Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Election Meddling: NBD, All the Cool Kids are Doing it, Mom

Election Meddling: NBD, All the Cool Kids are Doing it, Mom
Thread Tools
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2020, 09:36 AM
 
Yesterday at daycarethe White House, the Trump kid fired his acting Director of National Intelligence because of a classified briefing the DNI's people gave to Congress, warning that Russia is actively working to interfere in the 2020 election in order to reelect Trump. Trump then replaces the acting DNI with his ambassador to Germany, who has less than zero intelligence experience, but is a rabid Trump supporter (which is probably the most important qualification.)
When I want your opinion,-
I'll read it in your entrails
     
Thorzdad  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2020, 09:48 AM
 
In case you missed it, Dear Leader had an issue with the best picture Oscar going to Parasite, a movie from South Korea.
"Let's get Gone With the Wind — can we get, like, Gone With the Wind back, please?"
When I want your opinion,-
I'll read it in your entrails
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2020, 10:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Trump then replaces the acting DNI with his ambassador to Germany, who has less than zero intelligence experience, but is a rabid Trump supporter (which is probably the most important qualification.)
And Grenell is still the Ambassador to Germany. My fellow Germans and I are ecstatic that Trump did not even bother to “promote him away”.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2020, 03:26 PM
 
I said this when the Russia thing was a thing four years ago.

I hope we **** with the elections of other countries when it suits our purposes.

In that vein, I’m not in a position to throw stones.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2020, 09:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Today they're supporting Trump and the Dem front-runner, with polls again suggesting Sanders can beat Trump. Definitely weird.
Chaos and the inability for anyone to be sure about anything.

Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
How is that surprising ?
Crying wolf Russia is a standard practice for establishment Democrats to deflect from their own incompetence.

-t
Go back to 1987 and tell all of the Republicans that within their lifetime, they'd not only flatout deny reports from the CIA, NSA, FBI, and state department that Russia was directly interfering with our democratic process, but tell them that they'd celebrate it. I assume you'd get punched.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I said this when the Russia thing was a thing four years ago.

I hope we **** with the elections of other countries when it suits our purposes.

In that vein, I’m not in a position to throw stones.
The US has a long and glorious history of outing/assassinating democratically-elected leaders and installing friendly dictators.

That doesn't make you hypocritical for saying it's a bad thing to happen to the US. That doesn't mean we should celebrate that it happens just because it's our own side that benefits.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2020, 01:04 PM
 
I guess I agree with the second point, but not the first.

If I’m fine with us doing it, then I’m a hypocrite when I’m not fine with others doing the same.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2020, 01:52 PM
 
Are you fine with the US doing it? You didn't explicitly say so, so I didn't assume that you were.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._regime_change

Did the US's actions lead to the suffering and deaths of more civilians than if they'd stayed out?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2020, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Go back to 1987 and tell all of the Republicans that within their lifetime, they'd not only flatout deny reports from the CIA, NSA, FBI, and state department that Russia was directly interfering with our democratic process, but tell them that they'd celebrate it. I assume you'd get punched.
I kinda feel the same way about Democrats carrying water for the CIA, NSA, and FBI.

Along with their 2016 slogan... “I stand with the Generals”.

Turns have tabled since the 80s.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2020, 02:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Are you fine with the US doing it? You didn't explicitly say so, so I didn't assume that you were.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._regime_change

Did the US's actions lead to the suffering and deaths of more civilians than if they'd stayed out?
I said I hope we do it when it suits our purposes, which I figure is tantamount to approval.

I grabbed a random example from the wiki, which had us dumping arms and “advisors” into a civil war. This is a far cry from hacking and dumping propaganda on social media, no?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 24, 2020, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I said I hope we do it when it suits our purposes, which I figure is tantamount to approval.
Maybe this is my inner libtard talking, but I see my needs and the needs of those in power in the US as dissimilar, and likely at odds. This isn't a knock on the current administration, this has been basically constant since WWII and before.

So these coups may serve the purposes of enriching some US-based megacorporation, or putting money in Cheney's buddies' pockets, or they serve a large political donor's agenda, but the government/military isn't doing these things so that the common American can live a better life.

I grabbed a random example from the wiki, which had us dumping arms and “advisors” into a civil war. This is a far cry from hacking and dumping propaganda on social media, no?
The US has certainly been responsible for millions of innocent civilian casualties through surreptitious foreign action.

The connection I don't agree with is, "The US has done worse, so we can't complain about what Russia is doing, especially since there are fewer direct deaths in Russia's case."

I see the outcome of a meddled election being worse for the common American - worse health, education, quality of life, less freedom, less liberty.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2020, 09:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I kinda feel the same way about Democrats carrying water for the CIA, NSA, and FBI.
I get where you are coming from, but I think reality is way more nuanced than that. On the one hand, a lot of Democrats are actually way more conservative than is perceived. Think of Hillary Clinton, she was painted by the GOP as a far left crazy rather than a hawkish centrist. A lot of things have (or in some cases, had) actually been points of broad bipartisan agreement.

On the other hand, defending “the establishment”/“deep state” from outlandish, absurd claims is not the same as “carrying the water” for them. The Comey story is a perfect encapsulation: you can object to Comey and even think that he should have been fired, but that doesn't make it right how Trump fired Comey. IMHO this is a sad success of the GOP's tactics: not even life-long Republicans can credibly (in the eyes of the GOP) investigate a Republican administration.

I do think, though, there is some truth to what you say, but I think it is not as much as you make it appear.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Turns have tabled since the 80s.
A lot has happened since the 1980s. Listen to what the conservative stalwart Reagan had to say about immigration. Or what Bill Clinton said about “prison reform”. Reagan wouldn't have won the nomination in 2016, that's for sure.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2020, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Maybe this is my inner libtard talking, but I see my needs and the needs of those in power in the US as dissimilar, and likely at odds. This isn't a knock on the current administration, this has been basically constant since WWII and before.

So these coups may serve the purposes of enriching some US-based megacorporation, or putting money in Cheney's buddies' pockets, or they serve a large political donor's agenda, but the government/military isn't doing these things so that the common American can live a better life.



The US has certainly been responsible for millions of innocent civilian casualties through surreptitious foreign action.

The connection I don't agree with is, "The US has done worse, so we can't complain about what Russia is doing, especially since there are fewer direct deaths in Russia's case."

I see the outcome of a meddled election being worse for the common American - worse health, education, quality of life, less freedom, less liberty.
My argument is more along the lines we can’t complain about what Russia is doing because we’re supposed to be frigging players. Players take care of problems by playing the game, not by whining about other players doing to us what we signed up for because we want to do it to them.

The benefit of this for the common American is a world where America pushes other countries around instead of the reverse. This is a much better situation for both us and the rest of the world because despite the list of horrors in the wiki, we’re still the best option as global thugs go... by at least an order of magnitude.

Yes, the common American is worse off as a result of election meddling. We carry that burden in exchange for maintaining our position at the top of the pyramid.


Edit: this is a little disjointed... I can rewrite it if it isn’t making sense.
( Last edited by subego; Feb 26, 2020 at 03:05 AM. )
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2020, 09:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My argument is more along the lines we can’t complain about what Russia is doing because we’re supposed to be frigging players.
Can we complain that the current administration appears to be basically welcoming the interference?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2020, 09:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The benefit of this for the common American is a world where America pushes other countries around instead of the reverse. This is a much better situation for both us and the rest of the world because despite the list of horrors in the wiki, we’re still the best option as global thugs go... by at least an order of magnitude.
That isn't just arrogant, looking at history, it is plainly wrong. The US's attitude to foreign nations is riddled with short-term thinking and not sticking to its stated mission of spreading democracy across the world. There is a distinct preference for malleable dictators rather than democratically elected leaders who fight for what they see as being in the interest of their own country. And if you look at what is happening now, it hasn't learnt one bit. Look at how differently Saudi Arabia and Iran are treated. Or what is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US seems to end up fighting former allies a lot.

The human price in the Middle East is first and foremost measured by American lives, but not by the hundreds of thousands who have died that happen to have a different passport.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Yes, the common American is worse off as a result of election meddling. We carry that burden in exchange for maintaining our position at the top of the pyramid.
Given the situation, that doesn't make any sense. Trump's GOP has happily accepted the interference on the one hand, but made every effort to silence those in the American government who would say so even behind closed doors. The problem isn't the election interference, the problem is Trump's and the Trump Administration's reaction to it.

And “[Americans] carry that burden …” for what exactly? I don't think Americans are getting what you seem to think they are getting. The American government isn't even present in many negotiations of global importance, be it because “they don't believe in Climate Change” or because Trump's prickliness made him leave early from a summit.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2020, 11:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
That isn't just arrogant
I didn’t see any alternatives offered.

If America isn’t the best option to be the global thug, then who? There’s going to be one. It’s unavoidable.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2020, 12:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Can we complain that the current administration appears to be basically welcoming the interference?
What will that accomplish? It won’t make it stop.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2020, 02:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I didn’t see any alternatives offered.
I offered quite a few: America should learn from its mistakes, stop supporting malleable dictators and instead be serious about promoting democracy — even if that means that some countries will elect governments whose interests differ from the US's.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If America isn’t the best option to be the global thug, then who? There’s going to be one. It’s unavoidable.
I don't think it is necessary or unavoidable that there is a “global thug”. And surely I wouldn't want my country to be a or the global thug.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2020, 02:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I offered quite a few: America should learn from its mistakes, stop supporting malleable dictators and instead be serious about promoting democracy — even if that means that some countries will elect governments whose interests differ from the US's.

I don't think it is necessary or unavoidable that there is a “global thug”. And surely I wouldn't want my country to be a or the global thug.
Pointing out we could do better at it isn’t supplying an alternative.

If it isn’t us, it’s China or Russia, which are self-evidently nightmarish options.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2020, 10:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What will that accomplish? It won’t make it stop.
It's not binary - it's not 100% interference or 0% interference.

Steps can be taken to strengthen US elections and reduce interference by 10% or 50% or 90%, and that would be a good thing.

Improving easily-hackable voting machines would be a good first step.

More oversight into campaign finance would help reduce the amount of foreign money being funneled to candidates that will best serve foreign interests.

In battleground states, we've seen that just a few votes will swing the electoral college. If those votes come from (or are blocked by) hacked machines, because people voted based on misinformation campaigns designed to divide people, propagate false claims, and stir up controversy, or if people didn't vote because they were apathetic and sick of the bombardment of divisiveness and negative messaging, local, state, and federal elections can swing.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2020, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
... or if people didn't vote because they were apathetic and sick of the bombardment of divisiveness and negative messaging, local, state, and federal elections can swing.
Hear, hear. People need to vote. In my opinion, if someone does not vote, they shouldn't complain about the results of that election.

It would require a modification of the 1st Amendment, but it might actually get more people to vote. Upon a complaint, if someone is griping about politics related to the latest election, they have to produce their voting stub. Proof of voting, or be fined for a misdemeanor.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2020, 01:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
It's not binary - it's not 100% interference or 0% interference.

Steps can be taken to strengthen US elections and reduce interference by 10% or 50% or 90%, and that would be a good thing.

Improving easily-hackable voting machines would be a good first step.

More oversight into campaign finance would help reduce the amount of foreign money being funneled to candidates that will best serve foreign interests.

In battleground states, we've seen that just a few votes will swing the electoral college. If those votes come from (or are blocked by) hacked machines, because people voted based on misinformation campaigns designed to divide people, propagate false claims, and stir up controversy, or if people didn't vote because they were apathetic and sick of the bombardment of divisiveness and negative messaging, local, state, and federal elections can swing.
I don’t see suggesting to harden ballot machines as complaining, it’s offering an achievable solution. I think anyone with a functioning brain should support it.

Finance reform is more like complaining, unless there’s a veto-proof majority for it in Congress, it’s not going to go anywhere right now.

Honestly, I think we should take responsibility for our apathy and divisiveness. Russia might push it a little farther, but the vast majority of the momentum is our own.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2020, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don’t see suggesting to harden ballot machines as complaining, it’s offering an achievable solution. I think anyone with a functioning brain should support it.
See: McConnell, Trump

Honestly, I think we should take responsibility for our apathy and divisiveness. Russia might push it a little farther, but the vast majority of the momentum is our own.
People respond to the information and incentives they're given. What we've found as we learn more about tribalism, confirmation bias, echo chambers, and how far you can push those buttons in voters is that individuals, corporations, and countries are spending millions and millions of dollars to spread misinformation and drive divisiveness. On an individual level, we need to expect people to make good decisions and use good judgement. On a societal level, we need to put the tools and measures in place such that those outcomes are more probable.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2020, 02:14 PM
 
Except in the District, aren’t ballot machines a state matter?

What tools can go into place on a societal level which don’t end up curb-stomping freedom of speech?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2020, 03:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What tools can go into place on a societal level which don’t end up curb-stomping freedom of speech?
e-voting should require end-to-end encryption. And open-source the code and hardware, so everyone can audit it.

Existing machines are closed-source. Most audits find dumpster-fire security problems. Or hardware with unprotected USB ports, etc. Lots of ways to tamper with totals.

States do handle voting, but the Feds could set minimum security standards for the machines.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2020, 04:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
e-voting should require end-to-end encryption. And open-source the code and hardware, so everyone can audit it.

Existing machines are closed-source. Most audits find dumpster-fire security problems. Or hardware with unprotected USB ports, etc. Lots of ways to tamper with totals.

States do handle voting, but the Feds could set minimum security standards for the machines.
Sorry that was unclear... those were two separate thoughts. I was asking what means can go into place to combat propaganda and disinformation.

I’m sure we’d be in close to full agreement about what needs to be done with electronic ballot machines. I personally think they’re a horrible idea.

My cynical side thinks a federal solution would be an absolute cluster. I could be mistaken, but I believe it’s federal law which brought the things into existence in the first place as a means of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2020, 05:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Sorry that was unclear... those were two separate thoughts. I was asking what means can go into place to combat propaganda and disinformation.
That's a tough one, because you're asking the question of what's true and what's not, and the answer is shades of gray. It'd be impossible to have a governmental institution determining what's true and what's not that wouldn't instantly be politicized.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2020, 05:50 PM
 
I feel this applies to fact checking in general.

The concept of objective truth is something dear to me, and my conclusion over a lifetime of seeking it is it’s an elusive creature indeed. I **** it up all the time, and I actually kinda sorta know what I’m doing. I get discouraged by people who put in 1/10th the effort and delude themselves into thinking they have it locked down.

Many of whom are supposedly professionals.


Note, I say this without even mentioning those who intentionally abuse the truth.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2020, 11:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I get where you are coming from, but I think reality is way more nuanced than that. On the one hand, a lot of Democrats are actually way more conservative than is perceived. Think of Hillary Clinton, she was painted by the GOP as a far left crazy rather than a hawkish centrist. A lot of things have (or in some cases, had) actually been points of broad bipartisan agreement.

On the other hand, defending “the establishment”/“deep state” from outlandish, absurd claims is not the same as “carrying the water” for them. The Comey story is a perfect encapsulation: you can object to Comey and even think that he should have been fired, but that doesn't make it right how Trump fired Comey. IMHO this is a sad success of the GOP's tactics: not even life-long Republicans can credibly (in the eyes of the GOP) investigate a Republican administration.

I do think, though, there is some truth to what you say, but I think it is not as much as you make it appear.

A lot has happened since the 1980s. Listen to what the conservative stalwart Reagan had to say about immigration. Or what Bill Clinton said about “prison reform”. Reagan wouldn't have won the nomination in 2016, that's for sure.
Here are the three biggest things which jumped out at me.

The first was the Muller investigation. I’ve never seen the left line up to “side with the man” like that before, and over such an objectively horrible idea as a special prosecutor. This was like some Star Wars shit where the left said “**** it”, and let the Dark Side flow through them because it offered to give them what they wanted.

The next is the Russia thing. The left went kinda sorta easy on the Russians back when they were literally the worst country in the world. Now that they’re a shadow of their former selves, the left has elevated them to Public Enemy No. 1.

The last is Hillary herself. With the exception of guns and baby-killing, she’s a Republican.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2020, 12:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Here are the three biggest things which jumped out at me.

The first was the Muller investigation. I’ve never seen the left line up to “side with the man” like that before, and over such an objectively horrible idea as a special prosecutor. This was like some Star Wars shit where the left said “**** it”, and let the Dark Side flow through them because it offered to give them what they wanted.
Has there ever been such an objectively shitty con-man president that's been committing con jobs for decades?

The next is the Russia thing. The left went kinda sorta easy on the Russians back when they were literally the worst country in the world. Now that they’re a shadow of their former selves, the left has elevated them to Public Enemy No. 1.
Is this "The Left" in the '90s, or "The Left" in 2013? Has Russian's misinformation and interference campaign been overblown by the biased media?

The last is Hillary herself. With the exception of guns and baby-killing, she’s a Republican.
No one liked her. The DNC conspired to make her the candidate - have there ever been so few candidates in a primary? Not as far as I can find on Wikipedia in 3 minutes.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2020, 01:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Has there ever been such an objectively shitty con-man president that's been committing con jobs for decades?
This is what I’m talking about. This is an argument from Dark Side Seduction 101. The enemy is so dangerous it leaves us no choice but to abandon our principles.

If Star Wars is too cheesy, how about “he who fights monsters”, or “gaze into the abyss”, or “qui custodiet ipsos custodes”?

Does the left distrust the man because they’re tards, or because there’s a damn good reason to distrust them?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2020, 01:29 PM
 
I don't see the problem with a special prosecutor when a President is suspected of wrongdoing. As the Prez is above the Justice Department, any regular prosecutor would be investigating one of their bosses. You need someone independent to be insulated from pressure.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2020, 01:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is what I’m talking about. This is an argument from Dark Side Seduction 101. The enemy is so dangerous it leaves us no choice but to abandon our principles.
It was an honest question. If the observation is "Democrats are acting in an unusual way" but the situation itself is unprecedented, then we shouldn't be surprised when the reaction is unusual.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2020, 02:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Is this "The Left" in the '90s, or "The Left" in 2013? Has Russian's misinformation and interference campaign been overblown by the biased media?
It has. The media is unquestionably biased.

Since I’m spitting cliche wisdom left and right, another is “don’t make important decisions while angry”. While the reasons this is excellent advice are self-evident, I’ll specifically note anger about a subject negatively impacts the ability to perform objective analysis upon it.

If it isn’t obvious where I’m going with this, is there a group floating around out there who strikes you as angry?

Is the analysis offered by all these angry people somehow in defiance of the above, or is it more likely warped by the anger the cliche warns about?

I’d say the left feels a moral obligation to be angry about Trump, and I don’t necessarily think they’re wrong, but there’s no free lunch. Anger comes with a cost.

So, yes. The media has kinda blown the Russia thing out of proportion.


I put Russia on the list because it’s, I dunno... weird. The left blew it the first time, so I’d hope to see them less inclined to do it again. It feels a bit like the Dark Side thing again, where it’s just so much easier to prop up a tinpot bogeyman rather than confront uncomfortable truths, such as...

Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
No one liked her. The DNC conspired to make her the candidate
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2020, 04:08 PM
 
Alternative titles for the thread:
Apathy vs Cynicism vs Idealism: Our Devolving Democracy
Russian Interference: Anything you can do, I can do better
It's a beautiful night to watch the world burn
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2020, 04:19 PM
 
Is the analysis offered by all these angry people somehow in defiance of the above, or is it more likely warped by the anger the cliche warns about?

I’d say the left feels a moral obligation to be angry about Trump, and I don’t necessarily think they’re wrong, but there’s no free lunch. Anger comes with a cost.
Agree 100%. I've seen plenty of arguments that go back and forth about "We shouldn't get so bent out of shape at every little slight, or else no one will listen when there's a big slight" vs. "If you let a million little things go you're complicit in the overall outcome which is a million little steps away from where you started." I don't know the answer to that argument.

Most of my thoughts on this could be boiled down to "Nuh-uh Republicans are worse" which I don't think is a helpful stance.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2020, 08:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I don't see the problem with a special prosecutor when a President is suspected of wrongdoing. As the Prez is above the Justice Department, any regular prosecutor would be investigating one of their bosses. You need someone independent to be insulated from pressure.
Agreed. Striking a balance between limiting the scope of the investigation (so that you don't go from real estate deals to blowjobs) and independence is something that needs to be taken into account, but that's feasible.

Overall, the checks and balances on US Presidents has been extremely weak and quite ineffective. IMHO it is better to err more on the side of making US Presidents's lives more difficult.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2020, 08:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
It was an honest question. If the observation is "Democrats are acting in an unusual way" but the situation itself is unprecedented, then we shouldn't be surprised when the reaction is unusual.
I apologize! I thought the question was rhetorical.

I don’t know the answer. I’m willing to put him at the top of the list for the sake of argument.

The specific reaction which surprised me was the extent to which the Democrats enjoyed the means.

To use an extreme analogy, even if it’s objectively the correct thing for me to hurl a nuke, I’m not happy about what I have to do.

They were happy. Pants changes were necessitated.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2020, 08:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The first was the Muller investigation. I’ve never seen the left line up to “side with the man” like that before, and over such an objectively horrible idea as a special prosecutor.
I don't think the idea of a special prosecutor was horrible, at least that is my objective take

Plus, “the Left” only exists in the imagination of right-wing pundits, and the term is usually invoked when they want to illustrate how far left “they” are. The Democratic party is much more diverse, especially since moderates have no home in the GOP.

Insisting on proper process and firing people for the right reasons is not necessarily siding with them. If I were an American, I wouldn't be happy with how Comey has handled himself during the election and I think removing him for that should have been on the table from day one. But the way Trump fired him was not ok (and Trump's motives were laughably transparent). If you don't have good process, you only end up doing the right thing accidentally. This nuance doesn't fit in a headline, and can easily be misread as “the Democrats have become fanboys of Comey.” Ditto for other horrible people like Bannon leaking: it is important to make them talk and hear them out, and just because we happen to agree on Trump being a horrible president, doesn't mean my stance on him has changed. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The next is the Russia thing. The left went kinda sorta easy on the Russians back when they were literally the worst country in the world. Now that they’re a shadow of their former selves, the left has elevated them to Public Enemy No. 1.
I don't get your point: you were claiming that the Democrats's position on the three-letter agencies has changed since Trump was elected. That has nothing to do with Russia.

It sounds to me that you are getting this impression from the programming of MSNBC and the like, and peg that as the default position Democrats and Democratic voters have. I'm not saying that there hasn't been a shift, I'm saying the shift is much smaller than you make it out to be.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The last is Hillary herself. With the exception of guns and baby-killing, she’s a Republican.
Isn't that a version of what I was saying, that Clinton is very hawkish?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2020, 08:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
IMHO it is better to err more on the side of making US Presidents's lives more difficult.
[Republican rubs hands together]

“Just you wait.”
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2020, 09:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It has. The media is unquestionably biased.
The traditional media isn't biased along the left-right axis. The media skews towards people living in big cities and who have been educated at good universities. And this isn't just because of the prevalence of the WaPo and the NYT, it is also because smaller newspapers that bring local news are dying.

The new media are biased in a very different way — creating engagement and clicks. That's how Facebook's algorithmic timeline works and how Youtube suggests videos. There is no bias towards the left or the right, the only bias is towards making money — and that is by ginning up engagement.

Understanding this difference is important to really understand how the media is not serving the population.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2020, 09:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
[Republican rubs hands together]

“Just you wait.”
That's fine, I know that things cut both ways.
The impeachment process as laid out in the US Constitution is quite toothless, because the barriers are too high. Apart from Nixon*, no President has been removed thanks to the impeachment process. Reagan survived the Iran Contra scandal for whatever reason. Bush 2 did not get into trouble for state-sanctioned torture programs. Obama OKed the killing of people, including US citizens, without a trial. And then there is Trump. I would have wanted to impeach him much earlier for breaking the Emoluments Clause.

Of course, there will be cases where Congress will try to remove Presidents without proper cause (which is why Clinton was not removed). Perhaps the Republicans would have pulled a Benghazi on President Clinton (by which I mean using a harebrained conspiracy theory to damage her politically rather than investigate proper wrongdoing). If Congress is stupid and dysfunctional, sure, that's what you get. But overall, the power balance has shifted towards the executive branch, which is a net negative.


* I'm counting Nixon here, even though he technically resigned before being impeached and convicted. If you don't agree, then the count goes to 0, i. e. the impeachment process has an even worse track record.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2020, 11:15 PM
 
Traditionally, how we cross party lines is how we won the majority. That is why Hillary (to a certain extent Bill) was pro social issues (womens rights, gay rights) but hawkish economically and militarily. Also a certain amount of keeping up with the boys. (Gotta be tough.)

Candidate A leans left on social issues? They'd better be strong at economics and have a history of balancing budgets, and oh yes, support the war machine please (especially if not a vet). Oh, Candidate B leans left on economic issues like corporate welfare? Maybe temper that with some down-home clothes to distract from the family wealth (and your wealthy buddies), maybe a pickup truck, add in some SuperChristian™ warm fuzzy feelings and support kids charities or something.

Bernie is Candidate C, no compromise.

Trump is Candidate D. Whatever is best for him.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2020, 12:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Traditionally, how we cross party lines is how we won the majority. That is why Hillary (to a certain extent Bill) was pro social issues (womens rights, gay rights) but hawkish economically and militarily. Also a certain amount of keeping up with the boys. (Gotta be tough.)
It is a strategy, that can work well.
The German center-right party's current slogan is literally “Die Mitte”, the middle. But in a hyper party-polarized environment, I don't think it is the only viable strategy. There is a lot of angst amongst many Democrats to be called weak on [insert topic]. For example, if Obama had concluded a peace treaty with the Taliban, the GOP would bring out the pitchforks. So rather than doing the right thing — ending a senseless war without clear, achievable goals after 18+ years — Obama didn't do that. But IMHO there is a lot of marketing to that, after all, even hawkish Democrats like Hillary Clinton get called members of the far left and moderate Democrats like Obama get painted as socialists. That's just a lot of fear mongering, which nevertheless seems to be effective.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2020, 10:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The traditional media isn't biased along the left-right axis. The media skews towards people living in big cities and who have been educated at good universities. And this isn't just because of the prevalence of the WaPo and the NYT, it is also because smaller newspapers that bring local news are dying.

The new media are biased in a very different way — creating engagement and clicks. That's how Facebook's algorithmic timeline works and how Youtube suggests videos. There is no bias towards the left or the right, the only bias is towards making money — and that is by ginning up engagement.

Understanding this difference is important to really understand how the media is not serving the population.
The money people don’t generate content, artists do, and artists (which includes journalists) skew heavily left.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2020, 02:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The money people don’t generate content, artists do, and artists (which includes journalists) skew heavily left.
Whether an individual skews left or right, money is still green. A ready-and-begging market demands a product.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...fo#.qoLJmJWO61
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2020, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The money people don’t generate content, artists do, and artists (which includes journalists) skew heavily left.
Apart from your feeling that artists tend left, do you have any other arguments or evidence?

It seems to me you are again conflating traditional media with youtube et al. The skew for both is different. And your simplistic claim that the media leans left is not correct.

To describe the traditional media lean as left is not apt. Why was there more support for Elisabeth Warren than Bernie Sanders for readers of traditional media. Because they skew towards better education. But by the same token, there is a substantial representation of a type of conservative (someone much more focussed on economic policies and with a very strong opinion of what a “conservative” should be) that also does not represent GOP voters at large. Smaller publications on the other hand, from rural parts of the country are on the one hand dying and on the other much less visible. I'm sure when you think of the media, you are mostly thinking about the big newspapers and the big TV channels sans Fox News.

And on Youtube et al, the claim that the left dominates is just false. In fact, I'd say because the a particular branch of the American right wing has felt underrepresented in American media, they were very early adopters of new technologies. The Drudge Report comes to mind, but we have modern-day examples like Breitbart and the Daily Caller. On Facebook, most of the trending stories come from the right-leaning end of the spectrum. Why? I give you a hint: young people aren't on Facebook anymore, it is older, white people. And what do these people read? Who do they vote for? Ditto for Youtube: it is where the Ben Shapiros of the right-wing bubble made their fame. They generate clicks, so Youtube is happy. And they lead its users down rabbit holes, drawing people from the middle to the fringe.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2020, 08:06 AM
 
For every Breitbart and Daily Caller there’s a HuffPo, a Vox, a TruthOut, a CommonDreams, a Vice, a Daily Kos, and a Salon.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2020, 04:53 PM
 
There are plenty of left leaning youtube videos and sites. It’s just that they dont have much mobilized support because liberals by & large are apolitical, unintellectual, young people. Most liberals consider politics to be for nerds. Smoking weed, drinking, partying, watching family guy/southpark/SNL/etc & joking or bragging about ‘gettin pussy’, consumes the majority of liberals’ past-times. Given the chance to watch a video a liberal would rather choose to watch something funny about cats or such. Liberals prefer sites like twitter that have character limits so they dont have to read a lot while encouraging people to post political points in the form of tribal rallying zingers they can laugh at.

They can make fun of the tea party country bumpkins all they want but theyve never had an equal movement due to their political apathy. The only time they get somewhat motivated is when a demagogue comes along with promises of free stuff; or when a proposition comes up giving them the right to get high. They have no unity, cant agree on a decent moderate candidate to defeat Trump, which should be easy. ...And they hypocritically are super duper angry about US slavery a hundred years ago, rather than slavery they benefit from today. Theyre basically handing next election to Trump.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2020, 05:43 PM
 
That's... an interesting generalization. I think you just basically described college guys, which may well be true for some of them, but not all, and not the large number of 30-60yo liberals. You know, the people who voted for Biden.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2020, 09:37 PM
 
If it were just generalizations then the Dems wouldnt be failing in such predictable manner. I mean they really arent good at collectively organizing for any cause that matters or for any length of time. Their big things are stuff like chanting "show me what democracy looks like...." then mooning the Trump tower.... Then making a social gathering of it by going out for tacos and beer... And lets be honest, their main source of news media is Kimmel, Colbert, Fallon, & Maher.

I should be talking about frat boys, but in this day and age it's people well into their 30's, sometimes 40's. Due to a lack of discipline liberal youth arent growing up in reasonable time. They're basically believing in the Santa clause of political messiah extremists. They royally effed up this election. And the establishment let them. By focusing on Bernie (and Warren) so much, it caused people to vote Biden mostly in a last minute haste only after CNN & other big names spent 2 weeks attacking Bernie. Perhaps other candidates like Gabbard or Klobuchar could have gotten more traction if the Dems hadnt of let Sanders & Warren steal so much of the show. If the Dems had any concept of reality they would have known that marxist Bernie & elitist stereotype Warren never had a chance.

Concerning the 30-60 yo liberals: where were they in the 1st round of the primaries? My guess is they were voting for Sanders... It was the MSM that got people to start switching votes to Biden on Tuesday. it seems as if dems goal isnt to find the candidate best capable of beating Trump, as that would've been Gabbard.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:23 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,