-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 13, 2021, 07:18:57 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Carnival Of Sound
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Politics: 2016 Lame Duck and 2017 New Administration
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 32   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Politics: 2016 Lame Duck and 2017 New Administration  (Read 157759 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #225 on: December 13, 2016, 03:56:33 PM »

I read that too. Very creepy and concerning.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #226 on: December 13, 2016, 09:18:54 PM »

Here you go, the captain:
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #227 on: December 14, 2016, 03:00:07 PM »

Way to go, Americans. At the behest of Putin, you crucified a woman who spent her life trying to do what she thought was a positive contribution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?referer=
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #228 on: December 14, 2016, 03:26:08 PM »

Way to go, Americans. At the behest of Putin, you crucified a woman who spent her life trying to do what she thought was a positive contribution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?referer=
Emily, you forget, this is just the left's propaganda wing trying to discredit Trump's victory when in reality, if there was any hacking at all, it may well have been done by China or somebody in his bed (I think he said?) in New Jersey. (Not quite sure why the hacking was supposed to be from a bed. That's some weird porn, man...)

Seriously, I read that story earlier today and thought it was pretty thorough reporting, not to mention compellingly told.

I like the dingo-baby tweet.  LOL

Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #229 on: December 16, 2016, 05:53:51 AM »

The hits keep coming. An ambassador to Israel who is pro-illegal settlements, anti-two state solution, compares left-leaning American Jews to Nazi sympathizers, and is saying he'll work from the (non-existent) embassy in Jerusalem. Oh, but at least he has plenty of diplomatic experience. Wait, he has no diplomatic experience. f*** you, David Friedman. And f*** you, Donald Trump. I don't think anyone can deny I've tried to be level-headed about this election and want to give every benefit of the doubt. But I'm so goshdarn sick of these terrible choices and incessant stupidities still spewing out of that president-elect's Twitter account and mouth... I don't know whether to just hole up for four years or start a nonstop protest rant of some sort. I'm just glad federal power is limited, executive power is checked, and hopefully some people around the world understand that this idiot asshole doesn't speak for us all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/us/politics/donald-trump-david-friedman-israel-ambassador.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #230 on: December 16, 2016, 07:00:37 AM »

Less depressing, the president signed the BOT Act into law yesterday. The new law, introduced to the senate by Sen. Moran (R-Kan) and co-sponsored by Sen. Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Fischer (R-NE), Sen. Blumenthal (D-CT), Sen. Nelson (R-Fla), Sen. Klobuchar (D-Minn), Sen. Cantwell (D-Wash), Sen. Warner (D-Va), and Sen. Stabenow (D-Mich), outlaws the use of bots to circumvent ticket sale limits and to the interstate resale of tickets acquired via such circumvention.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/3183

Sadly it's too late for many of us: for example, I paid double what I planned to pay for four front-center BW tickets for two balcony tickets this fall thanks to absurdly obvious bot-buying on a weekday mid-morning as the tickets were gobbled up before my eyes... But at least going forward we ought to have a fighting chance to buy the tickets we want.

Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8311



View Profile
« Reply #231 on: December 16, 2016, 07:05:05 AM »

There is hope... Smokin
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #232 on: December 16, 2016, 07:18:34 AM »

I'm not one for cliches, but what the hell: even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #233 on: December 18, 2016, 05:47:44 AM »

There is a serious information processing gap in this country, thus the vulnerability to fake news: https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/18/a-new-poll-shows-an-astonishing-52-of-republicans-think-trump-won-the-popular-vote/?
« Last Edit: December 18, 2016, 05:48:19 AM by Emily » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #234 on: December 18, 2016, 06:04:10 AM »

It's pretty amazing: and unfortunately it's not the only topic on which people's knowledge varies widely based on party (or some other characteristic). I've listened to a few interviews lately, including with people whose political positions I don't associate with, like Ben Shapiro, in which people across the political spectrum bemoan this exact phenomenon: people illustrating literally the idea of a party line, with not just political positions somehow aligning up and down a platform with a party's--already ridiculous, in my opinion--but their general opinions and understanding of the world, too. It's only explainable by the idea of extreme association with tribes, and putting tribe above everything else to the point of rejecting everything else.

As the president said in his press conference the other day, there is something wrong when a large segment of people are willing to trust an adversary like Putin above their opposition party in this country because their partisan animosity has grown so extreme, so deep. So I am saying again, as I tried to do during the campaign (until my brain just melted before the white-hot ignorance and duplicity of the president elect) and have said since election day, I want to play a part in changing that. I want to take people's opinions seriously. I want to assume their best intentions--at least "regular" people and even officials below the highest levels--rather than their worst. I want to minimize my own hyperbole as often as possible. And I want to listen to enough of their media and have real conversations to the point that we can at least all agree that fellow citizens (hell, fellow humans) aren't out to destroy the world just to spite us and our parties.

Along the same lines of misunderstandings of reality and the fake news topic, by the way... I'm sure many people have heard the president elect talking about his historic landslide victory in the Electoral College throughout his "victory tour." For the record, that victory in the electoral college ranks 46th of 58 elections. It is not historic in the sense of margin of victory, even in the Electoral College. (Obviously, he lost the popular vote by several million, so its even less historic there.) If it is historic, it is because he won as a celebrity with no political experience running as much against his own party as his opposition party and discounted at the start by virtually everyone of substance. That is historic.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/18/us/elections/donald-trump-electoral-college-popular-vote.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

(By the way, my conciliatory words above don't apply to the president elect. I will be charitable as often as possible, but I will also be honest. I think no more highly of him now than I did then, and if anything, less so. I still think he's a rude, arrogant, vindictive, ignorant con artist. I'm not insulting everyone who voted for him, by any means. I understand wanting "change," and think Obama voters in '08 were similarly fuzzy about the relationship between the word and the candidate. But I think Trump is a dangerous clown whom I hope keeps his mouth and twitter fingers quiet for four years, at which time he is soundly beaten by virtually anyone.)
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #235 on: December 18, 2016, 07:42:12 AM »

He hasn't yet won the electoral college vote, but I understand what you're saying. Assuming they vote according to pledge, he won by fewer than 40,000 votes. He lost the popular vote by, as you say, a significant margin; he's won a smalller portion of the electorate by any president in history; and Republicans in congress received fewer votes than Democrats in congress. This whole "by the people" thing is completely out the window. At this point, it's "by the rural people."

On the other topic, It's hard to take people's opinions seriously when their opinions are based on lies.

Do you have any evidence that the false information thing is evenly spread across the spectrum? It's not what I've seen in multiple studies. I understand you try hard to be balanced but I think you're engaging in false equivalence.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #236 on: December 18, 2016, 08:03:37 AM »

Re electoral college vote, sorry, I should have been clear. Obviously the vote hasn't happened yet. But in terms of pledged votes.

Did I say false information is evenly spread across the spectrum? I don't think it is, and didn't mean to say or imply it. But I do think the party-line / ideology beliefs are relatively similar on both sides: I would bet you could do a good job of predicting a person's assorted positions by, say, two or three initial questions. And I don't think those positions necessarily follow logically from those two or three initial questions. That tells me we're looking at tribalism/partisanship. I don't mean to say that's identical to belief in false news--though I do suspect it means people are prone to some degree of party-line echo chambering regardless of political affiliation. (Again, that isn't the same as believing false news, but it's maybe near the edge of the downward slope.)

The full-on false news--not just partisan or ideological slant, but fiction presented as fact--I think is more about intelligence and education. Or rather, lack of same. Obviously this makes me come across as an asshole, which, luckily, is what I tend to be (more often than I'd care to be), so I may as well continue that streak. (After all, I'm the guy who has openly questioned the merits of democracy based on this same total disrespect for the people's intelligence. Though I also in the same breath acknowledge no better system and my discomfort at that statement.) I think stupid or less educated people fall for more fake news. (And no, not all uneducated people are stupid, nor are all stupid people uneducated. Obviously.) But when we are talking about what demographics supported the president-elect, and what demographics seem to have believed the fiction presented as fact, well ... stupid people fall for lies. Maybe they don't understand the kinds of checks that go into proper journalism. Maybe they just lack critical thinking skills. Maybe they lack the baseline of information/education to identify the blatant contradictory bullshit they're spouting when it's spouted unto them. (Not sure why I shifted into pseudobiblical language. Call it fun.) But I don't think it's necessarily a GOP-Dem thing or a right-left thing, other than the coincidence of who is supporting the GOP these past decades based on the GOP's outreach and affiliation.

I should think through what I write before I write it. But I don't. So feel free to point out whatever stupidities I've written. I'm sure there are some.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #237 on: December 18, 2016, 04:31:25 PM »

Your comment is entirely coherent and not at all stupid, though I have a different take that I will write about later.
Right now, I'm just going to comment that Breitbart has announced its intention to expand in the UK and mainland Europe. So, it's taking the same strategy it took here: publish articles that have false implications or are downright false about "establishment" people and organizations to get the ignorant up in arms. It's a disease.
Here are some from today:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/12/18/fake-news-bbc-reports-cheapest-ever-xmas-3-days-later-claims-brexit-increasing-xmas-prices/
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/12/17/impartial-bbc-calls-trump-election-american-tragedy/
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #238 on: December 18, 2016, 07:49:48 PM »

There's a part of me that thinks that the difference between the mass of "liberals" and "conservatives" is only vaguely related to political or economic philosophy at this point, in the US. I think that in the '70s, a set of Republican operatives started putting out feelers to see if they could get a positive response among a particular set of the population to a false narrative. I think the response was positive and over time an increasing number of people have been pushing that false narrative and getting an increasing number of believers. I think that the reason "conservatives" don't seem like conservatives anymore is because they aren't. They are uneducated and unthinking people believing a false set of ideas that have been pushed by cynical conservatives to get more votes. Actual conservatives are a small number of people who initially benefited from this, but who have now been pushed aside by the very population their operatives were propagandizing. Their propaganda was so successful that now the propagandized have taken over.
I think the reason "liberals" or "progressives" or whatever aren't really left anymore is that, where they used to be, is everyone else. Everyone who reacts negatively to the false narrative. So "liberals" are conservatives, liberals, progressives, moderates, socialists, capitalists, everyone who isn't comfortable with the manner or the substance of the radically propagandized right. And "conservatives" are the radically propagandized right.
So there is really an essential difference between left and right as they are now defined in the US - but the differences aren't really at heart political differences. They are more deeply qualitative.
Let me be clear - I am not referring to ALL Democrats or Republicans or ALL Liberals or Conservatives. I'm referring to the mass left and mass right and the mass difference. There are of course sad conservatives and Republicans who are serious about their political philosophy or their understanding of policy but are now marginalized by the mass right, who are the radically propagandized. There are also sad liberals and Democrats (and progressives, etc.) who are serious about their political philosophy or their understanding of policy but are now marginalized by the mass left, which is an undefined mess of people who only have in common not being radically propagandized.
What's scary is that 42% of Americans have been radically propagandized and believe all kinds of truly crazy sh*t. And that's not just crazy stuff about Clinton pizzeria scandals or Obama planning to round them up into retraining camps, but stuff that has been completely normalized but would be crazy to someone not in our nutcase vortex: "job creators," illegal immigrants driving down wages, factories will come back if NAFTA goes away, "religious freedom" means that people in government positions can discriminate against gay people, Muslims are all intent on destroying us because they hate "our freedoms," government = bad by definition (unless we're talking about the police or military in which case they are absolutely all heroes), the US was founded as a "Christian nation", there is no discrimination against minorities, white men are suffering from discrimination, cutting taxes will increase revenue, privatizing schools will make schools better in places where there's no money, the environment is not suffering from human-generated climate change, it's a basic American tenet of freedom that people can be walking around Walmart with obvious guns, trying to close background-check loopholes is a violation of the second amendment, just all kinds of stupid garbage.
Basically, 42% of Americans believe in an alternate reality. And those 42% of Americans are the people we now call "conservative". But an actual conservative from 40 years ago would look at this list of positions and not recognize them as conservative in the least.
So, I think the fact that the people who believe completely fake news are more likely to be right/GOP is not because right/GOP as it traditionally has been is more likely to be stupid, but that right/GOP as it is is people who are likely to believe completely fake news. I think that's the core definition of the right/GOP at this point. The parties are now the fake news party (and those who are still clinging to it because the false narrative was originally cynically driven by some on the traditional right and a few still think the cynical conservatives are in control, but really complete nihilists and stooges have taken over from the cynics) and the not fake news party and that's the only real difference.
Right up through the 1990s, the majority of publicly recognized Republicans were people who were able to discuss issues within the realm of rationality.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #239 on: December 18, 2016, 07:53:00 PM »

And this seemed thoughtful and worthy of consideration:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/opinion/sunday/arguing-the-truth-with-trump-and-putin.html?ribbon-ad-idx=4&rref=opinion
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #240 on: December 20, 2016, 05:46:17 AM »

Emily, I read your thoughts and agreed with a lot. Been somewhat busy and so haven't responded but I may. Or maybe I'll leave it at that: plenty of agreement. After all, I think a special "guest poster" may need to make an appearance in the idiotic "listening to BBs will get you arrested" thread...

Meanwhile, I don't think we've mentioned outgoing gov McCrory and that shocking GOP legislature. I mean honestly...it's amazing.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #241 on: December 20, 2016, 08:15:42 AM »

Way to go, Americans. At the behest of Putin, you crucified a woman who spent her life trying to do what she thought was a positive contribution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?referer=

What do you think is worse? That there is unconfirmed evidence that Putin may have influenced the US election or that there is confirmed evidence that Hillary Clinton regretted not influencing the Palestinian election?
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #242 on: December 21, 2016, 04:55:17 PM »

https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/gingrich-says-trump-is-done-with-drain-the-swamp-slogan-173426892.html?

The headline, in the link, says it all. No need to click.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #243 on: December 21, 2016, 05:55:53 PM »

I saw that too. In the linked article Newt says:

"I’ve noticed on a couple of fronts, like people chanting ‘lock her up,’ that he’s in a different role now and maybe he feels that as president, as the next president of the United States, that he should be marginally more dignified than talking about alligators in swamps."

I wonder whether the irony of it all is lost on the former speaker, discussing whether a metaphor intended to get across an actually good point is undignified for a president, even as that future president continues to almost daily lash out like a bratty adolescent on twitter, usually not on subject, but just with mean-spirited personal insults, every time someone is critical of him.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #244 on: December 21, 2016, 06:01:17 PM »

Way to go, Americans. At the behest of Putin, you crucified a woman who spent her life trying to do what she thought was a positive contribution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?referer=

What do you think is worse? That there is unconfirmed evidence that Putin may have influenced the US election or that there is confirmed evidence that Hillary Clinton regretted not influencing the Palestinian election?
Annoyingly, I'm going to deny the validity of the question except as a hypothetical one.
So, as a hypothetical, if one person is suspected of doing something super-wrong and another expressed regret at not doing something super-wrong, I'd have a bigger issue with the suspicion of actual super-wrong-doing.
For the validity, first Putin: there has been firm evidence available for a while (before the US presidential campaign) that the Russian government employed internet propagandists to influence Ukrainian especially but also European, generally, public opinion. There's strong evidence that predates the US presidential election that the Russian government had employed hackers that accessed US and other government data. Straight out in the open, RT was heavily involved in misinformation campaigning for Trump. That is enough for me as the misinformation is, to my mind, the biggest problem. The emails alone are not the issue; the misinformation regarding the emails is. And RT certainly engaged in that. So, as there is open evidence that the Russian government was involved in pro-Trump, anti-Clinton misinformation campaigning; extensive evidence that the Russian government was involved in more subtle pro-T, anti-C misinformation campaigning; extensive evidence that the Russian government employs political hackers; it's a fact that Stone, who is a long-term Trump associate who worked on Trump's behalf throughout the year, has a partnership with Manafort, who was Trump's campaign manager and worked with Russia on Ukraine, knew of the Wikileaks leaks ahead of time; and that Assange has a positive relationship with the Russian government media, and all the evidence presented in the Times piece above, it's pretty well established to me that the Russian government actively meddled with the US election and are doing so with several European elections.
Do I assume the US has not done the same where able and interested? No. Do I object to the US radio-propagandizing Cubans, for example? Yes, vociferously and frequently. Do I object generally to the US interfering in other counties politics, particularly as we are usually on the side of baddies? Yes. Do I expect that Clinton has OKed something similar? Most likely, if it was her role to do so. Does that make it OK that Russia did it? No, it's wrong in all cases. Does it bother me particularly that someone I think is very repulsive and corrosive to the country my daughter is going to grow up and probably live her life in, who will remove her rights, destroy her environment, reduce her opportunities and security, increase the violence around her, decrease her ability to have respect for the people she lives among benefitted from this? Yes. And does the fact that I'm interacting with people who support him, and whom I'm convinced supported him either because they are supremacists or because they were propagandize by exactly that misinformation but I don't know their views on Israel-Palestine affect what I say here? Yes.

Regarding Clinton, I haven't seen confirmed evidence of her regretting not influencing the Palestinian election. I've seen a story sourced exclusively to a site run by Trump's son-in-law that quoted Clinton thusly:
"I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen. Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”
A few problems, as far as I've been able to ascertain, though I haven't read the whole internet.  Correct me if I missed something.
1. The source is one guy who says he has a tape but the tape hasn't been released.
2. The quote was supposedly to the editorial board of the Jewish Press but I haven't seen anyone else from the board confirm; nor have I seen the "reporters" who "reported" the story try to get confirmation from anyone but the one source.
3. It's supposedly from an editorial board meeting a decade ago but no one reported it until Trump's son-in-law in the G.E. against Clinton?
4. The context isn't there - the entire transcript isn't available. If she did say it, might she not have meant they should have 'figured out' who would have won before they supported the election, rather than the other definition of 'determined' - controlled? Given that no one commented at the time, that's what I assumed she meant.
If what I assumed was right, it's still not cool, but it's a very different statement from the one implied.
But, again, even if she did say it and meant it the way it's implied she meant it, a regret about NOT doing something bad is not to me as bad as ACTUALLY doing something bad. And, also, again, I'm confident the US has done awful things, but that does not make it OK that idiots voted for Trump due to blatant misinformation.

So, I think the "confirmed" and "unconfirmed" from your question are invalid, based on the information I have.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 06:07:36 PM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #245 on: December 21, 2016, 06:03:02 PM »

I saw that too. In the linked article Newt says:

"I’ve noticed on a couple of fronts, like people chanting ‘lock her up,’ that he’s in a different role now and maybe he feels that as president, as the next president of the United States, that he should be marginally more dignified than talking about alligators in swamps."

I wonder whether the irony of it all is lost on the former speaker, discussing whether a metaphor intended to get across an actually good point is undignified for a president, even as that future president continues to almost daily lash out like a bratty adolescent on twitter, usually not on subject, but just with mean-spirited personal insults, every time someone is critical of him.
Or that maybe he's not using the slogan because he actually is making no effort to carry out what the slogan promises.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #246 on: December 21, 2016, 06:23:06 PM »

Emily, I read your thoughts and agreed with a lot. Been somewhat busy and so haven't responded but I may. Or maybe I'll leave it at that: plenty of agreement. After all, I think a special "guest poster" may need to make an appearance in the idiotic "listening to BBs will get you arrested" thread...

Meanwhile, I don't think we've mentioned outgoing gov McCrory and that shocking GOP legislature. I mean honestly...it's amazing.
Consider it mentioned. Good lord.
And, while I don't miss the original, that guest poster is probably my favorite of all posters.
Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11518


🍦🍦 fear2stop.bandcamp.com ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #247 on: December 21, 2016, 07:08:38 PM »

Which guest poster? I'm so lost right now LOL
Logged

“Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals.”
Crowd: “Yes, we’re all individuals!”
Individual: “I’m not!”

——————————————————————————
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/C6fnbHnbhVmg8Tgj6
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #248 on: December 21, 2016, 07:09:20 PM »

Way to go, Americans. At the behest of Putin, you crucified a woman who spent her life trying to do what she thought was a positive contribution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?referer=

What do you think is worse? That there is unconfirmed evidence that Putin may have influenced the US election or that there is confirmed evidence that Hillary Clinton regretted not influencing the Palestinian election?
Annoyingly, I'm going to deny the validity of the question except as a hypothetical one.
So, as a hypothetical, if one person is suspected of doing something super-wrong and another expressed regret at not doing something super-wrong, I'd have a bigger issue with the suspicion of actual super-wrong-doing.
For the validity, first Putin: there has been firm evidence available for a while (before the US presidential campaign) that the Russian government employed internet propagandists to influence Ukrainian especially but also European, generally, public opinion. There's strong evidence that predates the US presidential election that the Russian government had employed hackers that accessed US and other government data. Straight out in the open, RT was heavily involved in misinformation campaigning for Trump. That is enough for me as the misinformation is, to my mind, the biggest problem. The emails alone are not the issue; the misinformation regarding the emails is. And RT certainly engaged in that. So, as there is open evidence that the Russian government was involved in pro-Trump, anti-Clinton misinformation campaigning; extensive evidence that the Russian government was involved in more subtle pro-T, anti-C misinformation campaigning; extensive evidence that the Russian government employs political hackers; it's a fact that Stone, who is a long-term Trump associate who worked on Trump's behalf throughout the year, has a partnership with Manafort, who was Trump's campaign manager and worked with Russia on Ukraine, knew of the Wikileaks leaks ahead of time; and that Assange has a positive relationship with the Russian government media, and all the evidence presented in the Times piece above, it's pretty well established to me that the Russian government actively meddled with the US election and are doing so with several European elections.
Do I assume the US has not done the same where able and interested? No. Do I object to the US radio-propagandizing Cubans, for example? Yes, vociferously and frequently. Do I object generally to the US interfering in other counties politics, particularly as we are usually on the side of baddies? Yes. Do I expect that Clinton has OKed something similar? Most likely, if it was her role to do so. Does that make it OK that Russia did it? No, it's wrong in all cases. Does it bother me particularly that someone I think is very repulsive and corrosive to the country my daughter is going to grow up and probably live her life in, who will remove her rights, destroy her environment, reduce her opportunities and security, increase the violence around her, decrease her ability to have respect for the people she lives among benefitted from this? Yes. And does the fact that I'm interacting with people who support him, and whom I'm convinced supported him either because they are supremacists or because they were propagandize by exactly that misinformation but I don't know their views on Israel-Palestine affect what I say here? Yes.

Regarding Clinton, I haven't seen confirmed evidence of her regretting not influencing the Palestinian election. I've seen a story sourced exclusively to a site run by Trump's son-in-law that quoted Clinton thusly:
"I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen. Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”
A few problems, as far as I've been able to ascertain, though I haven't read the whole internet.  Correct me if I missed something.
1. The source is one guy who says he has a tape but the tape hasn't been released.
2. The quote was supposedly to the editorial board of the Jewish Press but I haven't seen anyone else from the board confirm; nor have I seen the "reporters" who "reported" the story try to get confirmation from anyone but the one source.
3. It's supposedly from an editorial board meeting a decade ago but no one reported it until Trump's son-in-law in the G.E. against Clinton?
4. The context isn't there - the entire transcript isn't available. If she did say it, might she not have meant they should have 'figured out' who would have won before they supported the election, rather than the other definition of 'determined' - controlled? Given that no one commented at the time, that's what I assumed she meant.
If what I assumed was right, it's still not cool, but it's a very different statement from the one implied.
But, again, even if she did say it and meant it the way it's implied she meant it, a regret about NOT doing something bad is not to me as bad as ACTUALLY doing something bad. And, also, again, I'm confident the US has done awful things, but that does not make it OK that idiots voted for Trump due to blatant misinformation.

So, I think the "confirmed" and "unconfirmed" from your question are invalid, based on the information I have.

Regarding the Clinton quote, the audio has been available since the story leaked. In fact, it was a link to the audio on this site that I heard at least a month ago. Here is a clip of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw7At6IsRKY

And, in that case, yes, she did regret not doing something bad but it did reveal her position on interfering on the democratic processes of other countries: she is in favour of it. In that case, it is sheer hypocrisy for Democrats to now say how dare the Russians interfere to the extent that Clinton lost the election, since Clinton herself is on record as supporting such practices.

Regarding Putin's involvement, what we have is an anonymous source claiming that the CIA has information that Putin hacked the election. This is hardly conclusive proof and most serious journalists are writing about it in that way. See the following:

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/

I'm not saying it didn't happen. There's a good chance it did. Powerful leaders of powerful countries are frequently in favour of interfering with the democratic processes of other countries. The US has a long history of this and Clinton's remarks on Palestine fit in nicely with that history. I agree that it is not okay "that idiots voted for Trump due to blatant misinformation." But I would argue that it is equally misinforming people to paint this incident as voters "crucifying a woman who spent her life trying to do what she thought was a positive contribution ... at the behest of Putin." In reality, the story is currently that there may be evidence that Putin tampered with a democratic process, preventing the election of a powerful figure who is on record as favouring interfering in the democratic systems of others.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 07:11:17 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #249 on: December 21, 2016, 10:49:11 PM »

Ok. But that audio is still limited in context and indicates to me even more from tone that she meant ''figure out', not 'control.' The tape is meant to be 45 minutes. Did they release the whole thing?
But either way, as I said, I have no doubt the US has interfered with other elections (of course the US has, that's well established) and I wouldn't doubt that Clinton has done so if given the opportunity and motive. But it would only be hypocrisy if the people who have a problem with Russia doing it don't have a problem with the US doing it.
Regarding Putin, we have all the evidence that I've said above, which is more than an anonymous source. The Greenwald piece puts the FBI against the CIA with one saying Trump has no direct link to the Russian government and one saying he does as if that makes it a toss-up when we don't need either to tell us that Manafort was his campaign manager, so there's a direct link right there. And one doesn't need the CIA or FBI to tell us that thousands of pro-Trump twitter bots and social media accounts were sourced in Russia or that Sputnik and RT originated misinformation like the Clinton health stories.
So we disagree about the evidence. Some was too blatant to deny, I think, and you don't need the anonymous source, the CIA or the FBI to support it.
But, I don't know that the reaction is primarily "how dare Putin?" so much as "here is more evidence that this campaign was not on the up-and-up". Just as when the US interferes with an election, that election is to a degree invalidated, would not this one be as well?
It seems there is a flip to your flip - if it's problematic for the US to do it, is it not problematic for Russia to do it? Do you not agree that when the US does it, we can't rightly consider that election to be open and honest? Would the same not apply when it's done to the US?
Are my statement ("...positive contribution") and yours ("...favoring interfering") mutually exclusive? I don't think they are and I think they are both true.

Edited way later for a clarification: when you say "Democrats" do you mean Washington Democrats or general population Democrats? My answe was assuming the latter.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 11:20:44 PM by Emily » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 32   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.185 seconds with 21 queries.