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 12 2017 05:29 TheTenthDoc wrote: I'm glad we're spending as much time scrutinizing the motivations of the leakers as we did the motivations of the DNC hackers.
Not sure if that was sarcasm - we spent about the past six months talking about the leaks, who did it, and why - and we're talking about the motivations of these leakers now. Arguably it's the biggest story of the election other than the fact that Trump won.
Mostly just commenting that the same people bringing up motivations of these leakers argued the only thing that mattered was the DNC emails and discussing motivations was purely a smokescreen to avoid discussing the content (and spent months denying we should think Russia had anything to do with it, even after intelligence agencies said otherwise).
The difference? The emails were verified to be authentic documents.
And now we know that they order pizza, hang out with friends, shit talk in private, and talk about cooking recipes. Thank you wikileaks for sharing how absolutely normal the DNC is.
On January 12 2017 05:29 TheTenthDoc wrote: I'm glad we're spending as much time scrutinizing the motivations of the leakers as we did the motivations of the DNC hackers.
Not sure if that was sarcasm - we spent about the past six months talking about the leaks, who did it, and why - and we're talking about the motivations of these leakers now. Arguably it's the biggest story of the election other than the fact that Trump won.
Mostly just commenting that the same people bringing up motivations of these leakers argued the only thing that mattered was the DNC emails and discussing motivations was purely a smokescreen to avoid discussing the content (and spent months denying we should think Russia had anything to do with it, even after intelligence agencies said otherwise).
The difference? The emails were verified to be authentic documents.
And now we know that they order pizza, hang out with friends, shit talk in private, and talk about cooking recipes. Thank you wikileaks for sharing how absolutely normal the DNC is.
I talk to all my friends over email about whether or not we should ask whether we should push a narrative against Bernie Sanders about his campaign being a mess, or if he's an atheist instead of a Jew, when the official position is neutrality.
On January 12 2017 02:45 Danglars wrote: I have my doubts on how much Trump will do that actually makes America great again, beyond SC justice and ACA and the border. But this was making press conferences great again and I'm glad it'll be more like this than Bush-era/GHWB-era conduct for four more years--eight if the opposition party and its media supporters continue to not learn lessons from their mistakes in 2015-2016 campaigning.
I'm ready for four more years of this:
Is it because he has just as terrible an understanding of "fake news" as you do?
Like I already pointed, y'all have lost control of the meaning of the word. Regardless, I finding arguments over semantics a bore.
This is particularly rich considering you're literally subverting the meaning of the word in this very discussion by falsely claiming that the CNN report was fake news. It's easy to claim that you're not interested in arguments over semantics when you're the one purposely misusing words.
On January 12 2017 05:16 zlefin wrote: danglars, you cited reasons that do not hold up to factual scrutiny.
I had heard that biden said such a thing. I was not sure exactly what he said, in what context, and whether it was acted upon at all or merely spoken of, or whether it was retracted soon after. and I did not wish to pass judgment without verifying those, or at least verifying a couple of them.
ACA itself isn't driving up premiums in general, only the ACA plans themselves ar ehigh premium, in part because it never fully kicked in, and in part because that's the cost of providing health care to people. the policies you cite have little to do with stagnant wages, and a wall will not have significant, and at any rate not cost-effective, influence on reoffense by people who get back in.
I never claimd people don't seriously belive in their reasons, just that they're wrong, and the reasons do not hold up to close scrutiny. as with the notion of activist judges, which is generally more about political disagreement than about judges actual behavior.
the reason to ask about restoring greatness is that the entire slogan maga is a dumb slogan, often based more on perceptual errors rather than facts. and without a real ansewr to the basic questions begged by it.
at any rate, I don't expect this discussion will be productive, so I propose we agree to drop it, and you write the last response, and I'll try to avoid responding to it (which is difficult for me so I may not succeed). if I ca'nt, let's try to make each response to the other shorter than what it responded to so it'll wind down on its own.
You claimed your question wasn't answered, and backed it up two times now by saying countervailing arguments are wrong. Sorry, you might not like some answers and think other people are wrong to believe differently, but that's a separate question from seeking and finding answers only to claim none were proferred. The method you're employing right now is asking rhetorical questions. If you want someone to prove you wrong, start of with the statement and ask someone to prove you wrong.
On January 12 2017 05:29 TheTenthDoc wrote: I'm glad we're spending as much time scrutinizing the motivations of the leakers as we did the motivations of the DNC hackers.
Not sure if that was sarcasm - we spent about the past six months talking about the leaks, who did it, and why - and we're talking about the motivations of these leakers now. Arguably it's the biggest story of the election other than the fact that Trump won.
Mostly just commenting that the same people bringing up motivations of these leakers argued the only thing that mattered was the DNC emails and discussing motivations was purely a smokescreen to avoid discussing the content (and spent months denying we should think Russia had anything to do with it, even after intelligence agencies said otherwise).
The difference? The emails were verified to be authentic documents.
And now we know that they order pizza, hang out with friends, shit talk in private, and talk about cooking recipes. Thank you wikileaks for sharing how absolutely normal the DNC is.
I talk to all my friends over email about whether or not we should ask whether we should push a narrative against Bernie Sanders about his campaign being a mess, or if he's an atheist instead of a Jew, when the official position is neutrality.
Is there a meaningful difference between brainstorming and conspiring in your mind? Sure, one can turn into the other, but is it fair to do that? I have worked for political parties, a lot of ideas get thrown around without being implemented.
On January 12 2017 02:45 Danglars wrote: I have my doubts on how much Trump will do that actually makes America great again, beyond SC justice and ACA and the border. But this was making press conferences great again and I'm glad it'll be more like this than Bush-era/GHWB-era conduct for four more years--eight if the opposition party and its media supporters continue to not learn lessons from their mistakes in 2015-2016 campaigning.
Is it because he has just as terrible an understanding of "fake news" as you do?
Like I already pointed, y'all have lost control of the meaning of the word. Regardless, I finding arguments over semantics a bore.
This is particularly rich considering you're literally subverting the meaning of the word in this very discussion by falsely claiming that the CNN report was fake news. It's easy to claim that you're not interested in arguments over semantics when you're the one purposely misusing words.
Now, now, you're just sore because you know how devastating of a weapon the Right's use of "fake news" has been and will continue to be, and that there's nothing that your side can do to stop it.
On January 12 2017 05:29 TheTenthDoc wrote: I'm glad we're spending as much time scrutinizing the motivations of the leakers as we did the motivations of the DNC hackers.
Not sure if that was sarcasm - we spent about the past six months talking about the leaks, who did it, and why - and we're talking about the motivations of these leakers now. Arguably it's the biggest story of the election other than the fact that Trump won.
Mostly just commenting that the same people bringing up motivations of these leakers argued the only thing that mattered was the DNC emails and discussing motivations was purely a smokescreen to avoid discussing the content (and spent months denying we should think Russia had anything to do with it, even after intelligence agencies said otherwise).
The difference? The emails were verified to be authentic documents.
And now we know that they order pizza, hang out with friends, shit talk in private, and talk about cooking recipes. Thank you wikileaks for sharing how absolutely normal the DNC is.
I talk to all my friends over email about whether or not we should ask whether we should push a narrative against Bernie Sanders about his campaign being a mess, or if he's an atheist instead of a Jew, when the official position is neutrality.
Is there a meaningful difference between brainstorming and conspiring in your mind? Sure, one can turn into the other, but is it fair to do that? I have worked for political parties, a lot of ideas get thrown around without being implemented.
The party is supposed to be explicitly neutral within its primary. It's really not ok to do that. There is a reason the DNC chair had to resign after that happened.
The Russia hawks and the Democrats really aren't completely sold on Tillerson. I'm not sure if they will ultimately sink his nomination but this looks like it's going to be a long, long confirmation hearing at this point.
On January 12 2017 02:45 Danglars wrote: I have my doubts on how much Trump will do that actually makes America great again, beyond SC justice and ACA and the border. But this was making press conferences great again and I'm glad it'll be more like this than Bush-era/GHWB-era conduct for four more years--eight if the opposition party and its media supporters continue to not learn lessons from their mistakes in 2015-2016 campaigning.
Is it because he has just as terrible an understanding of "fake news" as you do?
Like I already pointed, y'all have lost control of the meaning of the word. Regardless, I finding arguments over semantics a bore.
This is particularly rich considering you're literally subverting the meaning of the word in this very discussion by falsely claiming that the CNN report was fake news. It's easy to claim that you're not interested in arguments over semantics when you're the one purposely misusing words.
Now, now, you're just sore because you know how devastating of a weapon the Right's the use "fake news" has been and will continue to be, and that there's nothing that your side can do to stop it.
are you proud that the right uses ignorance and misinformation as a "weapon" and that their base buys into it?
On January 12 2017 02:45 Danglars wrote: I have my doubts on how much Trump will do that actually makes America great again, beyond SC justice and ACA and the border. But this was making press conferences great again and I'm glad it'll be more like this than Bush-era/GHWB-era conduct for four more years--eight if the opposition party and its media supporters continue to not learn lessons from their mistakes in 2015-2016 campaigning.
I see little evidence that removing aca woudl be creditable to trump, or that the replacemenet system will be any better. nor that the border changes will do anything actually productive.
also, what do you mean by "great again"? what actual metrics are you using to measure greatness? what was better in the past specifically that could be improved now? in what way is america not great now?
it's a pity still that the republicans ignored the constitution to delay the supreme court so they could have a chacne to get a an extra person on it. damaging the institutions for political gain
I know you think that about the border and ACA, don't worry. But in the minds of people that think differently to you, the first three would be productive steps taken to maga. I have the utmost confidence you know already or can rediscover the arguments made about the damage caused by the ACA, large-scale illegal immigration across the porous southern border, and the activist Supreme Court.
I mean, if Republicans ignored the constitution, you must admit the Democrats did it first (Biden particularly). No need to be hyperpartisan. I leave it as an exercise for you to discover where in the constitution it says who makes the rules for he Senate conducting its business, part of which is the confirmation or rejection of nominees to the highest court.
i'm not being hyperpartisan, you are biden also didn't in fact do it, not like the republicans did here. that's a canard they feed people so they feel better about their improper decision. the senate didn't confirm or reject him, they didn't address it at all, which is a patent violation of the system. they abjectly refused to considre the matter, which is clearly improper.
i think it about the border and the ACA because i'm correct. more border enforcement might be fine and reasonable, the wall is dumb. arguments have been made about the ACA, an actual factual look at the evidence shows it's unimpressive and poor, helps some and hurts others a little bit. making a superior replacement would be easy from a design standpoint, not so easy politically. the ACA did fix some things, and it's not at all clear that what's done will be better. and the notion of an "activist" supreme court is just the usual partisan nonsense not actually based in reality. you also failed to answer the core questions on waht can even constitute maga. so i'll assume you're just like the 85% or so of americans who have opinions but have a poor and wrong factual basis for their beliefs, heavily covered by partisan bias.
I'll wait for your accompanying denouncement of Biden for vocally advocating for such an unconstitutional matter. Otherwise, I'm left thinking you're more opposed based on the party than on the principle.
And yes, I am also aware you think the facts support your side of the story. I mean, do we have to rehash why both sides think the other doesn't have a leg to stand on? You have learned the answers to your previous questions, so move on.
If Biden in fact did that, I denounce it. whether he actually did so, I'd have to look it up in depth. You can think as you like; it is fairly common statistically that people's opinions are more based on party than principle, as yours are.
no need to rehash unless you have new evidence to present. sometimes one side is just wrong. and you never answered on maga so i'll assume that stands. moving on.
I don't know if I'm surprised or not surprised that you didn't know about it. You sounded informed and confident when you condemned Republicans for doing it, so I would suppose a prominent Senator and later Vice President wanting the same would arouse your constitutional druthers.
Except Biden didn't want the same at the time. Firstly, he spoke much later in the election season (June 1992) than when Scalia died this time (February 2016). Secondly, he explicitly stated that it would be fine for Bush to nominate someone after the election and for the Senate to act upon that nomination before the beginning of the term of the winner of the election. He clearly said that he was not defending the idea that it should be the election winner's role to nominate a new Supreme Court justice should a vacancy arise before election day, during the mandate of the sitting president.
In any case, I fail to see how Biden's speech invalidates the criticism levied at Republicans for refusing to do their constitutional job -- why are you assuming that we can't also disagree with Biden? And the GOP went much further than what Biden was saying anyway, since it denied Obama a vote on his nominee and argued that the next president should be the one nominating the new justice.
I haven't heard anyone disagree with him prior to now. Do you?
The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.
He made it clear his position stood in context of a presidential nomination in the campaign season of an election year. I would have been quite surprised if he had made the opposite, that June was crucial to his argument and wouldn't be the same three months earlier (When Obama later chose to nominate a replacement).
On January 12 2017 02:45 Danglars wrote: I have my doubts on how much Trump will do that actually makes America great again, beyond SC justice and ACA and the border. But this was making press conferences great again and I'm glad it'll be more like this than Bush-era/GHWB-era conduct for four more years--eight if the opposition party and its media supporters continue to not learn lessons from their mistakes in 2015-2016 campaigning.
Is it because he has just as terrible an understanding of "fake news" as you do?
Like I already pointed, y'all have lost control of the meaning of the word. Regardless, I finding arguments over semantics a bore.
This is particularly rich considering you're literally subverting the meaning of the word in this very discussion by falsely claiming that the CNN report was fake news. It's easy to claim that you're not interested in arguments over semantics when you're the one purposely misusing words.
Now, now, you're just sore because you know how devastating of a weapon the Right's the use "fake news" has been and will continue to be, and that there's nothing that your side can do to stop it.
are you proud that the right uses ignorance and misinformation as a "weapon" and that their base buys into it?
Labeling what CNN did as "fake news" is neither ignorant nor misinformative unless you insist upon adhering to the Left's very limited definition of "fake news." And if you do, then once again, the argument degenerates into semantics, which is just retarded.
On January 12 2017 02:45 Danglars wrote: I have my doubts on how much Trump will do that actually makes America great again, beyond SC justice and ACA and the border. But this was making press conferences great again and I'm glad it'll be more like this than Bush-era/GHWB-era conduct for four more years--eight if the opposition party and its media supporters continue to not learn lessons from their mistakes in 2015-2016 campaigning.
I see little evidence that removing aca woudl be creditable to trump, or that the replacemenet system will be any better. nor that the border changes will do anything actually productive.
also, what do you mean by "great again"? what actual metrics are you using to measure greatness? what was better in the past specifically that could be improved now? in what way is america not great now?
it's a pity still that the republicans ignored the constitution to delay the supreme court so they could have a chacne to get a an extra person on it. damaging the institutions for political gain
I know you think that about the border and ACA, don't worry. But in the minds of people that think differently to you, the first three would be productive steps taken to maga. I have the utmost confidence you know already or can rediscover the arguments made about the damage caused by the ACA, large-scale illegal immigration across the porous southern border, and the activist Supreme Court.
I mean, if Republicans ignored the constitution, you must admit the Democrats did it first (Biden particularly). No need to be hyperpartisan. I leave it as an exercise for you to discover where in the constitution it says who makes the rules for he Senate conducting its business, part of which is the confirmation or rejection of nominees to the highest court.
i'm not being hyperpartisan, you are biden also didn't in fact do it, not like the republicans did here. that's a canard they feed people so they feel better about their improper decision. the senate didn't confirm or reject him, they didn't address it at all, which is a patent violation of the system. they abjectly refused to considre the matter, which is clearly improper.
i think it about the border and the ACA because i'm correct. more border enforcement might be fine and reasonable, the wall is dumb. arguments have been made about the ACA, an actual factual look at the evidence shows it's unimpressive and poor, helps some and hurts others a little bit. making a superior replacement would be easy from a design standpoint, not so easy politically. the ACA did fix some things, and it's not at all clear that what's done will be better. and the notion of an "activist" supreme court is just the usual partisan nonsense not actually based in reality. you also failed to answer the core questions on waht can even constitute maga. so i'll assume you're just like the 85% or so of americans who have opinions but have a poor and wrong factual basis for their beliefs, heavily covered by partisan bias.
I'll wait for your accompanying denouncement of Biden for vocally advocating for such an unconstitutional matter. Otherwise, I'm left thinking you're more opposed based on the party than on the principle.
And yes, I am also aware you think the facts support your side of the story. I mean, do we have to rehash why both sides think the other doesn't have a leg to stand on? You have learned the answers to your previous questions, so move on.
If Biden in fact did that, I denounce it. whether he actually did so, I'd have to look it up in depth. You can think as you like; it is fairly common statistically that people's opinions are more based on party than principle, as yours are.
no need to rehash unless you have new evidence to present. sometimes one side is just wrong. and you never answered on maga so i'll assume that stands. moving on.
I don't know if I'm surprised or not surprised that you didn't know about it. You sounded informed and confident when you condemned Republicans for doing it, so I would suppose a prominent Senator and later Vice President wanting the same would arouse your constitutional druthers.
Except Biden didn't want the same at the time. Firstly, he spoke much later in the election season (June 1992) than when Scalia died this time (February 2016). Secondly, he explicitly stated that it would be fine for Bush to nominate someone after the election and for the Senate to act upon that nomination before the beginning of the term of the winner of the election. He clearly said that he was not defending the idea that it should be the election winner's role to nominate a new Supreme Court justice should a vacancy arise before election day, during the mandate of the sitting president.
In any case, I fail to see how Biden's speech invalidates the criticism levied at Republicans for refusing to do their constitutional job -- why are you assuming that we can't also disagree with Biden? And the GOP went much further than what Biden was saying anyway, since it denied Obama a vote on his nominee and argued that the next president should be the one nominating the new justice.
I haven't heard anyone disagree with him prior to now. Do you?
Yes. Perhaps it's because you haven't been listening? Disagreements were repeatedly voiced whenever McConnell evoked what he invented as the "Biden rule".
The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.
He made it clear his position stood in context of a presidential nomination in the campaign season of an election year. I would have been quite surprised if he had made the opposite, that June was crucial to his argument and wouldn't be the same three months earlier (When Obama later chose to nominate a replacement).
He did tie it to the particular phase of the election season that they were in, by mentioning the conventions were about to take place: "Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all."
In any case, you are conveniently ignoring the main difference that I highlighted in my post, so I'll restate it: Biden explicitly stated that it would be fine for Bush to nominate someone after the election and for the Senate to act upon that nomination before the beginning of the term of the winner of the election. He clearly said that he was not defending the idea that it should be the election winner's role to nominate a new Supreme Court justice should a vacancy arise before election day, during the mandate of the sitting president.
This is clearly different from the position taken by the GOP.
On January 12 2017 05:29 TheTenthDoc wrote: I'm glad we're spending as much time scrutinizing the motivations of the leakers as we did the motivations of the DNC hackers.
Not sure if that was sarcasm - we spent about the past six months talking about the leaks, who did it, and why - and we're talking about the motivations of these leakers now. Arguably it's the biggest story of the election other than the fact that Trump won.
Mostly just commenting that the same people bringing up motivations of these leakers argued the only thing that mattered was the DNC emails and discussing motivations was purely a smokescreen to avoid discussing the content (and spent months denying we should think Russia had anything to do with it, even after intelligence agencies said otherwise).
The difference? The emails were verified to be authentic documents.
And now we know that they order pizza, hang out with friends, shit talk in private, and talk about cooking recipes. Thank you wikileaks for sharing how absolutely normal the DNC is.
I talk to all my friends over email about whether or not we should ask whether we should push a narrative against Bernie Sanders about his campaign being a mess, or if he's an atheist instead of a Jew, when the official position is neutrality.
And isn't it unfortunate that they... wait, they didn't really do any of that did they? Its like, random folks at work had bad ideas and were told to shut up as they followed different plans instead. Who'd have thunk?
On January 12 2017 02:45 Danglars wrote: I have my doubts on how much Trump will do that actually makes America great again, beyond SC justice and ACA and the border. But this was making press conferences great again and I'm glad it'll be more like this than Bush-era/GHWB-era conduct for four more years--eight if the opposition party and its media supporters continue to not learn lessons from their mistakes in 2015-2016 campaigning.
Is it because he has just as terrible an understanding of "fake news" as you do?
Like I already pointed, y'all have lost control of the meaning of the word. Regardless, I finding arguments over semantics a bore.
This is particularly rich considering you're literally subverting the meaning of the word in this very discussion by falsely claiming that the CNN report was fake news. It's easy to claim that you're not interested in arguments over semantics when you're the one purposely misusing words.
Now, now, you're just sore because you know how devastating of a weapon the Right's the use "fake news" has been and will continue to be, and that there's nothing that your side can do to stop it.
are you proud that the right uses ignorance and misinformation as a "weapon" and that their base buys into it?
Labeling what CNN did as "fake news" is neither ignorant nor misinformative unless you insist upon adhering to the Left's very limited definition of "fake news." And if you do, then once again, the argument degenerates into semantics, which is just retarded.
So as said, you are misusing a definition and then when confronted on it you say you don't want to argue semantics...
That's one way to try and avoid losing an argument I guess.
On January 12 2017 05:29 TheTenthDoc wrote: I'm glad we're spending as much time scrutinizing the motivations of the leakers as we did the motivations of the DNC hackers.
Not sure if that was sarcasm - we spent about the past six months talking about the leaks, who did it, and why - and we're talking about the motivations of these leakers now. Arguably it's the biggest story of the election other than the fact that Trump won.
Mostly just commenting that the same people bringing up motivations of these leakers argued the only thing that mattered was the DNC emails and discussing motivations was purely a smokescreen to avoid discussing the content (and spent months denying we should think Russia had anything to do with it, even after intelligence agencies said otherwise).
The difference? The emails were verified to be authentic documents.
And now we know that they order pizza, hang out with friends, shit talk in private, and talk about cooking recipes. Thank you wikileaks for sharing how absolutely normal the DNC is.
I talk to all my friends over email about whether or not we should ask whether we should push a narrative against Bernie Sanders about his campaign being a mess, or if he's an atheist instead of a Jew, when the official position is neutrality.
And isn't it unfortunate that they... wait, they didn't really do any of that did they? Its like, random folks at work had bad ideas and were told to shut up as they followed different plans instead. Who'd have thunk?
Including high ranking officials within there, such as the chair and the CFO of the organization?
On January 11 2017 18:50 Acrofales wrote: There's two things here and neither are fake news. One isn't even journalism, it's just WikiLeaks on a different platform. BuzzFeed threw an unsourced, unverified document up and said "have fun". Assange is probably livid that he missed out on these clicks.
CNN, for once, did some reasonable reporting, assuming they aren't just inventing the intelligence briefing and their 2 official sources. That is not fake news, despite people not liking what is being said. CNN's base seems covered. Either they reported on a briefing about problematic Intel regarding Trump, or they reported intelligence officials being partisan hacks and briefing government based on unverified claptrap. Either way, that's a story worth telling.
I have a hard time thinking Wikileaks doesn't extensively verify their documents, otherwise they would be the luckiest people on the planet for never publishing fake documents.
No one has accused wikileaks of being fake.
That much, at least, is untrue. The claim has been made, including in this thread (examples I can recall include P6 asserting fake documents, and Mohdoo claiming they don't have any credibility), even if it was ultimately retracted when the documents were clearly established to be not fake.
The narrative evolves from fake, to irrelevant, to Russia, in the climate I have seen this election.
I never understood those stances when reading the emails themselves only shows that the DNC and democrats acted and talked just like everyone else that works a day job. When you call sharing Risotto recipes damning evidence to a person's character--even when it isn't her sharing the recipes, you'd realize there's no need to deny the existence of the emails. You can point to the fact that hacking and leaks are occurring and watching liberals not care about online privacy so long as its other people's online privacy at stake is hilarious.
Because risotto recipes are what the outrage was about, rather than a distraction cooked up to distract from the fact that people were concerned about collusion, the GS speeches, and the like, rather than cooking.
An email ordering pizza led to gunmen shooting up a Trump supporter's business. The emails revealed nothing, people simply wanted them to, hence why they have to falsify stories from them. From pretty much every "evil" leak that she supposedly had. The worse thing you can say is that some emails had the letter C on it and that Hillary is not against adapting to globalization. That's it, that's all the leaks actually show. The only reason they were damning is that people Bernie supporters kept fabricating meaning from them.
GH would be more willing to question your assertions there. I will simply say that evidently plenty of people thought otherwise.
I don't disagree that there was disdain for the existence of the emails. I didn't get upset about the anger towards the emails until I started asking people to show me the emails that got them upset, the emails that prove her evil. And there weren't any, its always just GH saying shit like "obviously she wouldn't something like that out on paper" or "see that exchanged coworkers are having about disliking their opponent, obvious collusion there" etc...
And the more I asked the more they would tighten up and not show me the evidence that convinced them since they already had their conclusions evidence be damned.
On January 12 2017 05:29 TheTenthDoc wrote: I'm glad we're spending as much time scrutinizing the motivations of the leakers as we did the motivations of the DNC hackers.
Not sure if that was sarcasm - we spent about the past six months talking about the leaks, who did it, and why - and we're talking about the motivations of these leakers now. Arguably it's the biggest story of the election other than the fact that Trump won.
Mostly just commenting that the same people bringing up motivations of these leakers argued the only thing that mattered was the DNC emails and discussing motivations was purely a smokescreen to avoid discussing the content (and spent months denying we should think Russia had anything to do with it, even after intelligence agencies said otherwise).
The difference? The emails were verified to be authentic documents.
And now we know that they order pizza, hang out with friends, shit talk in private, and talk about cooking recipes. Thank you wikileaks for sharing how absolutely normal the DNC is.
On January 12 2017 04:50 xDaunt wrote: Leave it to Glenn Greenwald to be the conscience of the American left:
IN JANUARY, 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered his farewell address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans of this specific threat to democracy: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” That warning was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction’s power even further.
This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as “Fake News.”
Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as a systemic collapse of their party, seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing — eager — to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging those behaviors might be.
The serious dangers posed by a Trump presidency are numerous and manifest. There are a wide array of legitimate and effective tactics for combatting those threats: from bipartisan congressional coalitions and constitutional legal challenges to citizen uprisings and sustained and aggressive civil disobedience. All of those strategies have periodically proven themselves effective in times of political crisis or authoritarian overreach.
But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth — despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie — is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality. And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.
Beyond all that, there is no bigger favor that Trump opponents can do for him than attacking him with such lowly, shabby, obvious shams, recruiting large media outlets to lead the way. When it comes time to expose actual Trump corruption and criminality, who is going to believe the people and institutions who have demonstrated they are willing to endorse any assertions no matter how factually baseless, who deploy any journalistic tactic no matter how unreliable and removed from basic means of ensuring accuracy?
All of these toxic ingredients were on full display yesterday as the Deep State unleashed its tawdriest and most aggressive assault yet on Trump: vesting credibility in and then causing the public disclosure of a completely unvetted and unverified document, compiled by a paid, anonymous operative while he was working for both GOP and Democratic opponents of Trump, accusing Trump of a wide range of crimes, corrupt acts and salacious private conduct. The reaction to all of this illustrates that while the Trump presidency poses grave dangers, so, too, do those who are increasingly unhinged in their flailing, slapdash, and destructive attempts to undermine it. .... One can certainly object to Buzzfeed’s decision and, as the New York Times notes this morning, many journalists are doing so. It’s almost impossible to imagine a scenario where it’s justifiable for a news outlet to publish a totally anonymous, unverified, unvetted document filled with scurrilous and inflammatory allegations about which its own editor-in-chief says there “is serious reason to doubt the allegations,” on the ground that they want to leave it to the public to decide whether to believe it.
But even if one believes there is no such case where that is justified, yesterday’s circumstances presented the most compelling scenario possible for doing this. Once CNN strongly hinted at these allegations, it left it to the public imagination to conjure up the dirt Russia allegedly had to blackmail and control Trump. By publishing these accusations, BuzzFeed ended that speculation. More importantly, it allowed everyone to see how dubious this document is, one the CIA and CNN had elevated into some sort of grave national security threat.
CNN refused to specify what these allegations were on the ground that they could not “verify” them. But with this document in the hands of multiple media outlets, it was only a matter of time — a small amount of time — before someone would step up and publish the whole thing. Buzzfeed quickly obliged, airing all of the unvetted, anonymous claims about Trump.
Its editor-in-chief Ben Smith published a memo explaining that decision, saying that—- although there “is serious reason to doubt the allegations” — Buzzfeed in general “errs on the side of publication” and “Americans can make up their own minds about the allegations.” Publishing this document predictably produced massive traffic (and thus profit) for the site, with millions of people viewing the article and presumably reading the “dossier.”
....
THERE IS A REAL DANGER here that this maneuver can harshly backfire, to the great benefit of Trump and to the great detriment of those who want to oppose him. If any of the significant claims in this “dossier” turn out to be provably false — such as Cohen’s trip to Prague — many people will conclude, with Trump’s encouragement, that large media outlets (CNN and BuzzFeed) and anti-Trump factions inside the government (CIA) are deploying “Fake News” to destroy him. In the eyes of many people, that will forever discredit — render impotent — future journalistic exposés that are based on actual, corroborated wrongdoing.
Beyond that, the threat posed by submitting ourselves to the CIA and empowering it to reign supreme outside of the democratic process is — as Eisenhower warned — an even more severe danger. The threat of being ruled by unaccountable and unelected entities is self-evident and grave. That’s especially true when the entity behind which so many are rallying is one with a long and deliberate history of lying, propaganda, war crimes, torture, and the worst atrocities imaginable.
All of the claims about Russia’s interference in U.S. elections and ties to Trump should be fully investigated by a credible body, and the evidence publicly disclosed to the fullest extent possible. As my colleague Sam Biddle argued last week after disclosure of the farcical intelligence community report on Russia hacking — one which even Putin’s foes mocked as a bad joke — the utter lack of evidence for these allegations means “we need an independent, resolute inquiry.” But until then, assertions that are unaccompanied by evidence and disseminated anonymously should be treated with the utmost skepticism — not lavished with convenience-driven gullibility.
Most important of all, the legitimate and effective tactics for opposing Trump are being utterly drowned by these irrational, desperate, ad hoc crusades that have no cogent strategy and make his opponents appear increasingly devoid of reason and gravity. Right now, Trump’s opponents are behaving as media critic Adam Johnson described: as ideological jelly fish, floating around aimlessly and lost, desperately latching on to whatever barge randomly passes by.
There are solutions to Trump. They involve reasoned strategizing and patient focus on issues people actually care about. Whatever those solutions are, venerating the intelligence community, begging for its intervention, and equating their dark and dirty assertions as Truth are most certainly not among them. Doing that cannot possibly achieve any good, and is already doing much harm.
On January 12 2017 02:45 Danglars wrote: I have my doubts on how much Trump will do that actually makes America great again, beyond SC justice and ACA and the border. But this was making press conferences great again and I'm glad it'll be more like this than Bush-era/GHWB-era conduct for four more years--eight if the opposition party and its media supporters continue to not learn lessons from their mistakes in 2015-2016 campaigning.
Is it because he has just as terrible an understanding of "fake news" as you do?
Like I already pointed, y'all have lost control of the meaning of the word. Regardless, I finding arguments over semantics a bore.
This is particularly rich considering you're literally subverting the meaning of the word in this very discussion by falsely claiming that the CNN report was fake news. It's easy to claim that you're not interested in arguments over semantics when you're the one purposely misusing words.
Now, now, you're just sore because you know how devastating of a weapon the Right's use of "fake news" has been and will continue to be, and that there's nothing that your side can do to stop it.
I'm well aware of the tactics of the right-wing media when it comes to attempting to discredit the kind of coverage that doesn't fit with their narratives. What I was discussing here, however, is your attempt (in line with what Breitbart and others are doing) to subvert the "fake news" label by falsely applying it to coverage that clearly does not fit the definition, and then your declaration that you don't want to discuss semantics once you were called out for it.
On January 12 2017 02:45 Danglars wrote: I have my doubts on how much Trump will do that actually makes America great again, beyond SC justice and ACA and the border. But this was making press conferences great again and I'm glad it'll be more like this than Bush-era/GHWB-era conduct for four more years--eight if the opposition party and its media supporters continue to not learn lessons from their mistakes in 2015-2016 campaigning.
Is it because he has just as terrible an understanding of "fake news" as you do?
Like I already pointed, y'all have lost control of the meaning of the word. Regardless, I finding arguments over semantics a bore.
This is particularly rich considering you're literally subverting the meaning of the word in this very discussion by falsely claiming that the CNN report was fake news. It's easy to claim that you're not interested in arguments over semantics when you're the one purposely misusing words.
Now, now, you're just sore because you know how devastating of a weapon the Right's the use "fake news" has been and will continue to be, and that there's nothing that your side can do to stop it.
are you proud that the right uses ignorance and misinformation as a "weapon" and that their base buys into it?
Labeling what CNN did as "fake news" is neither ignorant nor misinformative unless you insist upon adhering to the Left's very limited definition of "fake news." And if you do, then once again, the argument degenerates into semantics, which is just retarded.
So as said, you are misusing a definition and then when confronted on it you say you don't want to argue semantics...
That's one way to try and avoid losing an argument I guess.
It reminds me of the argument I've seen where people try to redefine the word racism to not include people of color. You can't just change the meaning of a word because it doesn't fit your agenda.
On January 12 2017 02:45 Danglars wrote: I have my doubts on how much Trump will do that actually makes America great again, beyond SC justice and ACA and the border. But this was making press conferences great again and I'm glad it'll be more like this than Bush-era/GHWB-era conduct for four more years--eight if the opposition party and its media supporters continue to not learn lessons from their mistakes in 2015-2016 campaigning.
Is it because he has just as terrible an understanding of "fake news" as you do?
Like I already pointed, y'all have lost control of the meaning of the word. Regardless, I finding arguments over semantics a bore.
This is particularly rich considering you're literally subverting the meaning of the word in this very discussion by falsely claiming that the CNN report was fake news. It's easy to claim that you're not interested in arguments over semantics when you're the one purposely misusing words.
Now, now, you're just sore because you know how devastating of a weapon the Right's the use "fake news" has been and will continue to be, and that there's nothing that your side can do to stop it.
are you proud that the right uses ignorance and misinformation as a "weapon" and that their base buys into it?
Labeling what CNN did as "fake news" is neither ignorant nor misinformative unless you insist upon adhering to the Left's very limited definition of "fake news." And if you do, then once again, the argument degenerates into semantics, which is just retarded.
It's not the "lefts" definition of fake news. Fake news is news that is fake.
You could call something a biased narrative. You could call something incomplete news. You could call it tangental information. etc...
The issue is not that you aren't allowed to call bullshit when you see it. But be accurate when using terms to describe things.
EPT
