Bno

I did the research and the work. I am presenting them to you. I read the entirety of the Mueller Report. I heard numerous claims that the mainstream media put out. I read the work by credible journalists that debunked mainstream news narratives. These authorities presented their investigation (the Mueller Report) and concluded no collusion but PROBABLE interference, which you claim they said was actual interference. Something being probable is not something actual. I have stated that I do not know if they actually interfered and that their PROBABLE interference displays no evidence of impacting the election. What I mean by hoax is the mainstream media's previous narrative of collusion definitively happening and that the interference impacted the election results. Can we agree on this? On the interference being probable, not actual? And that there is no evidence to suggest that it swayed the election if it did happen? This is why I made this topic. That the idea of there being definitive collusion and that it definitively impacted the results of our election 1) has not been backed up and 2) saying this as truth isn't conscious politics.

@Serotoninluv Phycisists provide evidence to their claims and they get verified through peer reviewed publishing processes. Even after they are published, other scientists can retest those claims or find and publish evidence through the same verification process to retract or build upon previous claims. This is why scientific research is considered reliable and research doesn't "prove" anything, it simply supports claims with evidence and accepts them as something that works until new evidence ever comes out and retracts these claims. This published information is publicly available or accessible. I agree, these agencies do know more than me about this case. However, what evidence has the US intelligence agencies provided to the public? And, like WMDs and other instances of manufactured consent, why is there opposing evidence that retracts their claims?

When Raegan met with Gorbachev, when FDR met with Stalin, when JFK met with Kruschev, and Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry met with Asaad, were they endorsing dictatorships?

And you're not? What are they saying are the reasons they know Russia interfered? What's the evidence they're proposing?

Do you think presidents have a responsibility to meet with authorities to minimize nuclear tensions?

The same national intelligence you keep referring to concluded no collusion, just the POSSIBILITY that there may have been interference. Aaron Mate isn't some random guy on youtube, he is a journalist that worked for The Nation, Democracy Now, and now The Grayzone and won an Izzy Award for his meticulous work debunking the hoax. Max Blumenthal and Matt Taibi are also credible journalists with achievements of their own. In their work, they explain the conflicts of interests some of these authorities who looked into the investigation have, as I cited in a previous response to you. The people projecting the stick as a snake are the people that believe the Russiagate conspiracy theory because they are basing their beliefs on speculation and people with authority positions speculating, not the actual facts. You are taking their word for it, just like people whose consent was manufactured for war with Iraq when the intelligence agencies claimed they had WMDs.

He knows about this, but he is believing the mainstream hyperbolic and empty narrative in this particular case of Trump. Leo has failed to look at this objectively with further research and has chosen to look at this speculatively with only the limited information he found. I understand though, he didn't come across the information presented by independent journalists that have been debunking this hoax for 3 years. And now he thinks everyone who knows this information is deluding themselves because we're trying to be "edgy." He isn't admitting to us and maybe not to himself either that he could be wrong. @Leo Gura has reached a point of spirituality in which he underestimates some people that appear less spiritual but may know more about a certain subject. I'm sure he is open minded enough to realize, however, that he is also, like us, still learning and growing.

Then what are you suggesting we do to end it?

In other words, you're suggesting forcing a nuclear powered country should be invaded by us? Rewatch Leo's Conscious Politics videos.

He says that if there was interference, that it had virtually no impact. And he acknowledges the lack of evidence for collusion. This is the objective conclusion and the structure to the Russiagate story. Have you read Aaron Mate's work or looked at the first video I posted to you?

True, I am also not denying the possibility of interference. I am arguing against the notion that it for sure happened and against it having any significance if it did happen. For example, the "Russian bots" had no ties to the government of Russia and only $14,00 was spent on memes and clickbait ads that had nothing to do with the election. Meanwhile, Clinton spent $1M on fake bots. Which do you thibk would have more significance? A source that the mainstream media often cites is New Knowledge, which got banned from facebook for making fake Russian bots. There is more evidence to support the wikileaks emails coming from an inside source within the DNC (leak) than a foreign hack. Aaron Mate's meticulous work goes into detail about this.

Some of the dictators he panders to are dictators against Russia's interest, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates.

Here is where we differ. I am not a conservative, I am a liberal. I support Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. I recommend watching a video posted on Leo's blog about neoliberalism. Saying socialism will lead to tyranny is a slippery slope.

@Leo Gura This is what I keep saying. They concluded no collusion. I'm not trying to be "edgy," I'm going by what the facts say, so I am being grounded. Roger Stone had nothing to do with Wikileaks, he got indicted for lying under oath about having a connection with Wikileaks. This is the complete opposite of what you think happened, he got indicted for saying he had a connection when he didn't! This is what's so concerning, you don't even know the actual facts that are being presented, you're just choosing to believe something without actually looking into it. The intelligence agencies are saying that Russia MIGHT have been trying to interfere, not that they know for a fact that they have/are nor that they have hard evidence (becuase they don't). Again, they are basing this on speculation. This is exactly like when the intelligence agencies agreed that Iraq had WMDs but provided no evidence for this. Why do you refuse to listen to the journalists I am presenting to you? They present hard evidence and have a long track record of being on the right side of history. Aaron Mate has won an award for being right about Russiagate being hyperbolic and hollow. The entirety of the Mueller Report, which I read, makes no such claims of there being collusion, just that there was probable interference which lacks evidence to suggest that it impacted the election results and that Trump had anything to do with it. Even Noam Chomsky, one of the authors on your booklist, has said that this idea of a collusion between Trump and Russia is hoax. Primo Nutmeg has many great interviews with credible people who go into detail debunking Russiagate.

You said that Mueller testified under oath that Russia is continuing to attempt interference. The substance of this claim by Mueller was based on speculation, not evidence. In that same hearing, Mueller could barely recall anything from his own report, demonstrating his incompetence.

I am in complete agreement with you. My issue is that there is no proof to back this interference conspiracy and there is actually more evidence to suggest that there wasn't.

@Serotoninluv The idea that they interfered is based off speculation, not evidence. I've done my research and this is what these organizations' conclusions are based on, speculation. Again, Trump's actions against Russian interest speak otherwise. "If you want to learn about the mechanisms of the" corporate media manipulations, "you will need to do research and educate yourself. . . Or you can stay immersed in a False Narrative." I am still curious to hear your thoughts on the video I posted to you. I would like to know what you think of this: "So, the liberals who are seeing this entirely through a partisan lens are missing the big picture and H. R. McMaster has basically been implanted in the Trump Administration after Michael Flynn was dimed out,as their direct channel into the National Security Kitchen Cabinet. Through H. R. McMaster, they implanted Fiona Hill, who is known simply for being at the Brookings Institute and writing a book-length attack on Vladimir Putin. She’s now kind of the in-house Russia expert. And another significant event happened at Munich when McMaster was on stage. A Russian senator rose from the crowd and asked McMaster if the US and the Trump Administration would be interested in any way on collaborating on cybersecurity and on de-escalating cyber attacks, basically, writing treaties against cyber attacks, and McMaster flat out rejected this proposal. This is the second time the US has rejected Russian proposals to sign treaties against meddling in cyber attacks. So, the Cold War continues with total liberal consent." https://thegrayzone.com/2018/02/20/can-trumps-neocons-exploit-russiagate-2-2/

So why do you repeat their talking points to us?

But you trust corporate and intelligence agency talking points?

My bias in this instance is facts and objectivity about Russiagate. What does all the information out there say, not just one narrative, but all narratives, and then come to a conclusion about what is known and what isn't known.

Perhaps, but there's still no evidence that shows they actually interfered. All I'm asking is for you to look into these sources I'm providing instead of only listening to the mainstream narrative. Don't you teach us to be open minded and not dogmatic? I looked at both sides, could you do the same? It's not like I'm giving you illegitimate sources.

The end conclusion of the investigation was the Mueller Report. Fiona Hill doesn't even explain HOW Russia interfered, just that they have interest, which I don't doubt. I took the time to watch your video, I would like to hear your response from this:

@Serotoninluv The Mueller Report states that the intelligence agency found no evidence. Do you think Trump is smart enough to outsmart the FBI?

@abundance This is a great video and there's many others out there by The Grayzone, Primo Nutmeg (the interview with Noam Chomsky is great!), and Jimmy Dore. I hope @Leo Gura was able to see it. There's so many efficient ways to attack Trump and get the Independent and Republican vote. He needs to be attacked for his economic policies not helping the poor or middle class and for not draining the swamp like he said he would. Sticking to this mainstream media notion and falsely accusing him of being a Russian Puppet will only (and it shows through polling) energize his base and Independents to approve of him over neoliberal democrats.

Based off what evidence?