| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 27 2017 11:03 On_Slaught wrote: I wonder if they could revoke Kushners security clearance. That would effectively shut him out of any power or influence. You let him keep it and just limit what information gets to him. Got to give them enough rope, after all. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
It explains almost everything. He is extremely predictable. Except... why is he still President? Why doesn't he find a reason, say "health", to just retire, stepdown, be a comfortable billionaire? In terms of money, respect, legacy, etc. -- he'd be better off stepping away from all this right now. So why isn't he? Love of country and service? No, of course not. Blackmail. It's the only explanation as to why a man like Trump is going to ride this train until it falls off the rails. Money doesn't explain it. Trump is losing everything -- and Trump hates losing. He'd much rather call "bankruptcy" on something and move on. But here, he's caught, because he can't run away, and yet he can't keep going. I'm saying that Steele Dossier was real. Very real. That was a genuine intelligence-effort by a genuine intelligence-agent, and we all kind of just ignored it. But believe it, the piss tape is real, and god damn it, the world needs to see it... or at least be able to acknowledge its heinous existence. Just had to put this theory down somewhere. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
| ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
Not "everything" maybe, but he's certainly aware enough to realize that he's in a position of immense liability for little gain. Looking at how he ran business, he wouldn't be here if there wasn't something holding him to it, in my opinion. Taking these huge, stupid risks... Christopher Steele had it right all along. It's the best explanation. Piss tape. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On May 27 2017 12:19 Leporello wrote: Everything points to Trump being a profoundly simple person, with one crystal-clear motive: himself. It explains almost everything. He is extremely predictable. Except... why is he still President? Why doesn't he find a reason, say "health", to just retire, stepdown, be a comfortable billionaire? In terms of money, respect, legacy, etc. -- he'd be better off stepping away from all this right now. So why isn't he? Love of country and service? No, of course not. Blackmail. It's the only explanation as to why a man like Trump is going to ride this train until it falls off the rails. Money doesn't explain it. Trump is losing everything -- and Trump hates losing. He'd much rather call "bankruptcy" on something and move on. But here, he's caught, because he can't run away, and yet he can't keep going. I'm saying that Steele Dossier was real. Very real. That was a genuine intelligence-effort by a genuine intelligence-agent, and we all kind of just ignored it. But believe it, the piss tape is real, and god damn it, the world needs to see it... or at least be able to acknowledge its heinous existence. Just had to put this theory down somewhere. I dont think you quite understand the ego Donald Trump has. He believes he is smarter then anyone else in the room on any issue at any time. He believes his own bullshit and the reason he got so easily baited on the Comey thing was because he could not bear to let the public that someone else was making a decision it HAD to be his decision because he is the man who decides things. If Donald Trump were impeached by the house and was told the Senate had 98 votes to convict he still would not step down thinking he could change all their minds easily. This is the level of arrogance that he possesses and I can not understate it enough. He is very predictable if you simply assume that he is a compulsive liar who will say anything to make him look good but also will believe his own nonsense, but he is not nearly as clever or smart as he thinks he is. I have thought that of him for months and have not been surprised by a single thing that has happened because of it. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On May 27 2017 01:04 Danglars wrote: In the sense that Mensch might've had a source for her claim that Putin had Andrew Breitbart murdered. Or I could email CNN and claim Duterte offered bribes to Trump, and they could write Explosive Revelations Emerge Phillipine Influence and have a source. Because they do have a source. When your source credibility is in such deep trouble, you up the need for corroboration or you turn into classier Alex Jones with cooler looking TV programs, websites, and reach. I've been over before in this forum about how I use the term, and the "seems to imply" is either naïveté or swallowing too much of your own propaganda. Fast thread moves fast. Okay so you've apparently mentioned before in the thread how you personally define 'fake news,' and I'm guessing at what 'fake news' means, so your interpretation is that I'm either naive or drinking my own kool-aid. Have you considered that I maybe missed the pages where you clarified that? Because I honestly have no clue what 'fake news' means when you use it. You've used words like "lied" to suggest that you think the stories are literal fabrications, but pressed for examples, you have to cite a) not particularly reputable individuals like Mensch, b) hypotheticals like "if I e-mailed CNN I bet they would publish w/e I e-mailed them" or c) cases where the facts of the story are true, but you think the headline or conclusions are deceptive. Like, Saudi Arabia did, in fact, donate a bunch of money to a charity Ivanka is credited with creating, and Trump did not appear to have a problem with that. But you think calling it the "Ivanka fund" is deceptive because the fund is not managed and run by Ivanka, it was merely a brainchild of hers (if I understand correctly). But the stories you're calling fake are, at worst, insufficiently clear in describing Ivanka's relationship to the fund. The facts are true, you just think the presentation of those facts is deceptive. My question wasn't about any of that. It was about whether there's any evidence of them actually fabricating stories whole-cloth. Not writing deceptive headlines, not burying ledes, but actually making up sources and publishing pure fiction as fact. You can argue that those other practices are sufficient for us to question their journalistic integrity, and that's fine, it's just not what I was asking. Because you allege that any random person like yourself could e-mail pure fiction to CNN and they'd publish it, but normal journalistic standards are designed to prevent scenarios like that. They're supposed to confirm the source's identity to be certain they're in a position to know about the material, and they're supposed to verify every story with at least two independent sources before publishing; it's possible that they're cheating on those rules, but evidence that they're cheating on those rules is exactly what I asked about and so far I haven't seen any. Maybe I missed that page of the thread too? | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On May 27 2017 13:29 Adreme wrote: I dont think you quite understand the ego Donald Trump has. He believes he is smarter then anyone else in the room on any issue at any time. He believes his own bullshit and the reason he got so easily baited on the Comey thing was because he could not bear to let the public that someone else was making a decision it HAD to be his decision because he is the man who decides things. If Donald Trump were impeached by the house and was told the Senate had 98 votes to convict he still would not step down thinking he could change all their minds easily. This is the level of arrogance that he possesses and I can not understate it enough. He is very predictable if you simply assume that he is a compulsive liar who will say anything to make him look good but also will believe his own nonsense, but he is not nearly as clever or smart as he thinks he is. I have thought that of him for months and have not been surprised by a single thing that has happened because of it. Donald is arrogant, but he isn't actually a complete, total buffoon. Donald Trump knows when to quit something. A lot of his "success" in business is knowing when to quit. He has an ego -- but that's what lets him quit. He is perfectly capable of walking away from anything with his head held high, and a truckload of excuses. I'd also like to point that literally everything else but the piss-tape in the Steele Dossier has basically been verified over time, and that dossier was released a long time ago. It predicted what we've seen so far. I'd bet good money the piss-tape is real. I don't know if it being released would be a good thing for the world, but... | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
(1) Russian active measures in 2016 election (2) President Trump obstructing Russia probe in 2017 (3) Trump-Russia collusion during 2016 (1) and (2) can be true without (3) also being true. Nobody has to prove (3). We need an independent commission for (1) and the special counsel / Comey have (2) under control. Number (3) is often beaten up as a straw man but it isn't really the story anymore. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On May 27 2017 13:51 Leporello wrote: Donald is arrogant, but he isn't actually a complete, total buffoon. Donald Trump knows when to quit something. A lot of his "success" in business is knowing when to quit. He has an ego -- but that's what lets him quit. He is perfectly capable of walking away from anything with his head held high, and a truckload of excuses. I'd also like to point that literally everything else but the piss-tape in the Steele Dossier has basically been verified over time, and that dossier was released a long time ago. It predicted what we've seen so far. I'd bet good money the piss-tape is real. I don't know if it being released would be a good thing for the world, but... When he talks about anything he has "quit" he talks about how great he was at it and how great a deal he made. His airline failed and he brags about selling it for far less then he put in and his entire career is basically lined with similar options. The reason he has so many Russians connections is because American institutions were not financing him and not because of the economic crisis. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
After further consideration, I think maybe a lot of the outrage was because everyone who posts in the TL US politics thread identifies as a Nice White Person (except for xDaunt), and they took it personally when other people who identify as Nice White Persons were unjustly boycotted. That’s fair enough. It’s easier to feel sympathy for others who we identify with culturally/ethnically, etc. What really surprised me though were the responses to GH’s posts, which didn’t seem terribly unreasonable to me? It seems like people were upset that he wasn’t equally outraged about the persecution faced by Nice White People in Portland, but why the hell would he care about that? Sure, he admitted that he wasn’t terribly #concerned about the bad things which may happen to some Nice White People as a result of the boycotts, but I’m pretty sure he also said that he doesn’t think it’s problematic when Nice White People show proper respect and appreciation for the cultures they are influenced by in their cooking. I think he said that multiple times, correct me if I’m wrong... I think a lot of us suffer from a lack of perspective when it comes to racism, raycism, and Racism, so we get outraged about relatively minor things like the boycott. While people were expressing their outrage about that, GH may have been thinking about the black person who was boiled alive in Florida for shits and giggles (No one was charged). Or maybe the off duty black cop who was shot 28 times in Chicago by white officers because he violated a traffic law. You’ll never guess who was convicted for attempted murder in that case! (It was the black guy, obviously) Or hundreds of other examples I’m sure we can all come up with. Anyway, when it comes down to it, GH would (probably?) agree that boycotting all restaurants owned by people with white sounding names serving ethnic food is a little silly. Who gives a shit about that though when we have a justice system that treats tens of thousands of (disproportionately) black lives like disposable garbage each year? I propose that henceforth the Nice White People in this thread (myself included) aren’t allowed to complain about the grievous racial insults suffered by other Nice White People without first acknowledging that we are basically playing life on easy mode, and that the people playing on hardcore mode may not feel terribly sympathetic about our minor bullshit. | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On May 27 2017 14:02 Adreme wrote: When he talks about anything he has "quit" he talks about how great he was at it and how great a deal he made. His airline failed and he brags about selling it for far less then he put in and his entire career is basically lined with similar options. The reason he has so many Russians connections is because American institutions were not financing him and not because of the economic crisis. Tony Schwartz, Trump's ghostwriter for "Art of the Deal", says that he's going to find a way to resign and claim victory in the process. He has a very similar outlook on this to yours. | ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
You may not think it's the biggest issue in appropriation... well alright then, so then why take a stand? Why say it's not a big deal and then argue for it? I think it is only not a big deal insofar as this mentality remains trapped to a minority in Portland. A wider spread of this idea, seems to me, would further help entrench people along racial lines as people race to defend their heritage against anyone else using it. I look forward to the day that the British decide to declare cultural appropriation on everyone wearing a suit. Brummel, you bastard, why couldn't you have been from lowland Europe? I mean what exactly does it mean to show proper respect and appreciation for the ethnic food beyond that you thought it was great enough to found your livelihood upon it? Is a prayer required? Do we need to pull a British Columbian indigenous acknowledgment before every meal ("We acknowledge that we stand on the traditional territory of the Wet'suwet'en people" turns into "We acknowledge that the food for which we eat is the traditional food of the people of Nippon") Practically speaking, what does proper respect and appreciation mean? | ||
|
oBlade
United States6511 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On May 27 2017 13:45 ChristianS wrote: Fast thread moves fast. Okay so you've apparently mentioned before in the thread how you personally define 'fake news,' and I'm guessing at what 'fake news' means, so your interpretation is that I'm either naive or drinking my own kool-aid. Have you considered that I maybe missed the pages where you clarified that? Because I honestly have no clue what 'fake news' means when you use it. You've used words like "lied" to suggest that you think the stories are literal fabrications, but pressed for examples, you have to cite a) not particularly reputable individuals like Mensch, b) hypotheticals like "if I e-mailed CNN I bet they would publish w/e I e-mailed them" or c) cases where the facts of the story are true, but you think the headline or conclusions are deceptive. Like, Saudi Arabia did, in fact, donate a bunch of money to a charity Ivanka is credited with creating, and Trump did not appear to have a problem with that. But you think calling it the "Ivanka fund" is deceptive because the fund is not managed and run by Ivanka, it was merely a brainchild of hers (if I understand correctly). But the stories you're calling fake are, at worst, insufficiently clear in describing Ivanka's relationship to the fund. The facts are true, you just think the presentation of those facts is deceptive. My question wasn't about any of that. It was about whether there's any evidence of them actually fabricating stories whole-cloth. Not writing deceptive headlines, not burying ledes, but actually making up sources and publishing pure fiction as fact. You can argue that those other practices are sufficient for us to question their journalistic integrity, and that's fine, it's just not what I was asking. Because you allege that any random person like yourself could e-mail pure fiction to CNN and they'd publish it, but normal journalistic standards are designed to prevent scenarios like that. They're supposed to confirm the source's identity to be certain they're in a position to know about the material, and they're supposed to verify every story with at least two independent sources before publishing; it's possible that they're cheating on those rules, but evidence that they're cheating on those rules is exactly what I asked about and so far I haven't seen any. Maybe I missed that page of the thread too? I find it clear that journalistic standards are being waved. I won't keep repeating myself about a desire to twist out some form of "There's a kernel of truth at a deep level, which means only deception, which means fake news is an improper term." I've found your explaining to be a bit too far on the side of someone pissing on the boots and calling it rain. Sure, a liquid fell from above, so I'm not fully lying right? Spicer met with his team prior to a press conference, but somebody could allege he was hiding. Congressmen are joking around about everybody being on Putin's payroll, it's a politically explosive assertion in private, sworn to secrecy immediately afterwards. With a base level of understanding that they'll twist words to start stories, it becomes very dubious that Comey really asked for more money and Rosenstein threatened to resign ... he could even have said the Russia media hysteria makes him want to quit and you bet some aide will leak that as a threat to resign. AHCA makes rape a pre-existing condition ...it doesn't, CNN originally publishes that it did + Show Spoiler [Other Problems] + So far, the only examples offered as evidence that such discrimination is common have fallen far short. In CNN's story, a woman's insurance application was rejected for unspecified reasons that she believes were related to her history of domestic abuse, though the insurance company didn't actually provide any reason. She was able to get health coverage from another insurer not long after. In the story getting much more attention, a woman who had been sexually assaulted was prescribed anti-HIV medication as a precaution. When she tried to apply for new insurance coverage not long after, her application was denied because of a company policy against insuring anyone who had been on the HIV medication recently. The insurers did not initially deny her claim because she was a rape victim—they weren't even aware of that information at first, though she says she did later inform them. If anything, the company is guilty of not treating this woman differently based on her history of sexual assault. "How could anyone hear this story and not have skeptical alarm bells go off?" This 40-long tweet story is a good example breaking open a case. I didn't really mention all the retractions and PolitiFact pinocchios (props to them trying to claw back to relevance) because I had a sneaking suspicion that people would defend them on the merits (Gorsameth denies seeing retractions, for one). As opposed to defending the rush to publish, overlooking false premises, looking up the details, bad argumentation, and false conclusions, and retracting sometimes days later. So I say all of the above (small snippet, there's been loads ... ex Washington Examiner writeup) really to show the relevant outlets earn the fake news epithet through this pattern of behavior. I see proof that sources mislead to the true nature of the conversation, but reporters frequently take it at face value without corroboration. Leakers are mostly aligned at taking down Trump and have great motive to stretch the truth to its limits. Then, reporters clearly misrepresent transcripts in pursuit of an agenda. Stories get published with little attention to establishing the facts of the case. I gave a hypothetical along the lines of the pre-existing conditions story ... woman doesn't know why she was denied, it's reported she was denied based on domestic abuse ... woman denied for a company's policy on HIV-meds, reported it's because of her rape. It was published, everyone was outraged, none of its basic assertions were true and nobody reads the retractions/corrections/[u]changed headlines and weasel-words corrections (humorous) I'm only in here slightly interested in how much common sense is taking a vacation in Trump-Russia-Evil central 2017. I wanted to lay out enough of a pattern to see if one or two people could look at the falsehoods, deception, twisting, poor sourcing and admit it gives a reasonable person doubts that they can trust anonymously sourced articles in future. Also, essentially to conclude that journalistic ethics among widely read news sources are at a critically low period. Sometimes, you read things without preconceptions, so I wager there's some value in offering these up in a single post (especially if you've missed some pages haha. They're valuable to read to see goalpost shifting and consider why we have to grasp at straws to find underlying truth if its neck-deep in lies by omission or blatant mischaracterization). Because you'd be right to assume "normal journalistic standards" would prevent nearly all these untruthful stories in the past, and that surely is not the case now. But hey, maybe you won't take other people's words for it and will examine my case a bit more openly than in the past. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On May 27 2017 13:58 Wulfey_LA wrote: When it comes to Trump-Russia, there are three separate things you can consider. (1) Russian active measures in 2016 election (2) President Trump obstructing Russia probe in 2017 (3) Trump-Russia collusion during 2016 (1) and (2) can be true without (3) also being true. Nobody has to prove (3). We need an independent commission for (1) and the special counsel / Comey have (2) under control. Number (3) is often beaten up as a straw man but it isn't really the story anymore. You're right that the story is obstruction right now. Not really the technically illegal kind (a pretty high burden if you look at the statute) but getting very close to "high crimes and misdemeanors" compared to previous assertions of collusion. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On May 27 2017 14:49 Danglars wrote: You're right that the story is obstruction right now. Not really the technically illegal kind (a pretty high burden if you look at the statute) but getting very close to "high crimes and misdemeanors" compared to previous assertions of collusion. Some slow witted media Dems still talk about (3) Russia Collusion and a lot of Rightists pundits will deflect by saying there isn't proof of (3). But (3) is the great unknown. The (1) Active Measures [see, the crazy story about the fake email that forced Comey's hand regarding HRC] and (2) Trump's actions as President [terminating Comey when he wouldn't bend the knee] matter far more than any imaginable Wikileaks collaboration. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
It's a weird zero-sum view of business- like the ignorant authors that moan about JK Rowling publishing yet another book 'consuming the market share' as though fans of Rowling would have otherwise bought the book of an entirely unknown author just because Rowling decided to fall on her sword and not publish for two decades in order to share the wealth. That's really not how things work in a market economy. There's always room for a rival business, but not everyone will succeed. White supremacist culture isn't the problem. It's just really that difficult to be a start-up business. by modifying foods to market to white palates Also, apparently they are against meeting the demands of many of your customers (Portland being 72% white). If the list was created by failed business owners, perhaps that was part of the problem: not knowing your market. In addition, if white restaurants are modifiying the food... is that transformative and is that a sufficient adaptation or modification so that cultural copyright (appropriation) can no longer be claimed as it is now a derivative work? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24354 Posts
PORTLAND, Ore. — Two people died and one person was injured following a stabbing attack inside a MAX train Friday afternoon. Police were called to the Hollywood Transit Center in Northeast Portland around 4:30 p.m. One man was pronounced dead at the scene and another man was hospitalized but was quickly pronounced dead. A third person had non-life threatening injuries. Witnesses say triple stabbing aboard MAX train started as a hate crime attack Prior to the attack, police say the suspect was yelling hateful statements at two Muslim girls, one of whom was wearing a hijab. His speech was not specifically anti-Muslim and his behavior was erratic, Portland Police Bureau Sgt. Pete Simpson said. The suspect then stabbed two bystanders who attempted to de-escalate the situation, police confirmed. A third person was stabbed as well. "When the train stopped moving, the guy who stabbed them was cursing and he said, 'This is free America, I can do whatever I want,'" a witness said. The suspect hasn't been named but police described him as a white man between the ages of 20 and 40 years old. Source Sure this will generate far more attention than some stupid restaurant story... | ||
| ||
|
|
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
GSL
Yamato Cup
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Jaedong
WardiTV Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
