coming again.

 

[juleswin]

You are just mad Rand is working with Trump. It further diminishes your agenda here. You hated it here long ago, but like a bad smell, you linger, in the hate... ..looking for that next fix of red hot lava anger. You want to pop those shells off in the glorious revolution. You so mad. But you know, you are on the losing side.

It's a blessing in disguise, though, what you are doing just muddies the waters anyway.

It's all good though. People like you, and zip, and the count, cloud the thinking.
This could be a great place to understand a mindset. And it was studied by those looking for that extra 1% edge on the wage slave market.

But study means search for truth. The search for power, now clouds your access to truth.
You blinded yourselves.
The Chinese called it Assassin Mace.
Old trick.

I believe that Trump is a member of the deep state and in that regard, I am mad that Rand is enabling him for so little political gain the size and quality of bread crumbs. I have always wished that he continued to call him out like he did during the elections. Now Rand has hitched his wagon to to wrong horse and I believe he is going to be burned badly because of it.

The strategy is what I hate and not the man.

 

[juleswin]

The law of Fake News clearly states that anything on Fake News is Fake News. You should know that by now.
If you had the fake news critical eye, you woudl read everything first as if it were fake news.
It rarely gets past the fifth sentence, according to experts.

Sometimes, it will be in the second paragraph, the small print, where anonymous reliable sources are quoted and verified by other anonymous reliable sources.

This one sucked by the first sentence. I don't see any push back. I see WWE. And of course there is real, news on fake news, but its always real fake news.

Libertarians don't know how to win. I WILL TEACH THEM.

I think Rand is being set up. This news plus the administration releasing their verdict of the Skripal case today makes me think that the story is mostly true and it is just them trying to hurt Rand.

 

[timosman]

Racist, alt-right, Russians! They stole our democracy with a $100k facebook ad! They're coming again.

The real problem is for political campaigns spending $100M+ on these ads. Is the money well spent? Could MSM provide a better ROI?
The Facebook Distraction - A study shows that it was a tussle between new and old media that shaped the race.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facebook-distraction-1533682483


Non-paywalled http://archive.is/Eph4F

Aug. 7, 2018


A study last year of the 2016 election by six scholars affiliated with Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center got virtually zero play, and it’s not hard to understand why.
It found that social media “engagement” that shaped the election outcome overwhelmingly was sparked by the traditional profit-seeking, left-tilting national media, plus new-style, right-wing outlets like Breitbart—and not by fake news sites or Russian bots.
“The ‘fake news’ framing of what happened in the 2016 campaign . . . is a distraction,” says the study. The real difference maker in 2016 was the rise of highly propagandistic, dissenting, right-wing media, but the authors are far from certain that its arrival should be considered an “attack on democracy, rather than its expression.”
What little press coverage the study got focused on its account of Breitbart’s success in “shopping” the Clinton Foundation story to the mainstream media. “If Donald Trump’s support had been limited to readers of Breitbart, he would never have won the electoral college,” the authors say.

But isn’t this virtually the ideal in a test tube? Dissenting new media force mainstream outlets to notice a story, but also to vet it?
By now you may be thinking of Facebook ’s Rob Goldman, who was pilloried for a tweet that criticized press accounts of Russia’s Facebook activities that “align with the main media narrative of Tump [sic] and the election.”
You may be thinking of Mark Zuckerberg’s statement, before he was forced to recant, that it was “silly” to imagine Facebook affecting the election outcome.
The Harvard study amounts to a comprehensive debunking of a hysterical BuzzFeed report that unfortunately remains influential. The news site claimed that, during the last three months of the campaign, the top 20 election stories from “hoax sites and hyperpartisan blogs” outperformed the top 20 stories from legitimate sites in terms of Facebook engagement.
The problem here should be apparent. Dozens of news sites would have covered the same legitimate stories, but their “engagement” wasn’t measured, as it should have been to compare the traction gained by specific real vs. specific fake stories.
As a separate study in the Columbia Journalism Review also notes, “engagement” with fake news often has more to do with its “entertainment value” than its believability.
Dartmouth College’s Brendan Nyhan, another debunker of the fake-news hysteria, points out what anybody in charge of spending ad dollars already knows: People just aren’t that influenceable. Even if fake news were as effective as TV advertising, concludes yet another careful study, “the fake news in our database would have changed vote shares by an amount on the order of hundredths of a percentage point.”
Which brings us to today. Go to your Facebook page. You won’t find it overrun with Russian trolls and fake news, but the kinds of things your “friends” always post.
It might begin to be sayable that Facebook is a place where anybody can say almost anything, and (with a few exceptions) we can live with that.
It might be mentionable that 2016 actually served as a pretty useful inoculation of the body politic against new kinds of unfiltered media and unreliable messages.
It might even be mentionable that 99.99% of Vladimir Putin’s impact on the U.S. has come via the exploitation of the “Russian influence” meme by U.S. domestic opportunists.
We could also begin to notice that the mainstream media has become a tad trial-lawyer-y—i.e., seeing what it can get away with.
A New York Times piece “fact checks” (debunks) Mr. Goldman’s tweet that Russia’s “main goal” was sowing discord rather than electing Mr. Trump by saying this claim is contradicted by the Mueller indictment of 13 Russian trolls.
Except the indictment’s plain words are almost identical to Mr. Goldman’s: The Kremlin “had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system,” though, of course, only those activities aimed at helping a particular candidate are actionable under U.S. campaign law.
Or revisit Glenn Greenwald’s catalog of Trump-Russia “scoops” that had to be retracted.
One or both of the following statements may be false (though both appear to be true according to Senate investigators): The Trump Tower meeting was elicited with a promise of “dirt” on Mrs. Clinton and it turned into a discussion of the Magnitsky Act. One thing the statements aren’t is contradictory, as implied by a fake news cycle this week.
All this serves many interests. The media are still trying to live down their Trump-promoting ad-sales bacchanal during the campaign. If Mr. Trump is everything Democrats say, Mrs. Clinton will go down as the all-time chump for letting him in office.
Just wait till Democrats, if they take the House, try to manufacture an impeachment case out of two years’ worth of media innuendo. We might be glad that tubby, easily winded Americans are fighting on Facebook instead of the streets.

 

[UWDude]

I believe that Trump is a member of the deep state and in that regard, I am mad that Rand is enabling him for so little political gain the size and quality of bread crumbs. I have always wished that he continued to call him out like he did during the elections. Now Rand has hitched his wagon to to wrong horse and I believe he is going to be burned badly because of it.

The strategy is what I hate and not the man.

What do you know? You have been so wrong, about so much, how can you believe anything you believe when everything you believe is wrong, except the whole "the world is worse now than evah!!" thing anybody can do that can say "tsk tsk, kids these days."

You are just a ball of conflicting beliefs with a Che avatar on a libertarian forum, with a disclaimer signature that is like saying, "people tho mithunderthtand thatanithm, thatanthts.."

Like your contradicting personality is alluring. It's not, it's embarrassing. Like a pair of family members who constantly fight in public.

I understand the love of Che. I do. You love conflict, er go, you love war, er go, you love revolution, only war you could possibly understand in your gloriousless, vapid existence.

You aren't smarter than everybody else until you prove it to reality.
Make reality.

Make something of the only thing you have control over.

I think Rand is being set up.

bullshit.
You are hoping for the worst, just to be right, because you have been nothing but wrong.

This news plus the administration releasing their verdict of the Skripal case today makes me think that the story is mostly true and it is just them trying to hurt Rand.

Your thinking is twisted, yet you continue to trust it.

 

[nikcers]

You would think that everyone would be supporting Rand on this, he is forcing this into the conversation whether its effective or not we should be behind him, he is trying to prevent the extinction of humanity. If Rand Paul prevents World War 3, he won't get a peace prize, and his supporters will still blame him for endorsing Mitch McConnell.

 

[juleswin]

You would think that everyone would be supporting Rand on this, he is forcing this into the conversation whether its effective or not we should be behind him, he is trying to prevent the extinction of humanity. If Rand Paul prevents World War 3, he won't get a peace prize, and his supporters will still blame him for endorsing Mitch McConnell.

Unconditional support is mainly reserved for cult leader and not politicians.

Jesus H Christ, prevent WWIII by playing errand boy for the Trump administration? Lets see, is it the same administration that has accused Russia of election interference , international assassinations, supporting chemical weapons, innocent civilian killing dictator all without evidence? The same administration that has expelled a record number of Russian diplomats, seized their consulate in San Francisco, and has continued to sanction the country. Why is he carrying water for an administration who has shown that they are not interested in preventing WWIII? I can think of a 1/2 dozen moves they could make if the wanted to prevent WWIII before sending Rand

Sorry to break this to you but Rand is a nobody with very little clout with the administration. I am by far the most pro Russian, pro Putin guy on this forum who wants nothing more than peace and corporation with Russia. My problem with this adventure is that it looks very bad for him. He will get a lot of hits for this move and at the end of the day, it will do very little or nothing at all in preventing a WW III. The reason being the fact that the administration doesn't care for his opinion when it comes to enacting real policies.