NationStates

Gormwood wrote:

Cisairse wrote:It's been verified for quite some time.

The U.S. intelligence community is Russophobia Central obviously.

Indeed.

Considering we've probably killed a lot of Russians and their Talib friends in Afghanistan already in response, I think this might as well be a moot issue if it wasn't for the completely lackluster response by the White House.

Cisairse wrote:It's been verified for quite some time.

Nope. It was just another hoax as usual:

Saagar Enjeti: Intel FALLS APART on Russian bounties as neocons, Biden want MORE WAR in Afghanistan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl_AzI7_7GQ

The whole moronic allegation is collapsing just as all other Russophobic insane stories inevitably do.
As Jussie Smollet did
Convington kids did
Rise in attacks against minorites following Trump election, did
Russiagate did
Ukrainegate did
racist Nascar did
etc etc etc

rinse and repeat

Gormwood wrote:The U.S. intelligence community is Russophobia Central obviously.

That is very accurate, yes.

The Sovereign Realist State wrote:

Cisairse wrote:It's been verified for quite some time.

Nope. It was just another hoax as usual:

Saagar Enjeti: Intel FALLS APART on Russian bounties as neocons, Biden want MORE WAR in Afghanistan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl_AzI7_7GQ

The whole moronic allegation is collapsing just as all other Russophobic insane stories inevitably do.
As Jussie Smollet did
Convington kids did
Rise in attacks against minorites following Trump election, did
Russiagate did
Ukrainegate did
racist Nascar did
etc etc etc

rinse and repeat

Looks like this whole thing was designed to keep American soldiers in Afghanistan pointlessly fighting the Taliban. I guess Black Lives don't matter in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Syria, or Libya. Black Lives only matter to Neocons/Neolibs when they're conveniently lined up for a photo op, or abused to terrify independent thinkers. What a joke.

And it looks like this entire episode was designed to keep American soldiers in harm's way, in Afghanistan, indefinitely. How much of a sick fuck does one have to be in order to put American lives in danger, risk a World War, while accusing others of putting American lives in danger, for the sole purpose of making a profit by endangering people's lives? Absolutely disgusting. Speaking of Ben Sasse, a Republican, here's Tucker Carlson absolutely demolishing him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UatnTSwEUoc In that piece, Tucker shows how a billionaire destroys an entire city for the sole purpose of making a profit, destroys a thriving Nebraskan city, and Ben Sasse sides with the billionaire. You might disagree with Tucker, but when he goes after Republicans, he's usually spot on.

To date 2,420 US soldiers died in Afghanistan, 19,950 came home wounded, and that excludes the contractors, which would more than double the death toll. The war cost at least $2 trillion, money that could've been used for schools, to help graduates repay their tuition, revitalize Middle America, create a doctor training program that could start lowering the cost of US healthcare, etc.

But the minute that the a bullshit report, which is ridiculous on its face, is published, because it names Trump and Putin as bad guys, and calls for more war, the politicians rally around the wicked flag of eternal warfare, and try to sell it to the American Public, amidst a major pandemic, recession, street violence, and rising unemployment. Talk about being deranged.

Suprised this crappy thread is still going

The Sovereign Realist State wrote:

Cisairse wrote:It's been verified for quite some time.

Nope. It was just another hoax as usual:

Saagar Enjeti: Intel FALLS APART on Russian bounties as neocons, Biden want MORE WAR in Afghanistan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl_AzI7_7GQ

The whole moronic allegation is collapsing just as all other Russophobic insane stories inevitably do.
As Jussie Smollet did
Convington kids did
Rise in attacks against minorites following Trump election, did
Russiagate did
Ukrainegate did
racist Nascar did
etc etc etc

rinse and repeat

Saagar Enjeti

Kowani wrote:

The Sovereign Realist State wrote:
Nope. It was just another hoax as usual:

Saagar Enjeti: Intel FALLS APART on Russian bounties as neocons, Biden want MORE WAR in Afghanistan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl_AzI7_7GQ

The whole moronic allegation is collapsing just as all other Russophobic insane stories inevitably do.
As Jussie Smollet did
Convington kids did
Rise in attacks against minorites following Trump election, did
Russiagate did
Ukrainegate did
racist Nascar did
etc etc etc

rinse and repeat

Saagar Enjeti

If you can't attack the argument, attack the person making it, and add four smilies to make your post even more credible.

Slavakino wrote:Suprised this crappy thread is still going

The thread's now evolving into a discussion on how to hold the NYT to account for their constant pounding of the drums of war, sending black kids to die in foreign countries for no reason, while yelling "BLACK LIVES MATTER!" at the top of their lungs.

Shofercia wrote:The thread's now evolving into a discussion on how to hold the NYT to account for their constant pounding of the drums of war, sending black kids to die in foreign countries for no reason, while yelling "BLACK LIVES MATTER!" at the top of their lungs.

What a ridiculous idea. You do realize that NYT literally published an article, written by the editorial board, titled "Don’t Let Russian Meddling Derail Afghanistan Withdrawal Plans?"

Cisairse wrote:

Shofercia wrote:The thread's now evolving into a discussion on how to hold the NYT to account for their constant pounding of the drums of war, sending black kids to die in foreign countries for no reason, while yelling "BLACK LIVES MATTER!" at the top of their lungs.

What a ridiculous idea. You do realize that NYT literally published an article, written by the editorial board, titled "Don’t Let Russian Meddling Derail Afghanistan Withdrawal Plans?"

Kid who got caught with his hands in cookie jar, now writes an article about the territorial sanctity of cookie jars. After the original NYT article was thoroughly discredited, they're backpedaling and going "stay in Afghanistan, why my good man, we would never!" akin to an alcoholic vowing to never drink again after getting yet another DUI. We've seen it with Iraq, with Libya, with Jussie Smollet, with that Nascar dude, etc.

So what exactly was the purpose of the initial article, if not to escalate tensions in Afghanistan? That mea culpa on their part comes way too late. It's like a spoiled brat who lost the game, refused to shake his opponent's hand, and after a massive outcry, suddenly offered to shake it. I wonder why... To quote the OP:

According to the paper, Trump was briefed on the activity months ago, but no discernible action has been taken.

I wonder, what action might that be? Seems rather simple, retaliate against Russia and the Taliban, thus effectively sabotaging the peace deal. How do you know that NYT writers are lying? Their pens and keyboards are moving.

So what's this new lie? Big bad Russia, (NYT should just trademark that phrase with how often they use it) wanted to sabotage the peace deal, which would benefit Russia, by having the elite Russian special forces, subcontract the killing of US soldiers, an act that doesn't really affect much, to the lower ranking members of the Taliban. Got it. Let's analogize:

The US Green Berets decided to subcontract the killing of Russian soldiers in Chechnya, to Chechen youth teens, in order to destabilize Chechnya and promote terrorism that could hit American cities. Doesn't make much sense now, does it?

Shofercia wrote:So what exactly was the purpose of the initial article, if not to escalate tensions in Afghanistan?

Believe it or not, journalism outlets often report facts simply because they are facts and that's what journalists do, not because they have some nefariously conspiratorial ulterior motive.

Shofercia wrote:

Kowani wrote:Saagar Enjeti

If you can't attack the argument, attack the person making it, and add four smilies to make your post even more credible.

I’m attacking the source because he’d write for Breitbart if he didn’t want credibility. He’s just a generally unreliable person, and a fundamentally dishonest actor.

Cisairse wrote:

Shofercia wrote:So what exactly was the purpose of the initial article, if not to escalate tensions in Afghanistan?

Believe it or not, journalism outlets often report facts simply because they are facts and that's what journalists do, not because they have some nefariously conspiratorial ulterior motive.

Believe it or not, but NYT chooses which facts to report. For instance, here's a factoid that NYT would never report:



I wonder why... The facts that NYT reports typically beat the drums of war, as was shown in an article cited in this post: viewtopic.php?p=37384556#p37384556

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/view ... ers_theses

This project derives a set of research expectations from the propaganda model, a structural model of the corporate news media developed by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. The model predicts that the news media will reflect elite views and priorities and marginalize views outside the range of elite opinion. Consequently, it is expected that the media will tend to support the elite’s preferred modes of exercising state power in international affairs. This often entails demonizing official enemies of the United States in order to justify military interventions while downplaying the crimes of the United States and its allies.

To see how well these expectations are borne out in recent times, I apply discourse and content analysis to a sample of the New York Times’ coverage of Libya in the weeks preceding the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya. Three research expectations are presented: Coverage will mirror the U.S. government story line, conforming to the tenets of American exceptionalism; Muammar Gaddafi will be demonized, the nature and extent of his crimes will be exaggerated; Gaddafi’s victims will receive extensive, sympathetic coverage, while black Libyan victims of the anti-Gaddafi opposition will be marginalized. The analysis of New York Times articles on Libya from February 15 to March 19, 2011, shows that the research expectations are met, providing empirical support for the propaganda model.

Facts that demonize those whom NYT thinks are enemies of the United States are regurgitated ad nauseum, but telling the other side of the story, rather than barely giving a snippet, is something that NYT fails at, repeatedly. For instance, if I wanted to present NS moderators as biased I would simply focus on the facts around their COVID-19 rulings and ignore everything else, thus portraying them as 100% biased, all the time, when they were only biased in a single area for a short period of time.

Shofercia wrote:

Cisairse wrote:
Believe it or not, journalism outlets often report facts simply because they are facts and that's what journalists do, not because they have some nefariously conspiratorial ulterior motive.

Believe it or not, but NYT chooses which facts to report. For instance, here's a factoid that NYT would never report:

I wonder why... The facts that NYT reports typically beat the drums of war, as was shown in an article cited in this post: viewtopic.php?p=37384556#p37384556

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/view ... ers_theses

This project derives a set of research expectations from the propaganda model, a structural model of the corporate news media developed by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. The model predicts that the news media will reflect elite views and priorities and marginalize views outside the range of elite opinion. Consequently, it is expected that the media will tend to support the elite’s preferred modes of exercising state power in international affairs. This often entails demonizing official enemies of the United States in order to justify military interventions while downplaying the crimes of the United States and its allies.

To see how well these expectations are borne out in recent times, I apply discourse and content analysis to a sample of the New York Times’ coverage of Libya in the weeks preceding the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya. Three research expectations are presented: Coverage will mirror the U.S. government story line, conforming to the tenets of American exceptionalism; Muammar Gaddafi will be demonized, the nature and extent of his crimes will be exaggerated; Gaddafi’s victims will receive extensive, sympathetic coverage, while black Libyan victims of the anti-Gaddafi opposition will be marginalized. The analysis of New York Times articles on Libya from February 15 to March 19, 2011, shows that the research expectations are met, providing empirical support for the propaganda model.

Facts that demonize those whom NYT thinks are enemies of the United States are regurgitated ad nauseum, but telling the other side of the story, rather than barely giving a snippet, is something that NYT fails at, repeatedly. For instance, if I wanted to present NS moderators as biased I would simply focus on the facts around their COVID-19 rulings and ignore everything else, thus portraying them as 100% biased, all the time, when they were only biased in a single area for a short period of time.

The idea that the NYT is somehow biased against Russia is pretty silly when you realize that NYT was the only Western newspaper that was willing to publish an op-ed written by President Putin.

Your repeated attacks on the credibility of NYT are completely without merit.

Cisairse wrote:

Shofercia wrote:
Believe it or not, but NYT chooses which facts to report. For instance, here's a factoid that NYT would never report:

I wonder why... The facts that NYT reports typically beat the drums of war, as was shown in an article cited in this post: viewtopic.php?p=37384556#p37384556

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/view ... ers_theses



Facts that demonize those whom NYT thinks are enemies of the United States are regurgitated ad nauseum, but telling the other side of the story, rather than barely giving a snippet, is something that NYT fails at, repeatedly. For instance, if I wanted to present NS moderators as biased I would simply focus on the facts around their COVID-19 rulings and ignore everything else, thus portraying them as 100% biased, all the time, when they were only biased in a single area for a short period of time.

The idea that the NYT is somehow biased against Russia is pretty silly when you realize that NYT was the only Western newspaper that was willing to publish an op-ed written by President Putin.

Your repeated attacks on the credibility of NYT are completely without merit.

…No, he has a point. They gave Putin an outlet, sure, but on the whole, the NYT is firmly in the hands of institutionalized power.

Kowani wrote:

Shofercia wrote:
If you can't attack the argument, attack the person making it, and add four smilies to make your post even more credible.

I’m attacking the source because he’d write for Breitbart if he didn’t want credibility. He’s just a generally unreliable person, and a fundamentally dishonest actor.

He explained that he wrote for Breitbart because of lack of other outlets for Conservatives who want protectionism and populism. I'm not presenting his Breitbart writings, I'm presenting his commentary on The Rising, which has much higher standards for honesty. People can change. Plus if someone like Krystal Ball accepts you as a co-host, you know you're doing something right.

Cisairse wrote:

Shofercia wrote:
Believe it or not, but NYT chooses which facts to report. For instance, here's a factoid that NYT would never report:

I wonder why... The facts that NYT reports typically beat the drums of war, as was shown in an article cited in this post: viewtopic.php?p=37384556#p37384556

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/view ... ers_theses



Facts that demonize those whom NYT thinks are enemies of the United States are regurgitated ad nauseum, but telling the other side of the story, rather than barely giving a snippet, is something that NYT fails at, repeatedly. For instance, if I wanted to present NS moderators as biased I would simply focus on the facts around their COVID-19 rulings and ignore everything else, thus portraying them as 100% biased, all the time, when they were only biased in a single area for a short period of time.

The idea that the NYT is somehow biased against Russia is pretty silly when you realize that NYT was the only Western newspaper that was willing to publish an op-ed written by President Putin.

Your repeated attacks on the credibility of NYT are completely without merit.

The NYT also published an op-ed written by Tom Cotton, are they secretly pro-Republican? The very fact that you're citing a single opinion piece as evidence of NYT's lack of bias, when I provided numerous sources showing said bias, tells me quite a bit. There's been a funny parody made, called "If Google Was a Guy" where a lady comes up to him and says: Global Warming is fake and Google gives her plenty of evidence that Global Warming's real. Then she uses the quotes "Global Warming is fake" and Google sighs and gives her a single piece of paper.

That's what you're doing. After I provided plenty of evidence for NYT's bias here: viewtopic.php?p=37384556#p37384556 your response is "but they published a single op-ed over a decade long timespan, they can't be biased because of that, how dare you?!" Lolwut?

Shofercia wrote:The NYT also published an op-ed written by Tom Cotton, are they secretly pro-Republican? The very fact that you're citing a single opinion piece as evidence of NYT's lack of bias, when I provided numerous sources showing said bias, tells me quite a bit. There's been a funny parody made, called "If Google Was a Guy" where a lady comes up to him and says: Global Warming is fake and Google gives her plenty of evidence that Global Warming's real. Then she uses the quotes "Global Warming is fake" and Google sighs and gives her a single piece of paper.

That's what you're doing. After I provided plenty of evidence for NYT's bias here: viewtopic.php?p=37384556#p37384556 your response is "but they published a single op-ed over a decade long timespan, they can't be biased because of that, how dare you?!" Lolwut?

My point is that NYT reports facts and publishes opinions of mostly anyone of note who wishes to publish an op-ed through them.

The fact that you think I'm accusing the Times of being biased towards anyone they have published works by demonstrates how divorced you are from reality.

Cisairse wrote:

Shofercia wrote:The NYT also published an op-ed written by Tom Cotton, are they secretly pro-Republican? The very fact that you're citing a single opinion piece as evidence of NYT's lack of bias, when I provided numerous sources showing said bias, tells me quite a bit. There's been a funny parody made, called "If Google Was a Guy" where a lady comes up to him and says: Global Warming is fake and Google gives her plenty of evidence that Global Warming's real. Then she uses the quotes "Global Warming is fake" and Google sighs and gives her a single piece of paper.

That's what you're doing. After I provided plenty of evidence for NYT's bias here: viewtopic.php?p=37384556#p37384556 your response is "but they published a single op-ed over a decade long timespan, they can't be biased because of that, how dare you?!" Lolwut?

My point is that NYT reports facts and publishes opinions of mostly anyone of note who wishes to publish an op-ed through them.

The fact that you think I'm accusing the Times of being biased towards anyone they have published works by demonstrates how divorced you are from reality.

Please show me where I'm accusing you of accusing New York Times of being biased. I'm, me, not you, we're different people Cisairse, I'm accusing New York Times of being biased against Russia and being pro-war, because they have a Neoliberal bias. That's my accusation. Not yours. I did not accuse you of making any claim towards NYT being biased. I implicitly accused you of having a foolish belief that NYT isn't biased, merely because they publish op-eds from different sides once in a year or a decade.

If you run 100 anti-Russia articles, and then let President Putin publish a single pro-Russia article, guess what Cisairse? You're biased! And if you fail to grasp that simple fact, then you are the one who's divorced from reality, and I'd encourage you to stop projecting.

Shofercia wrote:

Cisairse wrote:
My point is that NYT reports facts and publishes opinions of mostly anyone of note who wishes to publish an op-ed through them.

The fact that you think I'm accusing the Times of being biased towards anyone they have published works by demonstrates how divorced you are from reality.

Please show me where I'm accusing you of accusing New York Times of being biased.

Shofercia wrote:The NYT also published an op-ed written by Tom Cotton, are they secretly pro-Republican?

---

Shofercia wrote: I'm, me, not you, we're different people Cisairse, I'm accusing New York Times of being biased against Russia and being pro-war, because they have a Neoliberal bias. That's my accusation. Not yours. I did not accuse you of making any claim towards NYT being biased. I implicitly accused you of having a foolish belief that NYT isn't biased, merely because they publish op-eds from different sides once in a year or a decade.

If you run 100 anti-Russia articles, and then let President Putin publish a single pro-Russia article, guess what Cisairse? You're biased! And if you fail to grasp that simple fact, then you are the one who's divorced from reality, and I'd encourage you to stop projecting.

Ah yes, now I'm biased for viewing situations objectively.

Protip. If you view objective reality as biased, you might have a warped worldview. Or you're just looking at facts with a specific opinion that you refuse to consider evidence against.

Just because I'm bored, I'll grant you hypothetical way more attention than it deserves to make you happy. If NYT ran 100 anti-Russia articles and 1 pro-Russia article, it is likely that there were 100 incidents which cast Russia in a bad light, and only 1 incident which cast Russia in a good light. This is not indicative of anti-Russia bias, but it is indicative that Russia is doing things that cast them in a negative light.

Cisairse wrote:

Shofercia wrote:
Please show me where I'm accusing you of accusing New York Times of being biased.

Shofercia wrote:The NYT also published an op-ed written by Tom Cotton, are they secretly pro-Republican?

---

Shofercia wrote: I'm, me, not you, we're different people Cisairse, I'm accusing New York Times of being biased against Russia and being pro-war, because they have a Neoliberal bias. That's my accusation. Not yours. I did not accuse you of making any claim towards NYT being biased. I implicitly accused you of having a foolish belief that NYT isn't biased, merely because they publish op-eds from different sides once in a year or a decade.

If you run 100 anti-Russia articles, and then let President Putin publish a single pro-Russia article, guess what Cisairse? You're biased! And if you fail to grasp that simple fact, then you are the one who's divorced from reality, and I'd encourage you to stop projecting.

Ah yes, now I'm biased for viewing situations objectively.

Protip. If you view objective reality as biased, you might have a warped worldview. Or you're just looking at facts with a specific opinion that you refuse to consider evidence against.

Just because I'm bored, I'll grant you hypothetical way more attention than it deserves to make you happy. If NYT ran 100 anti-Russia articles and 1 pro-Russia article, it is likely that there were 100 incidents which cast Russia in a bad light, and only 1 incident which cast Russia in a good light. This is not indicative of anti-Russia bias, but it is indicative that Russia is doing things that cast them in a negative light.

Your claim was that NYT cannot have a pro-Russian bias because they ran a single pro-Russian op-ed by President Putin, after running hundreds of anti-Russian articles in the time span of a decade. So I asked, sarcastically, if NYT ran an article by Tom Cotton, are they secretly pro-Republican? I was making fun of your silly argument that running one piece favoring a country, equates to being unbiased against said country, especially after running hundreds of pieces not favoring said country. I wasn't accusing you of accusing the NYT of bias; I was demonstrating how your logic failed, completely failed.

And here you are, claiming that a newspaper running 100 articles against A, and 1 article for A, is totally unbiased. Somehow you equate that silly, silly claim with objectively viewing the situation. I'd say that viewing a newspaper that has 100 articles trashing A, and one article praising A, is the very definition of a warped worldview.

As for your last paragraph, it's unparalleled, in that it fails to parallel anything in reality. The NYT cast the Crimean Reclamation primarily in a negative light, including from the viewpoint of the Crimeans, and made up stories of racist repression. Crimea is an open tourist zone, meaning that any reporter can go there and pose as a tourist. Where's this mass repression that NYT squealed about? Why aren't people running from Crimea to dear Ukraine, but rather, going from Ukraine to Crimea? Why's the US threatening to punish people merely for going to Crimea? And where's NYT's coverage of all this?

There are those who acknowledge NYT's Neoliberal bias, and those who live in a World of Fantasy when it comes to NYT. But hey, why would I trust a Master's Thesis over something that an NYT fan would write online? Oh yeah, because I'm a realist.

This project derives a set of research expectations from the propaganda model, a structural model of the corporate news media developed by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. The model predicts that the news media will reflect elite views and priorities and marginalize views outside the range of elite opinion. Consequently, it is expected that the media will tend to support the elite’s preferred modes of exercising state power in international affairs. This often entails demonizing official enemies of the United States in order to justify military interventions while downplaying the crimes of the United States and its allies.

To see how well these expectations are borne out in recent times, I apply discourse and content analysis to a sample of the New York Times’ coverage of Libya in the weeks preceding the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya. Three research expectations are presented: Coverage will mirror the U.S. government story line, conforming to the tenets of American exceptionalism; Muammar Gaddafi will be demonized, the nature and extent of his crimes will be exaggerated; Gaddafi’s victims will receive extensive, sympathetic coverage, while black Libyan victims of the anti-Gaddafi opposition will be marginalized. The analysis of New York Times articles on Libya from February 15 to March 19, 2011, shows that the research expectations are met, providing empirical support for the propaganda model.

Now that the main issue is the credibility of the NYT, I think we can safely discern that Russia did not put a bounty on the heads of American soldiers. If Occam's Razor wasn't enough. Because that would be weird and dumb. And something I wouldn't even expect from the villain in a Die Hard sequel. Its not even fun.

But folks are talking about bounties on twitter, so another point for Western propaganda, I guess?

Red Intria wrote:Now that the main issue is the credibility of the NYT, I think we can safely discern that Russia did not put a bounty on the heads of American soldiers. If Occam's Razor wasn't enough. Because that would be weird and dumb. And something I wouldn't even expect from the villain in a Die Hard sequel. Its not even fun.

But folks are talking about bounties on twitter, so another point for Western propaganda, I guess?

Twitter's hardly a point for any propaganda, but I completely agree with the rest of your statement.

Red Intria wrote:Now that the main issue is the credibility of the NYT, I think we can safely discern that Russia did not put a bounty on the heads of American soldiers. If Occam's Razor wasn't enough. Because that would be weird and dumb. And something I wouldn't even expect from the villain in a Die Hard sequel. Its not even fun.

But folks are talking about bounties on twitter, so another point for Western propaganda, I guess?

Except we can’t. We don’t have access to any of the actual decision making on either side of this issue.

The only real clue as to what happened will be how many dead GRU officers come home from Afghanistan this year.

Organized States wrote:

Red Intria wrote:Now that the main issue is the credibility of the NYT, I think we can safely discern that Russia did not put a bounty on the heads of American soldiers. If Occam's Razor wasn't enough. Because that would be weird and dumb. And something I wouldn't even expect from the villain in a Die Hard sequel. Its not even fun.

But folks are talking about bounties on twitter, so another point for Western propaganda, I guess?

Except we can’t. We don’t have access to any of the actual decision making on either side of this issue.

The only real clue as to what happened will be how many dead GRU officers come home from Afghanistan this year.

My guess is either zero, or close to zero. First, GRU officers are quite well trained. Second, Russia's not particularly invested in Afghanistan, so there isn't going to be massive risk taking. Third, GRU does seek vengeance, and unlike idiots in the Senate, Americans in the field are well aware of this fact. Fourth, the biggest problem with idiots like Ben Sasse, isn't his anti-GRU comment, is that he sides with corporate whores like Paul Singer, over his own constituents living in Sidney, Nebraska. And as a result, the Ben Sasses of the America will hurt much more Americans than your average GRU agent; much, much more, but Benny boi is too busy being on Singer's proverbial 21st finger to notice.

Sauce: https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-ca ... las-merger

"We’re not saying Ben Sasse or any other senator is doing Singer’s bidding purely for the cash," Carlson said. "But why not remove all doubt? If one of your biggest donors turned out to be a pornographer or a mass distributor of OxyContin, you’d send back the donation. You wouldn’t want to be associated with someone like that. You’d want to be clear about your own values. Senator Sasse should be clear about his."

And the mocking begins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g02OtTlpYw

One has to wonder why would the believers in this thread still fall for obvious BS like this from the evidently deranged NYT...