by Darryl Cooper

[Samson]

The scan looks more like an imitation of old newspaper though. The "torn" bottom line is cute.
Authors probably realized that typewriter font would look too ridiculous.

The scan is supposed to look like it was done with a dot matrix printer. The font is pretty good, in that I cannot see any characters that are the same glyph, but the background is far too constant.

 

[Berzerker]

He is just making stuff up to hide the truth. They believe the election was rigged because Trump and his cronies told them it was, nothing more.

You've said in the past you're around MAGA Trump people, ask them about Russiagate. And btw, you're describing the Democrats and the collusion conspiracy they made up to hide their own corruption. There were plenty of Democrats claiming Trump and Putin stole the election yada yada, they even got an investigation that blew up their conspiracy.

No, if Trump never said a thing there'd be plenty of his voters who think the election was rigged. They just spent 4 years watching the establishment conspire to bring him down, whats a little election fraud for the party caught rigging their own primaries in 2016?

There's still people who "don't trust the election results"? Lol

20 years from now there's going to be people walking around downtown with signs that say "TRUMP IS MY PREZ", yelling about the end of the world

He definitely replaced Reagan as the new standard bearer

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...edias-2016-2020-election-coverage/3770232001/

USA TODAY's analysis of 2016 and 2020 election media coverage concludes the media did not report Russia stole the election in 2016 and is not now reporting the 2020 election would be impossible to steal. Rather, major media outlets have reported that Russia sought to use misinformation to influence American voters in 2016 and are now reporting that 2020 election fraud claims are unsupported. In both cases, this reporting is consistent with information provided by government officials in intelligence, law enforcement and the courts.

On Jan. 6, 2017, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence disclosed to the public its conclusion that Russia had interfered with the 2016 election by seeking to influence American voters’ opinions of Trump and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

It's really simple. The claim in 2016 was that Russia preferred the imbecile Trump to win the elections, and they did seek to influence the election. The Mueller report supports that claim.

What partisan hacks now are trying to do is change that claim to claims of collusion. So they can go: See! No collusion! They try to make Mueller's investigations aim the aim of proving there was collusion while it wasn't.

The investigation was called:

The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election

Russiagate was no hoax. Russiagate happened, and the Mueller investigation supports it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

From 12:15, relevant.

"The report only vindicates the administration, on their own false premises. A year ago, we pointed out that Trump and his team wanted to center the narrative on 'collusion', despite the fact that term has no specific legal meaning in criminal law"

The pointing out starts at 3:30

And you may recognize the comments after 14:50 as the sort of comment you just read a couple of posts ago.

edit, how could I forget sock slider at 7:20. Oh, just watch the whole thing.

 

[Berzerker]

It's really simple. The claim in 2016 was that Russia preferred the imbecile Trump to win the elections, and they did seek to influence the election. The Mueller report supports that claim.

What partisan hacks now are trying to do is change that claim to claims of collusion. So they can go: See! No collusion! They try to make Mueller's investigations aim the aim of proving there was collusion while it wasn't.

The investigation was called:

The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election

Russiagate was no hoax. Russiagate happened, and the Mueller investigation supports it.

You mean Trump wasn't a target of the investigation because the title didn't mention him? Mueller said they found no evidence of 'collusion' or conspiracy involving Trump and Russia. Thats because Russiagate was a hoax.

Russiagate is Obama's FBI taking the Democrat's "Steele dossier" to a Fisa court to get permission to spy on Carter Page (and his associations) before the election. That spying continued for a year.

The Democrats were smearing their opponents as Russian stooges etc, Jill Stein, Bernie, Tulsi, and Trump. Their BS was used to spy on their political opponents before an election. How would the Democrats react if Bush's FBI spied on the Obama campaign to get McCain elected?

"The report only vindicates the administration, on their own false premises. A year ago, we pointed out that Trump and his team wanted to center the narrative on 'collusion', despite the fact that term has no specific legal meaning in criminal law"

Collusion was the term Democrats used early on, so Trump is being blamed for a term his opponents attached to him. Collusion, conspiracy, huddle, group hug, anything Mr Mueller? Nada, the Democrats smeared Trump as a traitor and abused the Fisa system to spy on him. They had me believing Trump was a Manchurian candidate for about a year until I started seeing left wing journalists shred the conspiracy theory prior to the Mueller and Horowitz reports.

 

[Ajidica]

The Democrats were smearing their opponents as Russian stooges etc, Jill Stein, Bernie, Tulsi, and Trump. Their BS was used to spy on their political opponents before an election. How would the Democrats react if Bush's FBI spied on the Obama campaign to get McCain elected?

Trump brought it in no small part on himself, gushing about how he has such a great relation with Putin and admires him so much, going on national television multiple times to gush about how he trusts Russian security services over American, etc.
As far as Tulsi Gabbard, she was bringing with her a whole freight train worth of baggage; ranging from her recently abandoned active support for gay conversion therapy, membership in a cult even the Hare Krishna thought were weirdos, and her anti-intervention stance really starting to become indistinguishable from justifying intentional targeting of civilian populations.

They had me believing Trump was a Manchurian candidate for about a year until I started seeing left wing journalists shred the conspiracy theory prior to the Mueller and Horowitz reports.

James Risen, hired by Glenn Greenwald for the Intercept, isn't a left-wing journalist?

The evidence that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win is already compelling, and it grows stronger by the day.

There can be little doubt now that Russian intelligence officials were behind an effort to hack the DNC’s computers and steal emails and other information from aides to Hillary Clinton as a means of damaging her presidential campaign. Once they stole the correspondence, Russian intelligence officials used cutouts and fronts to launder the emails and get them into the bloodstream of the U.S. press. Russian intelligence also used fake social media accounts and other tools to create a global echo chamber both for stories about the emails and for anti-Clinton lies dressed up to look like news.

To their disgrace, editors and reporters at American news organizations greatly enhanced the Russian echo chamber, eagerly writing stories about Clinton and the Democratic Party based on the emails, while showing almost no interest during the presidential campaign in exactly how those emails came to be disclosed and distributed. The Intercept itself has faced such accusations. The hack was a much more important story than the content of the emails themselves, but that story was largely ignored because it was so easy for journalists to write about Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/16/trump-russia-election-hacking-investigation/
How about another Intercept journalist hired by Greenwald, Robert Mackey?
https://theintercept.com/2019/09/26...resident-probe-conspiracy-theories-democrats/
https://theintercept.com/2019/05/10...ndal-ukraine-absolute-nonsense-reformer-says/
https://theintercept.com/2019/09/22...g-donald-trump-spread-lies-joe-biden-ukraine/

Or are you doing that whole playing cute thing where only journalists that agree with you are left wing, and everyone else is a liar in the pocket of the Clintons/neo-cons/Wall Street/Jews elitists? You know, the same stuff that got Greenwald fired from the Intercept with the Intercept firing off a parting letter only slightly more diplomatic than "good riddance and don't let the door hit you on the way out"?

 

[Zardnaar]

Not convinced Trump is a stooge.

Useful idiot though......

 

[Farm Boy]

Or are you doing that whole playing cute thing where only journalists that agree with you are left wing, and everyone else is a liar in the pocket of the Clintons/neo-cons/Wall Street/Jews elitists?

Asking, not lecturing. What's the takeaway I'm supposed to draw here? That Berzerker is a shadow-Jewconservative? Conservatives are proud of what they are. I'm a conservative, and I'm proud to care more about conservation of value more than say, me. By quite a wide margin these days, as the latter really only seems to be useful for various bits of labor and benefits collection. Or is this that vernacular-use where we use other words to stand in for Democrat/Republican and then measure our dongs in front of the foreigners?

In the politest possible terms, as that seems to read in a less friendly tone than I would intone it, were we speaking.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

no evidence of 'collusion'

John Oliver rests his case

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

On potential obstruction of justice by President Trump, the investigation "does not conclude that the President committed a crime",[18] as investigators would not indict a sitting president per an Office of Legal Counsel opinion.[19][20] However, the investigation "also does not exonerate" Trump, finding both public and private actions "by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations".[21] Ten episodes of potential obstruction by the president were described.[22][23] The report states that Congress can decide whether Trump obstructed justice,[24] and has the authority to take action against him.[25][26][27] Attorney General Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who had authorized the Mueller probe, decided on March 24, 2019, that the evidence was insufficient to establish a finding that Trump committed obstruction of justice.[28] Upon his resignation on May 29, 2019, Mueller stated that: "the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing".[29][30][17] In July 2019, Mueller testified to Congress that a president could be charged with obstruction of justice (or other crimes) after he left office.

 

[Ajidica]

Asking, not lecturing. What's the takeaway I'm supposed to draw here? That Berzerker is a shadow-Jewconservative? Conservatives are proud of what they are. I'm a conservative, and I'm proud to care more about conservation of value more than say, me. By quite a wide margin these days, as the latter really only seems to be useful for various bits of labor and benefits collection. Or is this that vernacular-use where we use other words to stand in for Democrat/Republican and then measure our dongs in front of the foreigners?

In the politest possible terms, as that seems to read in a less friendly tone than I would intone it, were we speaking.

I have no idea what you are saying here.
Berzerker routinely does this thing where he goes on about his position is actually a leftist one citing Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, or someone else; stating effectively that anyone who disagrees with those leftist journalists is clearly a neo-con hack, tricked by the Clinton machine, or in some other way a sellout. Nevermind that Greenwald was fired from his own news outlet because they unreasonably censored him with the burden of needing to provide sources that weren't Rudy Giuliani. Two journalists I linked to that Greenwald hired for the Intercept because of the experience with national security and intelligence issues - James Risen and Robert Mackey - are both of the opinion that even if aspects to the Trump-Russia story were blown out of proportion by the mass media, there were/are still genuinely concerning elements in Trump and his campaign's relation with Russia that deserved to be investigated.
But of course Berzerker won't say those are valid arguments coming from experienced leftist and spookwise journalists, just arguments he happens to disagree with.

 

[Farm Boy]

Whether or not you claim him yours, he's not a conservative by either his words or my approximation.

Spookwise? As opposed to spookgullible or something? That's more useful to what I'm trying to sort out I think, but I need that broken down. That translates as straight-up slur here, and I doubt that's how you mean it.

 

[Berzerker]

Trump brought it in no small part on himself, gushing about how he has such a great relation with Putin and admires him so much, going on national television multiple times to gush about how he trusts Russian security services over American, etc.

Too bad we didn't trust Russian intel before we invaded Iraq. I think when Trump questioned our intel it was about Russiagate. Clapper, Brennan and Schiff et al were running around claiming Trump is compromised etc. It was all BS. It was non-stop BS from the people calling Trump a liar.

So Trump signals a desire to cozy up to Russia in preparation for a trade war with China and Democrats turn that into Trump is a traitor. Sounds familiar to us older folk, but didn't that gushing happen after the Democrats smeared Stein, Bernie, Tulsi and Trump as Russian puppets? No no, he brought it on himself, he deserved to have Obama's FBI lie to a Fisa court to spy on him before the election to help Hillary win.

If the press had asked Obama if Putin was a liar as he stood next to the man, would anyone other that political partisans raise a fuss if he declined to say yes? Reminds me of Republicans like Sean Hannity outraged by Obama bowing to royalty. Ofc Trump wasn't gonna trash Putin and ofc Obama would show respect and bow.

As far as Tulsi Gabbard, she was bringing with her a whole freight train worth of baggage; ranging from her recently abandoned active support for gay conversion therapy, membership in a cult even the Hare Krishna thought were weirdos, and her anti-intervention stance really starting to become indistinguishable from justifying intentional targeting of civilian populations.

Well by God she must be a traitor too... Didn't she serve in Iraq? Where did she justify targeting civilian populations? She opposed arming terrorists in Syria and doubted the origin of an alleged gas attack. Shocking I know, imagine terrorists staging a gas attack and getting away with it because the west wanted to blame Assad.

James Risen, hired by Glenn Greenwald for the Intercept, isn't a left-wing journalist?

I dont know what he is, I do know I said it was left wing journalists who opened my eyes on Russiagate. That doesn't mean every left wing journalist. But Greenwald was one, Aaron Mate is another... and they were right. The Mueller and Horowitz reports confirm their reporting.

Or are you doing that whole playing cute thing where only journalists that agree with you are left wing, and everyone else is a liar in the pocket of the Clintons/neo-cons/Wall Street/Jews elitists? You know, the same stuff that got Greenwald fired from the Intercept with the Intercept firing off a parting letter only slightly more diplomatic than "good riddance and don't let the door hit you on the way out"?

Where did I say only left wing journalists agree with me? Isn't Greenwald Jewish?

 

[Ajidica]

Whether or not you claim him yours, he's not a conservative by either his words or my approximation.

Spookwise? As opposed to spookgullible or something? That's more useful to what I'm trying to sort out I think, but I need that broken down. That translates as straight-up slur here, and I doubt that's how you mean it.

Spookwise, generally referring to someone who has a passing familiarity with the security services and how they think. For example, I would consider Seymour Hersch to be "spookwise", same with Greenwald. Greenwald is also a professional grudge-bearer and offense-taker, which skews his analysis more than a little.

 

[Ajidica]

Too bad we didn't trust Russian intel before we invaded Iraq. I think when Trump questioned our intel it was about Russiagate. Clapper, Brennan and Schiff et al were running around claiming Trump is compromised etc. It was all BS. It was non-stop BS from the people calling Trump a liar.

Let's see, a few weeks after taking office the National Security Advisor straight up lies to the Vice President over pre-election contacts he had with figures in the Russian government. If he had told Mike Pence and the FBI the truth, there would have been no problem. Possibly a bit unseemly given what we learned about some contacts Flynn had with other foreign governments, but nothing major. Instead, by straight up lying to the Vice President, he got fired. Michael Flynn was no schmuck like Papadopolous who got caught up in a game he didn't understand after pretending he knew more than he did. After the FBI informed Trump that the FBI was investigating unconfirmed reports (you know, the method by which you confirm reports) the Russian government had blackmail material on Trump; Trump demanded the personal loyalty of the FBI director to the person of Trump. When Comey emphasized the FBI was loyal to the office and pledged his honesty, Trump fired him on nonsense charges. Jeff Session all but lied to Al Franken during his senate hearing on what contacts he had with the Russian ambassador. It is not an unreasonable conclusion to come to that something dodgy was going between the Trump campaign and Russia, especially with a lot of reporting coming out of Bloomberg regarding Trump's relation with Felix Sater - a known affiliate of Russian intelligence-, Deutsche Bank -which was up to its neck in totally not laundering Russian money through property-, Paul Manafort calling Russian oligarchs trying to make up for a debt, and Roger Stone playing cute about whether there was a link between the email released through wikileaks and Russian intelligence. (Indeed, Stone's false statement conviction was for pretending that he knew of a connection when he did now know of any connection.)

So Trump signals a desire to cozy up to Russia in preparation for a trade war with China and Democrats turn that into Trump is a traitor. Sounds familiar to us older folk, but didn't that gushing happen after the Democrats smeared Stein, Bernie, Tulsi and Trump as Russian puppets? No no, he brought it on himself, he deserved to have Obama's FBI lie to a Fisa court to spy on him before the election to help Hillary win.

If Trump wanted to seek allies in a trade war with China, going after Europe would have been a far better decision. Russian-Chinese financial relations is practically nill. Indeed, as of 2007 Europe had a vastly larger financial relation with China than even the United States.
But of course, none of this matters to you in an effort to canonize St Donald of Trump, the man whose only sin was being too trusting of the nasty tricks played by those mean Democrats.

If the press had asked Obama if Putin was a liar as he stood next to the man, would anyone other that political partisans raise a fuss if he declined to say yes? Reminds me of Republicans like Sean Hannity outraged by Obama bowing to royalty. Ofc Trump wasn't gonna trash Putin and ofc Obama would show respect and bow.

There is a major difference between diplomacy and tact with a foreign leader, and openly rubbishing the opinion of your own security services.

I have President Putin. He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this. I don’t see any reason why it would be, but I really do want to see the server.

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/16/17576956/transcript-putin-trump-russia-helsinki-press-conference
(I know it is Vox, but they were the first link with the transcript.)

Well by God she must be a traitor too... Didn't she serve in Iraq? Where did she justify targeting civilian populations? She opposed arming terrorists in Syria and doubted the origin of an alleged gas attack. Shocking I know, imagine terrorists staging a gas attack and getting away with it because the west wanted to blame Assad.

It is getting late and I don't feel like hunting through what is nearing decade-old interviews, but essentially she increasingly sounded like she was taking the position that the Syrian government wasn't targeting civilians and protected locations, and that even if they were, it was okay because they were doing so to try and kill anti-Assad forces.

I dont know what he is, I do know I said it was left wing journalists who opened my eyes on Russiagate. That doesn't mean every left wing journalist. But Greenwald was one, Aaron Mate is another... and they were right. The Mueller and Horowitz reports confirm their reporting.

Hilariously, James Risen notes the Mueller Report as confirming reasons to be concerned about Trump-Russia connections.
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/28/mueller-report-trump-russia-questions/

But the report makes clear that there were many instances in which Mueller wasn’t able to get to the bottom of things and often couldn’t determine the whole story behind the Trump-Russia contacts.

In fact, the report documents a series of strange and still unexplained contacts between the Trump crowd and Russia. It is filled with unresolved mysteries.

One reason Mueller wasn’t able to answer many of the questions surrounding those contacts was that he had to navigate a blizzard of lies. “The investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign lied to [the Mueller team], and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters,” the report states. “Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.”

Some in the Trump circle, including Manafort and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, faced criminal charges for their falsehoods. In other cases, Mueller was blocked by the refusal of key figures to talk, while other potential witnesses were not credible or were out of reach overseas.
...
WHILE THE EVIDENCE Mueller gathered about Manafort may not have been sufficient to bring criminal charges, it does fit the pattern of information that might typically emerge in a counterintelligence investigation, which is very different from a criminal inquiry.

The Mueller report documents Manafort’s deep connections with Russians and Ukrainians, and shows that he shared internal campaign data with them in the hopes of winning their favor and “monetizing” his work with Trump. But the report also suggests that as Trump’s campaign chair, Manafort opened a secret backchannel with Russia for his own selfish reasons that had nothing to do with Russia’s efforts to help Trump win the election.
In one conversation with Mueller’s team, Manafort may have given the special counsel a candid answer about what was going on in his case: He made it clear that while Deripaska may not have played any role in the GRU’s cybercampaign, the oligarch still saw Manafort as a valuable long-term asset.

If Trump won, “Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance whatever interests Deripaska had in the United States and elsewhere,” Manafort told Mueller. And Deripaska, remember, was very close to Putin.

In court documents, the Justice Department painted a similar picture of Maria Butina, the young Russian woman who has pleaded guilty to conspiring to act as an agent of the Russian Federation. (Butina was sentenced on Friday to 18 months in prison. After she completes her sentence, she will be deported.)

Butina was “not a spy in the traditional sense,” the Justice Department now says. Yet she was still part of a “deliberate intelligence operation by the Russian Federation,” according to an affidavit from a former high-level FBI counterintelligence official. She was in the United States to “spot and assess” Americans who might be susceptible to recruitment as foreign intelligence assets. In addition, she sought to establish a backchannel of communication to bypass formal diplomatic channels between Moscow and Washington.

Manafort and Butina may have been on two sides of a complex new kind of spy game that few outsiders understand.

Where did I say only left wing journalists agree with me? Isn't Greenwald Jewish?

I dunno, I know he got into a fight a few years back with Jeffrey Goldberg over at The Atlantic, alleging that Goldberg was too Jewish to report fairly on the Middle East.

 

[Berzerker]

John Oliver rests his case

A year ago, we pointed out that Trump and his team wanted to center the narrative on 'collusion', despite the fact that term has no specific legal meaning in criminal law"

Who do you think introduced 'collusion' to the debate? The Democrats were calling it collusion, thats why Trump was defending against the accusation of collusion. So he defends against the accusation and John Oliver accuses him of making it a central issue.

Why did the Democrats insist on 'collusion'? Because it wasn't a specific legal term. They could throw the word around without citing specific laws against conspiracy. The Democrats centered the narrative on collusion, they wanted people to think Trump was in cahoots with Putin. If they hadn't accused him of collusion Trump wouldn't have defended against it.

Not convinced Trump is a stooge.

Useful idiot though......

If that document is genuine it shows the Democrats were the useful idiots, the Russians were relying on them to weaken Trump with social unrest. But he did arm Ukraine with Javelins when Obama wouldn't. What Russia did want was for us to end our war against Syria and Trump was happy to oblige.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

If that document is genuine it shows the Democrats were the useful idiots, the Russians were relying on them to weaken Trump with social unrest.

Rubbish. Trump did more in his first year to sow seeds of division and unrest in the USA than the Democrats could ever think of doing. The Russians wanted Trump elected because he would divide and weaken the USA on the world stage. They were counting on his unpredictability and erratic-ness to damage American society. In actual fact, I think that the Russians were counting on Trump starting a civil war, or else he would cripple the country so badly that the USA had no play in world affairs.

But he did arm Ukraine with Javelins when Obama wouldn't.

I think it has been previously established that the Javelins are on the western side of Ukraine and not at the area in dispute with Russia, or did you conveniently forget that fact?

 

[Farm Boy]

I would say whoever decided to mistranslate him as "all Mexicans are rapists" or even "Mexicans are rapists" did at least as much as anybody on the discord front. They loved it.

Granted, if they hadn't taken that bait it'd be a different imaginary world.

Thank you for clarification Aji, I don't have a particular takeaway as yet.

 

[Angst]

I would say whoever decided to mistranslate him as "all Mexicans are rapists" or even "Mexicans are rapists" did at least as much as anybody on the discord front. They loved it.

Granted, if they hadn't taken that bait it'd be a different imaginary world.

Thank you for clarification Aji, I don't have a particular takeaway as yet.

ok so

literally, he said some mexicans were rapists, not specifying how many. yes. this is the case.

but reading it as pure literalism is a bad reading and not appreciating how language works (i know you're smart enough to understand inference, subtext, rhetorical devices, what speech can be legally protected, and how you work within the latter)

so.

some twitterstorming et al did not take his statement at a literal level while believing they were reading him on a literal level, reading it as all mexicans = rapists. this gave fodder for that part of trump's base, as pretending mock propriety in conversation past actual beliefs or base assumptions is what they do. "that's not technically what he said", because that was not his literal claim (depending on where the line is from "they" and "some" actually is, since some as under they usually means the some is the relatively irrelevant minority, but you have a point here, so let's go with it)

functionally "they are racists, some are good people) was race bait for racists, drawing on a long running structure of how to frame the Other. the idea that the Other is a rapey race or whatever goes back centuries, and is not reserved speculations about afroamericans in the us (kill a mockingbird is just one instance of this, another now mostly forgotten stereotype is the chinese sexual beastlike nonperson, which has been used some places). people that deal with cultural history (ie the left, usually) are acquainted with a buckload of examples of how the Other was denied personhood through assumed rapeyness.

that is, functionally, he framed mexicans at large because that's how that voter base's brains generally work, and people correctly identified this since this is not new and that's how these rhetorical devices are structured. especially in an age where there are legal consequences for hate speech

so.

there were plenty of twitterstormers et al that correctly identified the function of an otherwise (relatively) ambigious literal statement. just enough racism to be interpreted as racism by a certain part of the base (ie good racism, for that base), but just enough lack of literal clarity to allow denial

trump does this all the time and is generally really good at maneuvering the line in order to not be legally culpable for his speech and actions. he's been doing it for a long time, even if he gets sued a lot when he screws up

this is generally the line that he rode in order to speak to a certain base while retaining a mock semblance of propriety because of the technicality of literalism while he's dogwhistling

it's a very old and very widely used rhetorical device for bigots

OTOH as you point out, this rhetorical device even when correctly identified and understood, when a leftie points out this function, or misread the literal content to having been something else (which of the two doesn't matter to the following point) - it's a chaotic thing to deal with as an opponent, since yes it's bait that you can keep a sense of propriety over while dogwhistling to racists

it's a really toxic rhetorical device, and it's important for his opponents to learn how to deal with it properly (i don't know the solution) but exonerating him from blame in the discord is really stupid mate <3 it was his function, whether it was a display of beliefs or base assumptions through a rhetorical device, or whether it was cynically intentional.

sry bout the no caps but come on

 

[Farm Boy]

Ah, "exonerating Assclown from blame."

This is why I don't trust anything that contains the phrase "dogwhistle." Sorry.