Jump to content

Recommended Posts

so the sly asshole or the puppet of another sly asshole the choice is yours america?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so the sly asshole or the puppet of another sly asshole the choice is yours america?

 

the choice is more nuanced than that. but.. everything is really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the west is falling apart and it is because status grants impunity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the west is falling apart and it is because status grants impunity

 

how do i vote for that in november?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/25/the-democratic-convention-is-chaotic-the-democratic-base-isnt/

"There are plenty of Bernie Sanders supporters who are frustrated at Hillary Clinton, and some chunk of those voters will back Donald Trump in November. Most Democrats even those who consistently supported Bernie Sanders in the primary plan to back Hillary Clinton. Those Democrats are more likely to be moderate and, Pew's data suggests, more willing to accept compromise."

 

Well hopefully the Sanders delegates got the message last night, and are aware of the broader level of support for them shutting the fuck up. It was rather embarrassing watching them at the start of the convention yesterday, doing Trump's work for him, thankfully it wasn't as vocal after the first bunch of speakers, but it was still evident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is your thing with Sanders?

You defend Clinton as far as you can

and you trash Sanders whenever possible

 

I only defend Clinton in the face of rampant unreasonable criticism, I'm not actually a massive fan of her or many of her policies (though she's better compared to Sanders).

 

If I had to pick a single policy of hers that would ultimately sway me it would be her stance on Nuclear power (Sanders vocally opposes it, she cautiously supports it - hopefully the only reason she's not more vocal about her support if for reasons of political expediency). They both put climate change as a big part of their platforms, but you can't have a serious platform on fixing climate change without support for nuclear.

 

Sander's had a lot of good policies, don't hate him, but there's a more than decent chance he'd tank the US economy, especially if he got that dumb universal 3rd level policy through (though he may have found it even harder than Obama to get anything past congress, Clinton - despite how much she's hated by certain republicans - is a far cannier political operator, is likely to be far more effective in terms of enacting legislation than Sanders would have been, or Obama has been).

 

Clinton's policy platforms were also a lot better thought out and more detailed, Sanders was very vague on loads of issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm mostly with you there caze, but on the slight opposite, I prefer Sanders to Clinton. Agreed on nuclear power comments and Clinton's overall better policy platforms, but I think Sanders would be more indicative of change, even if he wouldn't have been able to implement much if any of his pie in the sky ideas; I thought he could've at least pushed the tide in that direction. Clinton will be a capable president I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ebNGKwT.jpg

 

the second line made me lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton's policy platforms were also a lot better thought out and more detailed, Sanders was very vague on loads of issues.

 

 

Clinton will be a capable president I'm sure.

 

It's the idealist versus the pragmatist. They actually are like bookends to Obama's presidency - which has waffled between lofty optimistic goals and realistic incremental policy. Sanders is honest and sincere but he's likely not going to be one to compromise much and a lot of his goals imo are way too idealistic - the free college, high minimum wage - those are issues that need action but implementing his goals would be overkill, even if they did hypothetically get implemented.

 

Clinton on the other hand is the ultimate insider - the thing is that itself is not the bad thing all the anti-establishment people claim - it makes consistency and transparency impossible and lobbying/corporate cooperation a must but it's the only way to actually get actual progressive legislation passed. It's a messy, frustrating and slow system that longtime senators and reps have to trudge through...and in some states they are still re-elected by people who understand that. Clinton is a good example and so are other long-serving but oft controversial Senators like say John McCain or the late Ted Kennedy. For all their pitfalls they help steer a lot of substantial Federal laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/25/the-democratic-convention-is-chaotic-the-democratic-base-isnt/

"There are plenty of Bernie Sanders supporters who are frustrated at Hillary Clinton, and some chunk of those voters will back Donald Trump in November. Most Democrats even those who consistently supported Bernie Sanders in the primary plan to back Hillary Clinton. Those Democrats are more likely to be moderate and, Pew's data suggests, more willing to accept compromise."

Well hopefully the Sanders delegates got the message last night, and are aware of the broader level of support for them shutting the fuck up. It was rather embarrassing watching them at the start of the convention yesterday, doing Trump's work for him, thankfully it wasn't as vocal after the first bunch of speakers, but it was still evident.

working people have many legitimate reasons to protest the democrats. as with any protest the views will often be expressed in idiotic slogans (which is true of the candidates as well) but considering the data on voters in the poll i linked i think your insistence that protesters are all "morons" who should "shut the fuck up" and toe the party line is pretty repulsive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/25/the-democratic-convention-is-chaotic-the-democratic-base-isnt/

"There are plenty of Bernie Sanders supporters who are frustrated at Hillary Clinton, and some chunk of those voters will back Donald Trump in November. Most Democrats even those who consistently supported Bernie Sanders in the primary plan to back Hillary Clinton. Those Democrats are more likely to be moderate and, Pew's data suggests, more willing to accept compromise."

Well hopefully the Sanders delegates got the message last night, and are aware of the broader level of support for them shutting the fuck up. It was rather embarrassing watching them at the start of the convention yesterday, doing Trump's work for him, thankfully it wasn't as vocal after the first bunch of speakers, but it was still evident.

working people have many legitimate reasons to protest the democrats. as with any protest the views will often be expressed in idiotic slogans (which is true of the candidates as well) but considering the data on voters in the poll i linked i think your insistence that protesters are all "morons" who should "shut the fuck up" and toe the party line is pretty repulsive.

 

the people I was referring to are not the protestors outside (though they are dumb fucks too, the ones chanting Trump slogans), but the the democratic delegates inside, party insiders not random public protesters. and yes they should shut the fuck up, and yes they are morons because they are increasing the chances of Trump getting elected. whether they have legitimate gripes is neither here nor there, there are other ways to keep those messages current without booing their party's nominee and chanting for the guy who lost.

 

that poll may not be as reassuring as you might think though either, as the question only asked them what they would do in a two horse race 'if they had to vote for one or the other', doesn't account for voting for a 3rd party or not voting at all. presumably it will still be a high % who will vote for her, but maybe not as high as 90% of former Sanders supporters like that poll suggests. we'll see how things work themselves out in the coming days and weeks, hopefully the message from the likes of Sanders and Warren will sink in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you remember when Bernie said, during one of the debates against Hillary, that "it might not be good politics, but I think she's right. Americans are sick and tired of hearing about Hillary's damn e-mails!" I remember Trump, the day after, saying: "Bernie just handed Hillary the primaries" and he was so right. It's now coming back to haunt him and his supporters. We were sick and tired of Hillary's lies and we wanted to know more about what her e-mails contained. There is a big difference!

 

And who cares if Russia hacked the DNC or not? This smells like bullshit to me, another way to turn our attention away from the serious concerns at play here. It's what the e-mails reveal that's interesting, not who had the courage to find a way into their system. Also, have you noticed how almost no one in the mainstream media is talking about Julian Assange?! They barely mention Wikileaks! All they want to talk about is Russia, Putin, Trump, dictatorship, Russia, Putin, Trump, dictatorship, over and over and over and over again, on every major news channel. Why should I believe the Clinton machine if they tell me the hackers were coming from Russia, when everything else they've been saying for a year to justify Hillary's private servers were lies and make-believe?

 

And why is no one preparing themselves for the next huge leak, which, according to Julian Assange, should allow the FBI to indict Hillary Clinton?

Edited by MassfreeKid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares if a foreign power hacked one of the major political parties in the US?!?!??! Do you not perhaps think it might be a good idea to care about that, and what the emails contained (which so far don't make the DNC look great, but don't really say much against the Clinton campaign directly, and even the DNC stuff is only slightly bad, not illegal, and not evidence that the primaries were rigged).

 

The Trump and Putin angle is certainly an important one, it's not clear at this point where the truth lies, but it's certainly worth worrying about.

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/donald-trump-working-for-russia.html

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/289241-george-will-raises-possible-trump-link-to-russian-oligarchs

 

Trump has had known associations with mobsters in his property dealings, wouldn't surprise me if he's in bed with corrupt russian fuckers too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares if a foreign power hacked one of the major political parties in the US?!?!??! Do you not perhaps think it might be a good idea to care about that, and what the emails contained (which so far don't make the DNC look great, but don't really say much against the Clinton campaign directly, and even the DNC stuff is only slightly bad, not illegal, and not evidence that the primaries were rigged).

 

The Trump and Putin angle is certainly an important one, it's not clear at this point where the truth lies, but it's certainly worth worrying about.

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/donald-trump-working-for-russia.html

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/289241-george-will-raises-possible-trump-link-to-russian-oligarchs

 

Trump has had known associations with mobsters in his property dealings, wouldn't surprise me if he's in bed with corrupt russian fuckers too.

yeah unfortunately atm the evidence is not particularly substantial but the notion of president trump with ties to Russia is...well, utterly insane and considerably frightening.

 

I can see how people might think the attention to trump/russia ties is just trying to deflect attention from the misdeeds of the dnc (which it is in some cases) but it's absolutely worth investigating and making sure the connections are made abundantly clear to the public.

 

as for the dem delegates -- sorry my confusion, it seemed you meant protest general -- I don't think they're going to get trump elected. both parties have considerable reasons to be disgruntled about their candidates and are bitching about it. par for course innit.

 

also this made me lol: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/26/the-creator-of-the-viral-pro-trump-act-usa-freedom-kids-now-plans-to-sue-the-campaign/?tid=sm_tw

Edited by Alcofribas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh believe me, I looked after I posted

And it's exactly what I expected: Motivated Reasoning up the wazoo

(With the U.S. Gov't it's guilty until proven innocent, and with Putin it's innocent until proven guilty)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh believe me, I looked after I posted

And it's exactly what I expected: Motivated Reasoning up the wazoo

(With the U.S. Gov't it's guilty until proven innocent, and with Putin it's innocent until proven guilty)

the very first sentence paraphrases greenwald's statement that it would be no surprise if russia was involved. he indicates that nevertheless people should remain skeptical of accusations coming out of the clinton campaign and the dnc after the embarrassing email leaks, which appears to be an utterly prudent observation imo.

 

the rest of the piece examines the merits of the theory as it's been laid out so far and Edward fucking Snowden is quoted suggesting the nsa can and should utilize xkeyscore to find out if russia was involved and to make their discoveries public. that's right, Edward snowden believes the nsa should employ surveillance technology to investigate Russia.

 

the pro-putin bias you're after is just not there mate.

Edited by Alcofribas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26-sam-bee-tweet.w529.h352.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you notice the "yeah but America does it too" hedge in that same paragraph?

 

He did the same thing when responding to criticism of his association with RT ("yeah but American media is all owned by corporations"), and when (grudgingly) addressing Russia's civil rights and human rights issues

 

Find me a single quote where he concedes a criticism of Russia WITHOUT "yeah but America" directly afterwards...as you know, in psychology that's called "rationalization": when one tries to minimize a bad act by comparison. And hey it's also free chance to trash on America!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you notice the "yeah but America does it too" hedge in that same paragraph?

 

He did the same thing when responding to criticism of his association with RT ("yeah but American media is all owned by corporations"), and when (grudgingly) addressing Russia's civil rights and human rights issues

 

Find me a single quote where he concedes a criticism of Russia WITHOUT "yeah but America" directly afterwards...as you know, in psychology that's called "rationalization": when one tries to minimize a bad act by comparison. And hey it's also free chance to trash on America!

as i see it the problem with your argument lies in the notion that greenwald is attempting to "minimize" the bad acts of russia in this instance. as an american journalist i think he sees it as something of a duty to counteract the hypocrisy of his peers. if you want to encounter arguments about how bad putin and russia are you have basically the entire mainstream american media offering that angle. so while he acknowledges that putin very well may have had his hand in this he considers it irresponsible to stop there and not work to broaden the picture to show that this kind of behavior is precisely something that other western powers do all the time, including the us. not a lot of average people are aware of that and thus their perspective on international affairs is skewed against russia in accordance with ruling class ideology. it appears to me he considers it part of his journalistic agenda to correct what he thinks is a deliberately one-dimensional and hypocritical world-view painted about russia in which the role of the us is deliberately white-washed. what is more, he is some one who personally learned his lesson about the misinformation about Iraq that was propagated by the us media in concert with the bush administration and is thus particularly concerned that we are not lead into further conflicts by such roads.

 

you can certainly disagree with his assessment (I def do sometimes) and his tactics but he simply isn't pro-putin nor is he somehow trying rationalize or apologize for the russian regime. it seems that he is just trying to counterbalance what he sees to be a standard, lopsided view of russia that tends to come out of war-mongering channels in washington.

 

honestly, you can probably just email him and ask him what he thinks about Russia. i'm pretty sure we both know the answer.

Edited by Alcofribas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Limpy, try reading the article without your pre-conceived bias.

 

To paraphrase: Governments do this, and yes that includes the American government. Here is some evidence that the US government does this, and based on this evidence, it is safe to assume that other governments do this. Also, it's not a hedge, it's a statement of fact.

 

Now, you could argue the fact that this (influencing other states) has been a matter of statecraft since before the idea of nation states is beyond question, so I'm not sure why this is supposed to be a big revelation. However given what we know about the lead-up to the Iraq war and the "evidence" presented in support of that minor debacle (please read the words "minor debacle" with dripping sarcasm), suspicion is not unwarranted. The author does a good job of laying out what we know so far, and even indicates that all things point to Russian involvement.

 

There's no pro-putin bias in the article at all. There is some pro-Sanders/anti-Clinton stuff toward the end though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I should just consult with chen before I post, he'll do a better job lol

Edited by Alcofribas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, you doest musulman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...