|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 08 2017 02:31 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 18:13 Danglars wrote:On January 07 2017 16:25 Nyxisto wrote:
Sounds like a conservative estimate. The Athenians have been memed into useless wars 2500 years ago and those guys didn't even have the internet. The value of modern democracies is in the rule of law, categorical rights, effective administration and so forth. Any form of actual participation usually goes wrong awfully fast.
And I don't mean that people don't vote the way I want. Most people don't even know what they want. People will often shift their positions around rather than change their political affiliation. See the great Russian pivot of American Conservatives This is the election where a non-conservative won and a non-conservative ideology is in the White House. Which despite people like xDaunt repeating it endlessly, nobody grasps. American conservatives are frequently Russia hawks, not least of which was because the Reagan conservative revival happened during the clash of ideologies in the Cold War. If you have a basic understanding of who's who in factions, you would know this is nationalists & populists that might stand accused of pivoting to Russia. Some prominent RINOS have shown more charity towards Russia lately. Conservatives are out of power and it's about time you acknowledged it's Republicans or Trump Republicans as a broad group and not some ideological minority that really would take quite some long arguing to build the case that they've changed a darn thing in loyalties. Of course Trump isn't a conservative, but he still won the election as a Republican and that was the point. In direct elections mass opinion can swing widely and there exist very few real ideological beliefs in the voting base. If some guy comes along and says that Russia is great most people will believe that Russia is great as long as he is leading the team you're a fan of, that's apparently all it takes.
Of course NOTHING if you say "See the great Russian pivot of American Conservatives." If you mean Republicans, say Republicans. If you say "of course Trump isn't a conservative" don't use the word conservative when talking about the views of his diverse supporters, or the only "of course" is "of course Nyxisto needs reminding about factionalism because he plays fast and loose terming ideological groups in conflict." Now, more than ever, they are not synonymous any more than putting Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters on the same side of judging the impact of Podesta & DNC leaks. Just ask GH.
|
On January 08 2017 02:37 LegalLord wrote:Something to cheer up those who are looking for a hard line on Russia: Show nested quote +WASHINGTON (AP) -- President-elect Donald Trump on Saturday said he wanted retired Sen. Dan Coats to be national intelligence director, describing the former member of the Senate Intelligence Committee as the right person to lead the new administration's "ceaseless vigilance against those who seek to do us harm."
Trump's announcement came one day after release of a declassified government report on Russian efforts to influence the presidential election. The report predicts Russia isn't done intruding in U.S. politics and policymaking.
Trump wants to improve relations with Russia and repeatedly has denounced intelligence agencies' assessment that the Kremlin interfered in the election, when he defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton. But the report released Friday explicitly ties Russian President Vladimir Putin to the meddling and says Russia had a "clear preference" for Trump over Clinton.
Coats, an Indiana Republican, will await Senate confirmation to head the office, which was created after the Sept. 11 attacks to improve coordination among U.S. spy and law enforcement agencies. Coats now finds himself in line to be at the center of an intelligence apparatus that the president-elect has publicly challenged.
Trump said in an early morning statement that Coats "has clearly demonstrated the deep subject matter expertise and sound judgment required to lead our intelligence community." He said Coats "will provide unwavering leadership that the entire intelligence community can respect, and will spearhead my administration's ceaseless vigilance against those who seek to do us harm."
Coats, in a statement released by Trump's transition team, said: "There is no higher priority than keeping America safe, and I will utilize every tool at my disposal to make that happen." Source
This has gotta be a bone thrown to Trump supporters who think he's been too chummy with Putin, another authoritarian but of a different stripe.
|
On January 08 2017 02:21 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 02:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 08 2017 01:57 Nevuk wrote:On January 08 2017 01:49 Saryph wrote:
So Legal, applying that logic to other victims, I have to ask: if a woman gets raped wearing a short skirt, is it her fault for the incompetence of going out in a short skirt? Since you're all for blaming the victim of a crime as you have posted above. This analogy breaks down really fast. The DNC was damaged by these leaks because they were engaging in clearly unethical behavior. Wearing a short skirt is not unethical. I'd actually say wearing short skirts is generally a good thing. The DNC was targeted regardless of their actions, and the hacks only did damage because of their behavior. How dare the DNC share recipes, order pizza, and talk about their personal feelings. Much corruption those emails showed. That's a strawman and you know it. People cared about the GS speech transcripts, the "Bernie Sanders is Jewish" discussion, the "let's push this narrative about Bernie" talk, the general willingness to speak freely about how they don't like Bernie, the "let's give the Bernie people something they can claim they won that won't hurt us" talk, and the conspiracy stuff and general second-hand stuff being of decidedly secondary interest. Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 02:04 Saryph wrote:
Legal, you're blaming the victim of a phishing attack, and rape victims are commonly blamed for being raped. I don't know how you fail to understand how two instances of victim blaming being compared to each other makes sense. If you do not agree that it is an absurd analogy then there is really little more to talk about. I do not think I will convince you or mustaju otherwise.
The GS speech where she pushed for a middle ground?
The "Bernie is Jewish" comment that never was practiced because it turns out the team thought it was a bad idea?
You mean the time when the Hillary team started grooming Warren to give Bernie folks someone to root for and instead they attack her?
You mean the time DWS shut down an email thread for trying to down talk Bernie?
Which email are you pointing to? Which conspiracy?
|
On January 08 2017 02:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 02:31 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2017 18:13 Danglars wrote:On January 07 2017 16:25 Nyxisto wrote:
Sounds like a conservative estimate. The Athenians have been memed into useless wars 2500 years ago and those guys didn't even have the internet. The value of modern democracies is in the rule of law, categorical rights, effective administration and so forth. Any form of actual participation usually goes wrong awfully fast.
And I don't mean that people don't vote the way I want. Most people don't even know what they want. People will often shift their positions around rather than change their political affiliation. See the great Russian pivot of American Conservatives This is the election where a non-conservative won and a non-conservative ideology is in the White House. Which despite people like xDaunt repeating it endlessly, nobody grasps. American conservatives are frequently Russia hawks, not least of which was because the Reagan conservative revival happened during the clash of ideologies in the Cold War. If you have a basic understanding of who's who in factions, you would know this is nationalists & populists that might stand accused of pivoting to Russia. Some prominent RINOS have shown more charity towards Russia lately. Conservatives are out of power and it's about time you acknowledged it's Republicans or Trump Republicans as a broad group and not some ideological minority that really would take quite some long arguing to build the case that they've changed a darn thing in loyalties. Of course Trump isn't a conservative, but he still won the election as a Republican and that was the point. In direct elections mass opinion can swing widely and there exist very few real ideological beliefs in the voting base. If some guy comes along and says that Russia is great most people will believe that Russia is great as long as he is leading the team you're a fan of, that's apparently all it takes. Of course NOTHING if you say "See the great Russian pivot of American Conservatives." If you mean Republicans, say Republicans. If you say "of course Trump isn't a conservative" don't use the word conservative when talking about the views of his diverse supporters, or the only "of course" is "of course Nyxisto needs reminding about factionalism because he plays fast and loose terming ideological groups in conflict." Now, more than ever, they are not synonymous any more than putting Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters on the same side of judging the impact of Podesta & DNC leaks. Just ask GH.
Sorry if I rustled your jimmies, I was talking about the party, I thought that was clear. Trump is probably going to be the most authoritarian president around in decades, pretty hard to reconcile this with American Conservatism
|
Hey, remember when Republicans were all about small government, balanced budgets, and rule of law?
|
On January 08 2017 02:06 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 01:57 Nevuk wrote:On January 08 2017 01:49 Saryph wrote:
So Legal, applying that logic to other victims, I have to ask: if a woman gets raped wearing a short skirt, is it her fault for the incompetence of going out in a short skirt? Since you're all for blaming the victim of a crime as you have posted above. This analogy breaks down really fast. The DNC was damaged by these leaks because they were engaging in clearly unethical behavior. Wearing a short skirt is not unethical. I'd actually say wearing short skirts is generally a good thing. The DNC was targeted regardless of their actions, and the hacks only did damage because of their behavior. while the analogy is imperfect, it is sufficient to the purpose. you're also incorrect, in that hacks can cause damage even if there is no improper behavior. consider legal's statement: "People who get hacked due to their own incompetence are not victims in my eyes. They're just morons." replaced hacked with any other crime, and ask yourself, should they be considered victims of a crime? and note that, regardless of your opinion, legally they are the victims of a crime.
If it is true that the DNC got phished, they absolutely deserve no sympathy.
The way a phishing attack works relies on willing ignorance on the part of the receiver and then entering into a form information that can be used against them.
Steps to phishing:
- Shady email shows up. Wording is probably non native english, asking for you to urgently click this link. Sender is unknown or spoofing a known contact. Learn to read sender addresses and the content of an email.
- User ignores red flags everywhere and clicks the link. Mistake #1. Now the web page they accessed gathers instant information on them. IP address, location, name if they are on chrome logged into gmail, browser, OS, etc.
- User ignores that the URL of the page is something they have never come across, and enters information into a form that asks for something like an email and password. Mistake #2 THEY ENTER THAT INFORMATION AND SEND IT.
At a certain point you need to be able to victim blame. This is like travelling by land to Congo covered in jewelry and then trying to make friends with some warring faction. Youre going to get robbed.
Its a false equivalency in my eyes to the girl who gets drugged at a bar and subsequently raped. If she was in the USA as an example, she has a reasonable expectation of safety. I would victim blame her if she went to a bar called 'Date Rape' and every patron in there was wearing a trench coat and sunglasses.
The precedent on getting phished hasnt been set. I know people have been canned from their jobs for getting phished, and other institutions which seek to reeducate the employee.
|
On January 08 2017 03:37 Thaniri wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 02:06 zlefin wrote:On January 08 2017 01:57 Nevuk wrote:On January 08 2017 01:49 Saryph wrote:
So Legal, applying that logic to other victims, I have to ask: if a woman gets raped wearing a short skirt, is it her fault for the incompetence of going out in a short skirt? Since you're all for blaming the victim of a crime as you have posted above. This analogy breaks down really fast. The DNC was damaged by these leaks because they were engaging in clearly unethical behavior. Wearing a short skirt is not unethical. I'd actually say wearing short skirts is generally a good thing. The DNC was targeted regardless of their actions, and the hacks only did damage because of their behavior. while the analogy is imperfect, it is sufficient to the purpose. you're also incorrect, in that hacks can cause damage even if there is no improper behavior. consider legal's statement: "People who get hacked due to their own incompetence are not victims in my eyes. They're just morons." replaced hacked with any other crime, and ask yourself, should they be considered victims of a crime? and note that, regardless of your opinion, legally they are the victims of a crime. If it is true that the DNC got phished, they absolutely deserve no sympathy. The way a phishing attack works relies on willing ignorance on the part of the receiver and then entering into a form information that can be used against them. Steps to phishing: - Shady email shows up. Wording is probably non native english, asking for you to urgently click this link. Sender is unknown or spoofing a known contact. Learn to read sender addresses and the content of an email. - User ignores red flags everywhere and clicks the link. Mistake #1. Now the web page they accessed gathers instant information on them. IP address, location, name if they are on chrome logged into gmail, browser, OS, etc. - User ignores that the URL of the page is something they have never come across, and enters information into a form that asks for something like an email and password. Mistake #2 THEY ENTER THAT INFORMATION AND SEND IT. At a certain point you need to be able to victim blame. This is like travelling by land to Congo covered in jewelry and then trying to make friends with some warring faction. Youre going to get robbed. Its a false equivalency in my eyes to the girl who gets drugged at a bar and subsequently raped. If she was in the USA as an example, she has a reasonable expectation of safety. I would victim blame her if she went to a bar called 'Date Rape' and every patron in there was wearing a trench coat and sunglasses. The precedent on getting phished hasnt been set. I know people have been canned from their jobs for getting phished, and other institutions which seek to reeducate the employee.
edit: I'm not a legal expert, but battling out a phishing case would be difficult. The user willingly gave sensitive information out, like a username and password, which the 'hacker' then used to just log in to something.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 08 2017 01:12 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 11:31 Incognoto wrote:What a strange document. There's a lot of stuff in there which has nothing to do with hacking Clinton's email server. RT? Fracking? That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's just an anti-Russia document. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Putin fan since there's bad shit regarding him but I don't get the anti-Russian sentiment. The RT and fracking info is meant to establish that RT is a propaganda outlet, and everything they did in the election, including sympathetic Trump coverage and negative Clinton coverage, serves Russian interests. So the disparity of coverage on the candidates is the most relevant part to the election, but fracking helps establish that RT is a state run propaganda outlet.
I want to use this as a starting point to talk about some other systemic issue that I see in the way that the intelligence wing has conducted itself in this report. Obviously, I don't know what sources are in the highly classified document, but I do see a troubling sign from one specific statement:
Many of the key judgments in this assessment rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior. Insights into Russian efforts — including specific
cyber operations — and Russian views of key US players derive from multiple corroborating sources.
Some of our judgments about Kremlin preferences and intent are drawn from the behavior of Kremlin-loyal political figures, state media, and pro-Kremlin social media actors, all of whom the Kremlin either directly uses to convey messages or who are answerable to the Kremlin. The Russian leadership invests significant resources in both foreign and domestic propaganda and places a premium on transmitting what it views as consistent, self-reinforcing narratives regarding its desires and redlines, whether on Ukraine, Syria, or relations with the United States.
Which, when combined with the focus within the actual report, suggests that the analysis focused on primarily English-language news and a few key individuals who the intelligence wing has deemed to be "voices of the Kremlin." The individuals that are mentioned seem to be the heads/spokespeople of certain media organizations such as RT (perhaps a reasonable assumption, but kind of too trite in my eyes) and political figures such as Zhirinovsky (a leader of a ~10% nationalist minority party who is known for his highly Trumpian aggressive rhetoric). That this was their focus is something that I hope you could all agree is pretty heavily implied (and often directly stated) by the contents of the report. Now, this comes with a few problems.
First of all, it comes with the implicit assumption that RT represents "Russian media" as an entity. I see no other media sources cited (of which there are plenty), so I assume this to be the working assumption of the intelligence trio here. I don't think that's a fair assertion because RT is not actually particularly representative of any form of "consensus" within news, any more than Fox News or WaPo or CNN or NBC would represent the "American view" of any position. Saying "but Russia is a totalitarian government so that makes it so" doesn't make it so - there really are plenty of viewpoints on any given issue, as would be expected in any real country consisting of real people. RT does exist in Russian (and so does its parent, RIA, a bigger, if different, news agency) but it is criticized in the same way it is here in the states (as something of a conspiratorial view on things). There is a tendency for certain news agencies to peddle the government line but it's really not as simple as "RT says what the government thinks."
Second, I really question the assertion that Zhirinovsky peddles "the government line" on anything. Like any other politician, he agrees with the government when it suits him and disagrees when it doesn't. As a nationalist he has a tendency to be a warhawk. But taking him as the official position would be like taking John McCain to be Obama's official representative of American foreign policy; their positions may sometimes align, but they represent different parties and they differ on scope and end goals. Zhirinovsky has criticized Putin plenty on a wide range of issues before, so the idea that he is the government "probe" for international action seems like a hasty generalization.
Third, if RT and its leadership really is directly peddling the government line, what would make the intelligence folk think that they always say exactly what the Kremlin thinks, rather than simply what they want foreigners to think? Military deception is a very important part of Russian strategy, so it would stand to reason that RT would feed the foreigners, including the intelligence wing, an appropriate level of bullshit to make them think that Russians will do something they won't. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but it adds to my reasons for thinking "RT says what the government thinks" is absurd.
All these points lead me to a simple conclusion: the FBI, CIA, and NSA did not perform a particularly comprehensive analysis of motives, even in something that could be considered to be a highly important issue (Russian influence on American elections in a direct and "unprecedented" scope). My supposition is that the reason they didn't is because they don't have the resources to do so. Specifically, I suspect they are short on Russian-speaking specialists for a comprehensive study of Russian-language media to more effectively analyze the issues associated with the "influence campaign."
That shouldn't really be a particularly controversial conclusion. Wiki says there are maybe ~850k Russian-speakers in the US. From those 850k, take away all those who either won't be useful or who wouldn't be able to pass a security clearance exam (AFAIK all three of CIA, FBI, and NSA require DoD Top Secret clearance). People who are born in foreign countries, if they even are allowed to get such a clearance (which isn't rare, FWIW), will have an increasingly hard time being cleared and that will not encourage them to work there. Natural-born folks whose parents are not particularly inclined towards Russia (the vast majority of "Russians" in the US, who are generally not from Russia but from Jewish communities in the ex-USSR republics) will not be likely to give them a very strong understanding of the Russian language (it is very common for children, and especially grandchildren, of immigrants to lose their Russian speaking abilities). And Russian is a very difficult language to learn compared to English, so it is difficult to train anyone to speak it at a level of fluency necessary to be useful for intelligence work.
The number of possibly cleared individuals is relatively small. But then you find another issue: those most qualified tend to be those with the most conflicts of interest. Whether pro-Russian or anti-Russian, those who are most qualified are generally those who learned to speak Russian in school in their home country and learned various not-easily-taught cultural context. I know that the CIA tries to keep those in its ranks who it knows are Jewish from working in Israel-related matters; it would not surprise me if they did the same with Russia. Problem is that such a conflict-of-interest scenario further reduces the potential number of people for a given task.
So all this leads to a shortage of Russian-language personnel, which suggests that they probably can only focus on a few key Russian-language sources, rather than a more widespread and comprehensive analysis of media and public opinion, and make an assumption that their sample is representative. This all means that their core analysis of intent rests upon a few key assumptions about who peddles the government line and how, and which figures should be focused on. Focusing on RT and Zhirinovsky as a representation of "the Kremlin position" is kind of a weak assumption, which makes their entire narrative become relatively weak.
I don't know what's in the full classified version and I'm assuming no one else here is cleared at the super duper ultra highest level of government so I doubt anyone else here knows. I would not be surprised if they had proof of Russia hacking the DNC and Podesta that looks solid, because while it isn't a clear-cut indisputable position, it does seem at least to be the most plausible narrative of the leading narratives so far. But the CIA's "Russia hacked to make Trump win" assertion seems tenuous to say the least, and based on questionable analysis.
In other words, these conclusions seem likely but not necessarily certain:
Russia’s intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties.
We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.
Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards. DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.
While these conclusions are more questionable and somewhat tenuous:
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.
Moscow’s approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia’s understanding of the electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her future presidency.
Russia’s state-run propaganda machine contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences.
We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.
And one that's trivial because it's related to the opinion of the agencies in question:
Further information has come to light since Election Day that, when combined with Russian behavior since early November 2016, increases our confidence in our assessments of Russian motivations and goals.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 08 2017 03:37 Thaniri wrote:
The precedent on getting phished hasnt been set. I know people have been canned from their jobs for getting phished, and other institutions which seek to reeducate the employee.
I have friends who work in IT whose job it is to phish people within their own company to find out who needs further education on cyber security to avoid getting hit by actual malicious entities. I think it's a very good and useful practice - and they've even busted the CEO of their company on that matter before.
|
You're saying yourself that there's very few Russian speakers in the US, so why should US analysis focus on the content on Russian newspapers in the first place if the goal is to examine the goals of propaganda in the Anglosphere?
|
Isnt the worst part of this really that the next president condones the attack? Doesnt that make you fear for the future of the american democracy?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 08 2017 05:33 Elroi wrote:
Isnt the worst part of this really that the next president condones the attack? Doesnt that make you fear for the future of the american democracy?
Many would argue that the DNC collusion is an even bigger threat to American democracy and the hackers did a public service. The real "worst part of this" is simply what it says about the divided nature of the political system that what might otherwise be perceived as a foreign attack looks more like a partisan issue.
On January 08 2017 05:18 Nyxisto wrote:
You're saying yourself that there's very few Russian speakers in the US, so why should US analysis focus on the content on Russian newspapers in the first place if the goal is to examine the goals of propaganda in the Anglosphere?
If you want to know "what the media thinks" or "what the Kremlin position is" as was the apparent goal of the intelligence group that concluded that Russia interfered to ensure a Trump victory, perchance you might want to do more than just consult RT for that? When you say "Russia thinks X because RT says that" it is no different than saying "America thinks Y because CNN says that." And it would be equally stupid to say "America thinks Z because Radio Free Europe says that."
It's an oversimplification of the issue stemming from a lack of resources, which influences the conclusion.
|
On January 08 2017 02:51 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 02:47 Danglars wrote:On January 08 2017 02:31 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2017 18:13 Danglars wrote:On January 07 2017 16:25 Nyxisto wrote:
Sounds like a conservative estimate. The Athenians have been memed into useless wars 2500 years ago and those guys didn't even have the internet. The value of modern democracies is in the rule of law, categorical rights, effective administration and so forth. Any form of actual participation usually goes wrong awfully fast.
And I don't mean that people don't vote the way I want. Most people don't even know what they want. People will often shift their positions around rather than change their political affiliation. See the great Russian pivot of American Conservatives This is the election where a non-conservative won and a non-conservative ideology is in the White House. Which despite people like xDaunt repeating it endlessly, nobody grasps. American conservatives are frequently Russia hawks, not least of which was because the Reagan conservative revival happened during the clash of ideologies in the Cold War. If you have a basic understanding of who's who in factions, you would know this is nationalists & populists that might stand accused of pivoting to Russia. Some prominent RINOS have shown more charity towards Russia lately. Conservatives are out of power and it's about time you acknowledged it's Republicans or Trump Republicans as a broad group and not some ideological minority that really would take quite some long arguing to build the case that they've changed a darn thing in loyalties. Of course Trump isn't a conservative, but he still won the election as a Republican and that was the point. In direct elections mass opinion can swing widely and there exist very few real ideological beliefs in the voting base. If some guy comes along and says that Russia is great most people will believe that Russia is great as long as he is leading the team you're a fan of, that's apparently all it takes. Of course NOTHING if you say "See the great Russian pivot of American Conservatives." If you mean Republicans, say Republicans. If you say "of course Trump isn't a conservative" don't use the word conservative when talking about the views of his diverse supporters, or the only "of course" is "of course Nyxisto needs reminding about factionalism because he plays fast and loose terming ideological groups in conflict." Now, more than ever, they are not synonymous any more than putting Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters on the same side of judging the impact of Podesta & DNC leaks. Just ask GH. Sorry if I rustled your jimmies, I was talking about the party, I thought that was clear. Trump is probably going to be the most authoritarian president around in decades, pretty hard to reconcile this with American Conservatism
Oh they're certainly in conflict. I look forward to your use of the "GOP" or "Republican Party" to refer to the party and "conservatism" to refer to one ideological identification within the party in the future, and who knows, maybe edits to reconcile your contrary identifications in your past attempts to be clear. The words aren't synonymous, and the way you make it clear you're talking about the Republican Party is to say the Republican Party and GOP rather than (original post) omitting them entirely and saying they were clearly referred to.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Indeed, Trump did get a lot of flak in the primaries for not being a conservative. But I guess that's not what the voters wanted, so... guess that's what we got.
|
On January 08 2017 06:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 02:51 Nyxisto wrote:On January 08 2017 02:47 Danglars wrote:On January 08 2017 02:31 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2017 18:13 Danglars wrote:On January 07 2017 16:25 Nyxisto wrote:
Sounds like a conservative estimate. The Athenians have been memed into useless wars 2500 years ago and those guys didn't even have the internet. The value of modern democracies is in the rule of law, categorical rights, effective administration and so forth. Any form of actual participation usually goes wrong awfully fast.
And I don't mean that people don't vote the way I want. Most people don't even know what they want. People will often shift their positions around rather than change their political affiliation. See the great Russian pivot of American Conservatives This is the election where a non-conservative won and a non-conservative ideology is in the White House. Which despite people like xDaunt repeating it endlessly, nobody grasps. American conservatives are frequently Russia hawks, not least of which was because the Reagan conservative revival happened during the clash of ideologies in the Cold War. If you have a basic understanding of who's who in factions, you would know this is nationalists & populists that might stand accused of pivoting to Russia. Some prominent RINOS have shown more charity towards Russia lately. Conservatives are out of power and it's about time you acknowledged it's Republicans or Trump Republicans as a broad group and not some ideological minority that really would take quite some long arguing to build the case that they've changed a darn thing in loyalties. Of course Trump isn't a conservative, but he still won the election as a Republican and that was the point. In direct elections mass opinion can swing widely and there exist very few real ideological beliefs in the voting base. If some guy comes along and says that Russia is great most people will believe that Russia is great as long as he is leading the team you're a fan of, that's apparently all it takes. Of course NOTHING if you say "See the great Russian pivot of American Conservatives." If you mean Republicans, say Republicans. If you say "of course Trump isn't a conservative" don't use the word conservative when talking about the views of his diverse supporters, or the only "of course" is "of course Nyxisto needs reminding about factionalism because he plays fast and loose terming ideological groups in conflict." Now, more than ever, they are not synonymous any more than putting Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters on the same side of judging the impact of Podesta & DNC leaks. Just ask GH. Sorry if I rustled your jimmies, I was talking about the party, I thought that was clear. Trump is probably going to be the most authoritarian president around in decades, pretty hard to reconcile this with American Conservatism Oh they're certainly in conflict. I look forward to your use of the "GOP" or "Republican Party" to refer to the party and "conservatism" to refer to one ideological identification within the party in the future, and who knows, maybe edits to reconcile your contrary identifications in your past attempts to be clear. The words aren't synonymous, and the way you make it clear you're talking about the Republican Party is to say the Republican Party and GOP rather than (original post) omitting them entirely and saying they were clearly referred to.
the GOP, Christian Right, Alt-Right, and the Tea Party are very very different groups with very very different needs. Its bad enough calling them all "republicans" or "right wing" when what people really mean is "not democrat"
|
On January 08 2017 01:34 Saryph wrote:
One, blaming the victim says a lot about you.
Two, didn't the GOP get hacked too? Didn't Assange or Wikileaks announce they had GOP info, but decided not to release it?
Victim blaming in this case seems to be a where do we go from here type thing. What can we do differently next time seems better for finding solutions than whining about Russia.
On January 08 2017 03:12 ChristianS wrote:
Hey, remember when Republicans were all about small government, balanced budgets, and rule of law?
If only, but those positions don't seem to be part a winning coalition in the US right now. Alas the failures of the two party system. I guess we are unrepresented alongside the environmentalists, war doves, and universal health care supporters.
|
On January 08 2017 07:27 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 01:34 Saryph wrote:
One, blaming the victim says a lot about you.
Two, didn't the GOP get hacked too? Didn't Assange or Wikileaks announce they had GOP info, but decided not to release it? Victim blaming in this case seems to be a where do we go from here type thing. What can we do differently next time seems better for finding solutions than whining about Russia.
if that was what was done, that'd be fine. while it can be hard to navigate, there certainly is room to make a plan for moving forward constructively, while acknowledging things that could be done safer in the future. a lot of it is in word choices, tone, and attitude. but denying that an act was criminal/wrongful, or that the victims of it are victims, can make that a lot harder.
but I believe the point is that is not what was done in this case in this thread.
using the phrase "whining about russia" seems slightly loaded.
I should find a good primer on negotiation, mediation, and diplomacy; finding ways to get people who're quite different to work together constructively. there's a lot known about it, and using such things more would likely help in places like this.
|
Has no one noticed the whole "Annex A" on RT was from a report in December 2012 and included shows that don't even exist any more?
Or that the metrics on their audience are terribly misleading?
On January 08 2017 01:12 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 11:31 Incognoto wrote:What a strange document. There's a lot of stuff in there which has nothing to do with hacking Clinton's email server. RT? Fracking? That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's just an anti-Russia document. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Putin fan since there's bad shit regarding him but I don't get the anti-Russian sentiment. The RT and fracking info is meant to establish that RT is a propaganda outlet, and everything they did in the election, including sympathetic Trump coverage and negative Clinton coverage, serves Russian interests. So the disparity of coverage on the candidates is the most relevant part to the election, but fracking helps establish that RT is a state run propaganda outlet.
Uhh, so Russia is anti-fracking (in the US) so they desperately didn't want Hillary to win?
Also for the rape analogy, this wasn't wearing provocative cloths, this was putting the penis inside of you and then regretting it later.
I don't actually doubt that Russia hacked the DNC, but such a terrible "I have 5 pages but the assignment was 25, I need filler!" report makes me question those agencies even more. I've seen more expositive reports from intro to marketing students.
|
See all the Republican commentary on this? They are concerned about corruption and conflicts of interest.
On the night of Nov. 16, a group of executives gathered in a private dining room of the restaurant La Chine at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in Midtown Manhattan. The table was laden with Chinese delicacies and $2,100 bottles of Château Lafite Rothschild. At one end sat Wu Xiaohui, the chairman of the Waldorf’s owner, Anbang Insurance Group, a Chinese financial behemoth with estimated assets of $285 billion and an ownership structure shrouded in mystery. Close by sat Jared Kushner, a major New York real estate investor whose father-in-law, Donald J. Trump, had just been elected president of the United States.
It was a mutually auspicious moment.
Mr. Wu and Mr. Kushner — who is married to Mr. Trump’s daughter Ivanka and is one of his closest advisers — were nearing agreement on a joint venture in Manhattan: the redevelopment of 666 Fifth Avenue, the fading crown jewel of the Kushner family real-estate empire. Anbang, which has close ties to the Chinese state, has seen its aggressive efforts to buy up hotels in the United States slowed amid concerns raised by Obama administration officials who review foreign investments for national security risk.
Now, according to two people with knowledge of the get-together, Mr. Wu toasted Mr. Trump and declared his desire to meet the president-elect, whose ascension, he was sure, would be good for global business.
Since the election, intense scrutiny has been trained on Mr. Trump’s company and the potential conflicts of interest he will face. But with Mr. Kushner laying the groundwork for his own White House role, the meeting at the Waldorf shines a light on his family’s multibillion-dollar business, Kushner Companies, and on the ethical thicket he would have to navigate while advising his father-in-law on policy that could affect his bottom line.
Unlike the Trump Organization, which has shifted its focus from acquisition to branding of the Trump name, the Kushner family business, led by Mr. Kushner, is a major real estate investor across the New York area and beyond. The company has participated in roughly $7 billion in acquisitions in the last decade, many of them backed by opaque foreign money, as well as financial institutions Mr. Kushner’s father-in-law will soon have a hand in regulating.
New York Times
|
Author of anti-net neutrality “Internet Freedom Act” gains leadership position
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who has tried to overturn net neutrality rules and help states impose limits on municipal broadband, will be the new chairperson of a Congressional telecommunications subcommittee.
Blackburn will chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, committee leadership announced yesterday. She'll take over from Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), another frequent critic of the Federal Communications Commission who was recently selected by fellow Republicans to become chair of the full Energy and Commerce Committee.
Blackburn has consistently tried to unravel FCC attempts to regulate broadband providers. In 2015, she filed legislation titled the "Internet Freedom Act" to overturn the Federal Communications Commission's then-new network neutrality rules that prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. The net neutrality rules still remain in effect, but Republicans are expected to attack the rules again under President-elect Donald Trump. Blackburn has claimed that the FCC's net neutrality order is an attempt to "set all the rates" that broadband providers charge for Internet service, even though the FCC hasn't tried to do that and FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said he had no intention of doing so.
Blackburn has also worked to preserve laws in about 20 states that make it difficult for cities and towns to offer their own broadband Internet services. She filed legislation to prevent the FCC from preempting such state laws, saying, "I strongly believe in states' rights." After the FCC went ahead with the proposal anyway, saying it was necessary to improve broadband connectivity in areas with little competition, Blackburn filed another bill to overturn the FCC decision. She wasn't able to get legislation passed, but that FCC decision ended up being overturned in court.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
