Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Quack, Feb 17, 2018.
Denial <=> "Too obvious to be true"
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It is bewildering and somewhat mystifying that for all intents and purposes Trump's campaign and subsequent Presidency has been a continuous attempt to fail.
From his wife's plagiarism of Michelle Obama's speech to grabbing pussy to taking a dump on the statue of liberty. He and his team have tried everything they could to fail yet every time they pull one out of the box his support just grew. He stated and even bragged that he could do no wrong, and well... he proved that to be the case.
It's as if he tried so hard to sabotage his own chances because he knew that if he became President the damage he could do, due to foreign vested interests ( and possibly extortion) would be horrific yet no matter what he did, no matter how obvious his incompetence was demonstrated his election was somehow guaranteed.
I figure based on what has happened so far and what is in the pipeline that the destruction of the "American way of life" should be almost complete by the end of this year, 2018.
Climate change will see to most of it due to the coming northern hem. summer needing to be as hot as the winter was/is cold to maintain the statistical steady climb in global mean temperatures.
2017 $360 billion in climate related costs.
2018 $600 billion perhaps or more.
The chance for the USA/world, to prepare for massive upheaval is almost lost.
Denial <=> "Too obvious to be true"
Iceaura is obviously in denial mode, repeats a mantra, and does not even try to explain what is the difference between the US law and Stalin's 58-4. A nice illustration that the US left can fall back into the full Stalinist mode and there would not even be a necessity for them to change any rhetorics.
That means, there is no free speech. Of course, every paper, every TV channel pays the journalists. So, according to this logic, papers and TV could be completely forbidden and all journalists incarcerated.
One should also be careful about the meaning of "damaging the US election process". There is no such damage to the process if all that is done is participation in the public discussion, which is part of this process.
I would imagine that if the USA media was found to be funded by a foreign state and had the agenda to harm the USA democratic processes by deliberately spreading misinformation, false allegation, slander, defamation and all the other nasties not only would they go out of business due to consumer backlash and face civil litigation but also run the risk of facing charges of "Conspiring to harm the USA". USA politicians accepting foreign donations and gifts are also running risks. ( See Netanyahu of Isreal - corruption charges)
and here you have quite clearly spelt out the distinction for your self....
A troll farm is not interested in public discussion...
by definition that is, in part, what a troll is... pretending to be interested in genuine discussion when in fact there is nothing they are prepared to discuss.
btw the historic link between Netanyahu and Trump may yet prove enlightening.
and as an aside:
Arctic records a mind blowing 36 deg c higher than typical temps for this time of the year. That has gotta be bad news surely?
This is, indeed, quite natural and quite common. No state will be happy if some other state owns or controls all the mass media and uses them "to harm the democratic processes in this state by deliberately spreading misinformation, false allegation, slander, defamation and all the other nasties". Russia was very unhappy with this, and reduced the US media control in Russia essentially, leaving only a few media under foreign control. But look how the US media present this - as a complete lack of freedom of speech in Russia.
Yes, but similar things can be said about other media too. The troll farm has created actors who became popular in their communities for distributing a certain political content. Then, these actors have been used to sell advertising posts by these media for 25 to 50 \$ per post. What is, here, the difference to a paper which also generates a lot of income from advertising?
The key difference is that the advertising and media published is not anonymous. The media has it's name attached to what it publishes and can be sued accordingly.
You know this. Why are you playing stupid?
Media is responsible for what it publishes.
With each passing week, the evidence of Russia "meddling" in the 2016 POTUS election mounts. Further, it seems more and more apparent that the #1 goal of this meddling was to ensure Hillary did not become POTUS. Putin is a man who really holds a grudge.
All that said, isn't the US being at least a little hypocritical? WE meddle in other countries' elections all the time, don't we? Our own sitting POTUS (Obama at the time) all but threatened the economy of the UK (that whole "back of the queue" thing) should they vote in favor of Brexit, which, in the end, they of course did.
We don't have to like anything about Russia sticking their fingers in our pie, but if we're going to complain about it, shouldn't we also keep OUR hands to ourselves?
Clarify what you think is illegal. Your argument was that it is illegal because paid. This argument I have countered. Now your argument is that it is illegal because of anonymity. Ok, fine, this is a different argument. This moves American freedom to Chinese freedom. China is seriously fighting anonymity in the net, and want to reach a state where for everything what is written in the net there can be established an author, and, if possible, punished if the content is somehow punishable.
Your disregard for rule of law—
—is a forfeiture of your argument, but does coincide very neatly with Putin's need to suppress discussion of homosexuality in order to boost the birth rate. Or, you know, the coincidence of dead journalists. One of the problems with your argument about Russian participation in public discussion is the dishonesty of the Russian pitch. Another is that your characterization participation in the public discussion, much like Putin, disregards rule of law.
Look, nobody buys your toady routine. Quite clearly there is a complete lack of freedom of speech in Russia. Tying it to some cheap tale of heroic and beleaguered Russia is a completely useless distraction. The bottom line is that if Russia wishes to participate in a public discussion, then it is expected that the government or its nationals will do so according to law. And it really is, quite frankly, rather difficult to comprehend what your problem with that could possibly be.
Here, I'll give you a simple example as comparison: During the last election cycle, we had an episode that really was kind of hilarious because it reiterated any number of things about Americans and how we conduct our marketplaces, including to watch who all needs nods and winks along the way compared to who finally breaks and starts complaining about all the nods and winks they and everybody else in their sector gets. It's a self-destructive thing, and in this case someone wanted to sting the Hillary Clinton campaign, because saying a woman is untrustworthy is easy sport in these United States. Activists set up and filmed a straw purchase of Clinton campaign t-shirts for Canadians, which is, indeed, a violation by the front-line volunteer or paid clerk; it is also a violation by the Canadians who willingly took part, and the Americans who set up the sting and made a record of doing so. Naturally, the case went nowhere in terms of campaign law enforcement, but conservatives and Republicans made lots of noise, and by comparison, foreign actors actually setting up advertising and marketing routines to participate in the election is, indeed, illegal.
Goods and services count as things of value according to our laws. Thus, "the difference to a paper which also generates a lot of income from advertising" is foreign actors and entities providing money or things of value to affect the election. In and of itself, this is a fairly minor crime, and we all get to take it out on eighty thousand or so voters in three states who owe us an explanation about why they think their grievances entitle them to knowingly make circumstances worse for themselves and everyone else, while reminding the other sixty-two million nine hundred thousand and then some they, too, owe their nation in particular and the human endeavor generally an apology. However, add in foreign government actors and entities, and the violation becomes much worse, including as an act of war: No wonder Puti-Toots wants to get into a fabulous cockfight about nukes; maybe Trump will say his are bigger. There is already evidence of American collusion on Trump's behalf, as well as any number of minor footnotes who, as unwitting assets, were just that stupid; the question of whether or not conspiracy, which reaches into the Trump family, actually includes the President? Well, one would expect, Schmelzer, even you are capable of figuring out why people might find that problematic.
Nor is there anything mysterious about those prospects; at some point your pretense of argument is made forfeit by the fact of having need to toss a coin 'twixt accidental or intentional presentation of disqualifying ignorance.
Your characterizations of, "participation in the public discussion, which is part of this process", and, "the difference to a paper which also generates a lot of income from advertising", presuppose without any regard for the law. By the time we get through the difference between a couple of t-shirts and what violations of law are important compared to millions of dollars spent and laws broken by a foreign government, we can then consider the difference between front line and board room: If it's an undertrained clerk in a field office, it must be the liberal conspiracy on the board; if it's a sales clerk at a field event, it must be the Democratic candidate; if it's the guy sitting at the board table with the Republican candidate during a campaign meeting, he's only a coffee boy and has nothing to do with anything. Those are the standards of comparison on the table. Historically speaking, conservatism in general always needs skewed standards; any attempt to justify nonchalance toward the prospect of foreign government participation in an election highlights the absurdity of such disparities.
Toward that last, keep in mind what happens when the justification confesses, such as your argument that, "There is no such damage to the process if all that is done is participation in the public discussion, which is part of this process." To the one, there is damage if decisions are made for false pretense according to actual swindling. To the other, sure, it's a much more abstract question in politics. To the beeblebrox, we find clarification in the justification that confesses: "if all that is done is participation in the public discussion, which is part of this process".
If all that is done by whom? The Russian government. Part of what process? An American election. Thus: Illegal "participation in the public discussion". Regardless of the abstract discussion of what damage the election process suffers when voters vote as they do for reasons ultimately untrue according to real circumstance, the fact of illegal participation is itself damage.
In the end, the question would seem to be whether we should believe you're attempting some manner of sleight, or simply not capable of failing to fail. Honestly, pretenses of self-confidence are what they are, but it would help yours if every once in a while your puti-poodle critique of the United States and its society could actually fail to be facially absurd.
I don't think so.
If Russia came out and said "Vote for Trump! If you vote for him we'll give you all sorts of concessions" then that would be fine. (As you mention, all countries do that to some extent.)
But they didn't do that. They offered money to members of the campaign secretly. They offered information on Clinton - again, secretly. And in return Trump has been very reluctant to enforce any sanctions against them, all the while denying any of the above happened. That's the definition of collusion.
I'm not suggesting that what Russia did was ok, only that we stick our noses in other sovereign nations elections as well, thus it seems hypocritical of us to complain.
Our campaign finance laws say nothing "of value" can be used or offered to influence our elections, but aren't trade deals "of value"? It sounds like we violate the principles of our own laws in dealing with other nations. Isn't that the definition of hypocrisy?
Why not? How do we justify "meddling" in other sovereign nations' elections while complaining that they "meddle" in ours.
There is no disregard of rule of law. I criticize here some particular US laws, given that it seems they are quite close to Stalin time laws forbidding free speech, but that does not mean that I disregard rule of law.
You know, rule of law is fine - whatever the law, people should be persecuted only according to the law. But does this mean that I have no right to criticize particular laws?
Of course, you Americans are free to use whatever laws you want. If you want the death penalty for owning a nasty picture, so be it. But do not interfere with the freedom of speech of people in other countries. Ok, if we are so stupid to enter America, do whatever you like according to your laws. But what Russians, Germans, Chinese, everybody else likes to say about murderers like Clinton in their own countries is not your business.
The discussion of homosexuality is nothing Putin needs to suppress. Putin has simply a chance here to follow a quite strong public opinion, which wants to suppress homosexuality in much more rigid ways, and, at the same time, creating a problem for some particular direction of Western influence. The Russian gays have now a fair choice - they can live their legal life, without a problem, but should refrain from supporting Western "gay rights" propaganda campaigns.
Which coincidence? The numbers of dead journalists were much higher in Yeltsin time. The main reason was that they wrote about the Mafia. The power of the Mafia was declining, and, correspondingly, the number of journalists murdered by the Mafia was declining too.
You claim so. Without having any experience with the Russian internet and the Russian media. I see the Russian media, and the Russian internet and such claims are simply fun for me.
There is no problem with this. I have none.
The firm which was accused was simply making money by selling their services to Americans. You understand the money-making scheme, not? You create a lot of trolls, one for LBGT, another gay-hating, they write what is expected and popular in these groups, and once the troll has reached some popularity in those communities, they start to sell advertisements. To Americans. The chief couldn't care less about gay or straight, black or white, for each community he has some offer. But, ok, he has also some personal preferences, he hated Clinton, and so he made some exceptions. The participation of the Russian state is, at least up to now, only propaganda fantasy.
According to what I have seen in the indictment, the Russian government is there only in your fantasy.
And, don't forget: The world is looking at how you behave. And at least those who are not afraid of the US starting a war against them, but have experienced all the time how the US meddles in their elections, will be happy to learn from America how to get rid of this.
I'm sure terrorists would rather we didn't bomb them either.
I'm sure they would, but it's hypocritical of them to complain of us doing so when they send suicide bombers at us.
The US has a long history of interfering in other nations' elections. Seems like the main job of the CIA sometimes. We don't have to like what Russia did, and we do have to take steps to prevent it in the future, but let's not all walk around like we're innocent lambs in the woods. Russia broke out modernized versions of plays from our own playbook - payoffs, (mis)information campaigns...we've done them too.
It's really not the same when we do it.
To us, of course it isn't. To the outside observer...?
Separate names with a comma.