|
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 July 25 2017 21:34 Plansix wrote:
I'm confused by the article's premise, am I supposed to take the republicans seriously on Russia? The republicans controlled congress for 6 year, didn't this also happen on their watch? Why if the real answer is that winner takes all, win by any means necessary style politics is harmful to the nation as a whole?
I agree with this to some extent, in that the reason any of this (specifically the hacking and all the events directly following) happened was that there were people in power that decided to propagate it all - not out of genuine concern but more out of good old fashioned opportunism.
But don't forget that the blame can go both ways. Republicans took an obtusely pro-Russian-hacking stance, whereas Democrats took the "Russia evil! Russia evil! Russia evil!" stance to bury their own deep-seated faults.
The former just happened to be the political winner.
|
Sorry but I don't accept the premise that Republicans have to defend Trump because Democrats are going to hard or overboard on the Russian conspiracy.
The 180 made by Republicans in their stance on Russia from the day that they started working to help them win the election is staggering and shown the complete lack of integrity or sincerity, let alone their vaunted sense of patriotism.
The fact that after all the evidence we have today, much of which comes out of Trump and his associates own mouths, they would still defend him and even try to shift blame to the Democrats?
You don't give shit about your values, your country or your ideals. You're selling your soul just so you can 'win' for a little while longer.
|
On July 25 2017 21:13 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 21:02 tomatriedes wrote:An article relevant to some of the recent discussion in this thread: Over the past two decades, an immense amount of journalistic energy was spent exploring the right-wing media ecosystem—from talk radio, to Fox News, to Breitbart and beyond—and documenting its growing influence on mainstream GOP politics. This turned out to be a worthy and prescient pursuit, and if any doubt remains about that, I’d present “President Donald Trump” as Exhibit A. While serious Republicans in the political class spent years scoffing at the “entertainers” and “provocateurs” on the supposedly powerless fringe, the denizens of the fever swamp were busy taking over the party.
But 2017 poses the question: Could the same thing happen on the left?
It’s a prospect that deserves more serious attention and debate than it’s gotten this year. The Trump era has given rise to a vast alternative left-wing media infrastructure that operates largely out of the view of casual news consumers, but commands a massive audience and growing influence in liberal America. There are polemical podcasters and partisan click farms; wild-eyed conspiracists and cynical fabulists. Some traffic heavily in rumor and wage campaigns of misinformation; others are merely aggregators and commentators who have carved out a corner of the web for themselves. But taken together, they form a media universe where partisan hysteria is too easily stoked, and fake news can travel at the speed of light.
Before we go on, let me try to quiet the cries of “False equivalence!” before they begin: No, these personalities and publications do not yet wield the same influence in the Democratic Party that their counterparts do in the GOP. But ignoring them would be a mistake. In recent months, some of the most irresponsible actors in this world have proven alarmingly adept at influencing venerated figures of the left—from public intellectuals, to world-famous celebrities, to elected officials. www.theatlantic.com See Louise Mensch. The Alex Jones of the left.
She isn't left wing or remotely close to it (see: her political career in the UK). Alex Jones is very much consistent in his performance and courting of a specific crowd, unlike her. At this point he's very much a political animal with political goals, even if he's generally spreading bullshit.
She's closer to Glenn Beck. A huckster who profits off the insecurities of the easily conned. The fact that people think she's at all associated with the left is testament of how well she plays her game in the age of social media. She has nothing but contempt for the left but playing this game is easy money and attention for her, just like Beck's come to Jesus moment last year.
|
The faults of the Democratic Party are not directly related to the Russian hack and interference. Expecting the democrats to become "free of sin" before they can raise the alarm on the Russia issue is pure partisan gate keeping. "I'll take you seriously as soon as you confess to all the things I accused you of," is setting up an ever moving goal post in my opinion.
This isn't to stay the democrats don't have serious problems. They do. But that doesn't preclude every member of their party from speaking about the the Trump/Russia connection.
|
On July 25 2017 22:15 Plansix wrote:
The faults of the Democratic Party are not directly related to the Russian hack and interference. Expecting the democrats to become "free of sin" before they can raise the alarm on the Russia issue is pure partisan gate keeping. "I'll take you seriously as soon as you confess to all the things I accused you of," is setting up an ever moving goal post in my opinion.
This isn't to stay the democrats don't have serious problems. They do. But that doesn't preclude every member of their party from speaking about the the Trump/Russia connection.
No, it definitely doesn't mean that at all. Would be nice if that wasn't all they really talked about.
Obvious retort is that the Russia matter will suck up more attention than everything else. I don't think that's the case, seeing as how much important policy matters like healthcare take priority. And let's face it, Democrats could do better than going balls to the wall on Obamacare.
|
Been gone 4 days. Come back and things are still the same. Don't change TL.
It's been said over and over and over. Democrats/leftists in this thread have acknowledged the faults of the party. The persons in power in the party have not. Or simply refuse to blame themselves because of pride/ego/narcissism. You can skip over talking about the failures of the Dems in the elections. The people here get that. You keep that revolving door spinning.
|
On July 25 2017 22:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 22:15 Plansix wrote:
The faults of the Democratic Party are not directly related to the Russian hack and interference. Expecting the democrats to become "free of sin" before they can raise the alarm on the Russia issue is pure partisan gate keeping. "I'll take you seriously as soon as you confess to all the things I accused you of," is setting up an ever moving goal post in my opinion.
This isn't to stay the democrats don't have serious problems. They do. But that doesn't preclude every member of their party from speaking about the the Trump/Russia connection. No, it definitely doesn't mean that at all. Would be nice if that wasn't all they really talked about. Obvious retort is that the Russia matter will suck up more attention than everything else. I don't think that's the case, seeing as how much important policy matters like healthcare take priority. And let's face it, Democrats could do better than going balls to the wall on Obamacare.
Why? The Democrats are not in charge of any branch of government. Republicans campaigned for years on repealing the ACA. Let them figure that stuff out, you don't have your political opponents the miracle plan they have been looking for (which btw does not exist).
The ACA is doing ok, its not dying or imploding as the Republicans would have you believe, so why do the Democrats need to act?
|
The republicans are making it hard since they don’t even have a bill they are set on voting on. The Democrats, lacking specifics, have been forced to argue that “all the Republicans plans are terrible because we have no idea what is going on.” In general, I think they have put forth a good opposition movement for the tiny amount of power that they hold in congress. They have made it very hard to get through the senate, which was always going to be their best chance.
|
On July 25 2017 21:58 Gorsameth wrote:
Sorry but I don't accept the premise that Republicans have to defend Trump because Democrats are going to hard or overboard on the Russian conspiracy.
The 180 made by Republicans in their stance on Russia from the day that they started working to help them win the election is staggering and shown the complete lack of integrity or sincerity, let alone their vaunted sense of patriotism.
The fact that after all the evidence we have today, much of which comes out of Trump and his associates own mouths, they would still defend him and even try to shift blame to the Democrats?
You don't give shit about your values, your country or your ideals. You're selling your soul just so you can 'win' for a little while longer.
That is not what the article I linked says at all.
|
Democrats should just stay quiet, let the Reps move their bill through and let a couple hundred thousand die. Afterwards, they can present a better plan (basically the same ACA with single payer) and win back congress. Problem solved. In the mean time, they can put forward infrastructure bills, VA bills, and start work on extensive tax reform bills. Don't reveal anything until election season (which, ironically, is every fucking year).
|
On July 25 2017 22:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 21:58 Gorsameth wrote:
Sorry but I don't accept the premise that Republicans have to defend Trump because Democrats are going to hard or overboard on the Russian conspiracy.
The 180 made by Republicans in their stance on Russia from the day that they started working to help them win the election is staggering and shown the complete lack of integrity or sincerity, let alone their vaunted sense of patriotism.
The fact that after all the evidence we have today, much of which comes out of Trump and his associates own mouths, they would still defend him and even try to shift blame to the Democrats?
You don't give shit about your values, your country or your ideals. You're selling your soul just so you can 'win' for a little while longer. That is not what the article I linked says at all.
Democrats’ lack of introspection about their past policy failures, along with their amateurish, newfound zeal for opposing Russia, hurts the wider effort to convince the American public that Russian meddling in our democracy is a serious issue
Literally the first sentence you link is completely about that. "Democrats don't blame themselves and they go to hard on opposing Russia so we cannot take the threat seriously".
|
I think the article has some merits, but misses the forest while staring at the trees. The left and right are not the core problem facing politics. The problem lies in social media and the internet becoming the primary source for voter information. The venues for these fringe actors are not moderated and face no editorial review. The fact that Alex Jones still exists with a growing fan base larger than the population of Chicago should trouble everyone. And while traditional media gets raked over the coals daily as “fake news”, youtube, twitter and facebook are left out of the discussion.
|
On July 25 2017 21:13 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 21:02 tomatriedes wrote:An article relevant to some of the recent discussion in this thread: Over the past two decades, an immense amount of journalistic energy was spent exploring the right-wing media ecosystem—from talk radio, to Fox News, to Breitbart and beyond—and documenting its growing influence on mainstream GOP politics. This turned out to be a worthy and prescient pursuit, and if any doubt remains about that, I’d present “President Donald Trump” as Exhibit A. While serious Republicans in the political class spent years scoffing at the “entertainers” and “provocateurs” on the supposedly powerless fringe, the denizens of the fever swamp were busy taking over the party.
But 2017 poses the question: Could the same thing happen on the left?
It’s a prospect that deserves more serious attention and debate than it’s gotten this year. The Trump era has given rise to a vast alternative left-wing media infrastructure that operates largely out of the view of casual news consumers, but commands a massive audience and growing influence in liberal America. There are polemical podcasters and partisan click farms; wild-eyed conspiracists and cynical fabulists. Some traffic heavily in rumor and wage campaigns of misinformation; others are merely aggregators and commentators who have carved out a corner of the web for themselves. But taken together, they form a media universe where partisan hysteria is too easily stoked, and fake news can travel at the speed of light.
Before we go on, let me try to quiet the cries of “False equivalence!” before they begin: No, these personalities and publications do not yet wield the same influence in the Democratic Party that their counterparts do in the GOP. But ignoring them would be a mistake. In recent months, some of the most irresponsible actors in this world have proven alarmingly adept at influencing venerated figures of the left—from public intellectuals, to world-famous celebrities, to elected officials. www.theatlantic.com See Louise Mensch. The Alex Jones of the left.
Louise Mensch is not even slightly of the left
|
Think we're going to see at least one of Sessions fired or an actual attempt to follow up on "Lock Her Up!" pretty soon here. Wonder if at least part of this is him being upset Sessions didn't stop him from firing Comey and causing all this to blow up in his face.
|
On July 25 2017 21:34 Plansix wrote:
I'm confused by the article's premise, am I supposed to take the republicans seriously on Russia?
No....
The republicans controlled congress for 6 year, didn't this also happen on their watch? What if the real answer is that winner takes all, win by any means necessary style politics is harmful to the nation as a whole?
Congress doesn't do much foreign policy. The President has enormous powers to shape foreign policy according to his will. Unlike domestic policy, where he can't even technically propose legislation. But US presidential candidates spend the vast majority of their time discussing domestic policy, with very little attention paid to foreign policy, because most Americans can't find Afghanistan on a map, after we've been at war there for 17 years.
My point is that Obama has no one but himself to blame for his own foreign policy failures. Most of them were caused by Obama making decisions in foreign affairs on the primary basis of what would play best to his audience back home, not on the basis of what would have the best long-term impact on the world. (for evidence of this, see Ben Rhodes's profile in the NYT.) Obama could have taken the Russian threat seriously at any point during his presidency. He chose not to because that would have damaged his domestic political narrative of a successful "reset" with the Russians. Keep in mind, the "reset" came months after Russia invaded Georgia. As the article I linked pointed out, the passage of the Magnitsky Act was opposed by Democrats, because additional sanctions on Russia for its horrible actions undermined the Official Narrative that the misspelled "reset" had worked.
So instead Obama only woke up to join the fight at the 11th hour, when a greatly emboldened Russia began dramatically meddling in US domestic politics to the detriment of the Democratic party. Do I blame Obama for not taking the Russians seriously for a very long time, despite ample warnings, particularly after 2014? Absolutely.
The current outcry from the Democrat party over the Russia scandal does have validity, because it is a huge freaking scandal. That being said, I am somewhat cynical concerning the motivations of Democratic politicians. "For their current criticisms of the Trump administration to carry water, liberals will have to do more than simply apologize for regurgitating Obama’s insult that Republicans are retrograde Cold Warriors. They will have to renounce pretty much the entire Obama foreign policy legacy, which both underestimated and appeased Russia at every turn. Otherwise, their grave intonations about 'active measures,' 'kompromat' and other Soviet-era phenomena will continue sounding opportunistic, and their protestations about Trump being a Russian stooge will continue to have the appearance of being motivated solely by partisan politics."
|
If Sessions has any self respect left he'll resign today.
|
On July 25 2017 22:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Think we're going to see at least one of Sessions fired or an actual attempt to follow up on "Lock Her Up!" pretty soon here. Wonder if at least part of this is him being upset Sessions didn't stop him from firing Comey and causing all this to blow up in his face.
At the very least, sessions not pursuing Clinton is a pretty solid piece of evidence indicating they have no case. I think sessions is trying to save himself the embarrassment.
|
On July 25 2017 22:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 22:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 25 2017 21:58 Gorsameth wrote:
Sorry but I don't accept the premise that Republicans have to defend Trump because Democrats are going to hard or overboard on the Russian conspiracy.
The 180 made by Republicans in their stance on Russia from the day that they started working to help them win the election is staggering and shown the complete lack of integrity or sincerity, let alone their vaunted sense of patriotism.
The fact that after all the evidence we have today, much of which comes out of Trump and his associates own mouths, they would still defend him and even try to shift blame to the Democrats?
You don't give shit about your values, your country or your ideals. You're selling your soul just so you can 'win' for a little while longer. That is not what the article I linked says at all. Show nested quote +Democrats’ lack of introspection about their past policy failures, along with their amateurish, newfound zeal for opposing Russia, hurts the wider effort to convince the American public that Russian meddling in our democracy is a serious issue Literally the first sentence you link is completely about that. "Democrats don't blame themselves and they go to hard on opposing Russia so we cannot take the threat seriously".
Literally the third sentence.
As a longtime Russia hawk who has spent most of the past decade covering Kremlin influence operations across the West, I share their [Democrats] exasperation. Over the past year, I have authored pieces with headlines like “How Putin plays Trump like a piano,” “How Trump got his party to love Russia,” and, most recently in this space, “How the GOP became the party of Putin.” As I see it, conservatives’ nonchalance about Russia’s attempt to disrupt and discredit our democracy ranks as one of the most appalling developments in recent American political history.
|
On July 25 2017 23:04 Doodsmack wrote:
If Sessions has any self respect left he'll resign today.
What. Dude, you really don't want Sessions to resign. Nobody who wants Mueller's investigation to be done properly and thoroughly should want Sessions to resign. If Sessions resigns, there will be a new AG, almost certainly one who will not have to recuse from Mueller's investigation. If this new AG is a Trump loyalist, he will then fire Mueller for some BS reason. The Special Counsel statute requires that Mueller's firing be done "in writing, for good cause." So then we will get a national partisan debate food fight over whether whatever BS excuse is used to fire Mueller is "good cause" (hint: it won't be), and meanwhile there will be no investigation, which is exactly what Trump wants.
|
On July 25 2017 23:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 21:34 Plansix wrote:
I'm confused by the article's premise, am I supposed to take the republicans seriously on Russia? No.... Show nested quote +The republicans controlled congress for 6 year, didn't this also happen on their watch? What if the real answer is that winner takes all, win by any means necessary style politics is harmful to the nation as a whole? Congress doesn't do much foreign policy. The President has enormous powers to shape foreign policy according to his will. Unlike domestic policy, where he can't even technically propose legislation. But US presidential candidates spend the vast majority of their time discussing domestic policy, with very little attention paid to foreign policy, because most Americans can't find Afghanistan on a map, after we've been at war there for 17 years. My point is that Obama has no one but himself to blame for his own foreign policy failures. Most of them were caused by Obama making decisions in foreign affairs on the primary basis of what would play best to his audience back home, not on the basis of what would have the best long-term impact on the world. (for evidence of this, see Ben Rhodes's profile in the NYT.) Obama could have taken the Russian threat seriously at any point during his presidency. He chose not to because that would have damaged his domestic political narrative of a successful "reset" with the Russians. Keep in mind, the "reset" came months after Russia invaded Georgia. As the article I linked pointed out, the passage of the Magnitsky Act was opposed by Democrats, because additional sanctions on Russia for its horrible actions undermined the Official Narrative that the misspelled "reset" had worked. So instead Obama only woke up to join the fight at the 11th hour, when a greatly emboldened Russia began dramatically meddling in US domestic politics to the detriment of the Democratic party. Do I blame Obama for not taking the Russians seriously for a very long time, despite ample warnings, particularly after 2014? Absolutely. The current outcry from the Democrat party over the Russia scandal does have validity, because it is a huge freaking scandal. That being said, I am somewhat cynical concerning the motivations of Democratic politicians. "For their current criticisms of the Trump administration to carry water, liberals will have to do more than simply apologize for regurgitating Obama’s insult that Republicans are retrograde Cold Warriors. They will have to renounce pretty much the entire Obama foreign policy legacy, which both underestimated and appeased Russia at every turn. Otherwise, their grave intonations about 'active measures,' 'kompromat' and other Soviet-era phenomena will continue sounding opportunistic, and their protestations about Trump being a Russian stooge will continue to have the appearance of being motivated solely by partisan politics."
If the scandal does have validity, then it must deserve some attention from the Democratic party. To say you can't tell whether that attention is motivated solely by partisan politics is just kind of a cynical assumption, probably an attempt to deflect some attention back to the Democrats. There should be assumption that the attention to this issue from the Democratic party is legitimate, because the scandal is, on its face, legitimate. The scandal is also a new and unique issue, so talking about Obama's foreign policy is really just whataboutism. Russia was not conducting disinformation on this scale during the Obama administration.
A lot of conservative commentators are also cherry picking the most sensational statements from Democrats on this issue (like this guy saying Ivana was a Russian plant), and using that to brand the whole Democratic party and say its attention to the Russia scandal is illegitimate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
