|
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 October 18 2017 02:22 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 02:16 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2017 00:53 Mohdoo wrote:
Spending money to divide people is 100000000000000000000000000000x easier than spending money to unite people. Presidential campaigns are about inspiring confidence and positive emotions in a candidate. All Russia needed to do was make people fight, be skeptical of each other, and think of each other as other thans. That's a slam dunk and easy as shit. Nothing has to be accurate, dignified or anything. You can really just go balls deep because your only objective is to polarize a population. Have you already forgotten the ads Hillary ran? Seriously, if you can look at them and say her campaign ads were about inspiring confidence and positive emotions, you probably worked for the campaign. It was one of the most negative ad campaigns in my lifetime. She spent hundreds of millions and now we're pretending only Russia could've swayed people towards division. Ridiculous. Hillary ran an awful campaign. Focused ads mostly on Trump's character and quotes instead of policy issues, because it was the most effective in focus groups. The issue is that everyone already knew Trump was an awful human being, but they didn't really know what separated Hillary from him policywise except for the ads that Trump ran which were more policy based (and most americans don't think Hillary is a good person either, right or wrong).
I would also like to add that her team sucked. I am as Shillary as they get and she failed to replace the crew that lost to Obama in 2008. Obama came in with a stack of millenials and genX guys who could program. Kushner using geotargeting data through Cambridge Analytica was a vastly superior strategy than relying on big dollar buys of ads put together by boomer consultants.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I personally am sort of unsure what to make of the uranium story. Sounds like funny business but I don't know who looks culpable and who should see their time in prison for it. And so I dunno where to go from there.
|
On October 18 2017 02:30 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 02:25 Nebuchad wrote:On October 18 2017 02:21 LegalLord wrote:On October 18 2017 02:15 Nebuchad wrote:On October 18 2017 02:01 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2017 01:49 Velr wrote:On October 18 2017 01:44 Gorsameth wrote:
A Russian living in the US who pretends to be British, believes all EU posters live in Mega Cities and that Eastern Europeans cant integrate into the EU because they didn't accept USSR oppression is the last person anyone is going to take seriously on when it concerns Russia's actions.
Keep on shilling LL, gotta earn that Kremlin paycheck. We shoud copy paste this and just throw it at LL everyime he shows up in the EU tread... Good job  @realityisweirdasfuckforyourself No news is unbiased but Fox/Breitbard and co. are actively pushing agendas. Thats why they get shit on by everyone not on their page. Breitbart never pretended not to have an agenda, which is the key difference here. I never understood why republicans are so mad that the news have an agenda... The agenda is to keep things the way they are because that helps the people in power. The way things are is a strong democratic party who is quite corporatist and pretends to be the left, and a strong republican party who is intellectually and morally bankrupt. If the news didn't have this agenda, it would be harsher on your party. You can look at the news from other countries, who I'm sure you'll agree don't have any specific agenda regarding what happens in your politics; do you think they tell us republicans and Trump are awesome or something? To be fair our most active conservatives here are very disappointed with their party and would not mind shitting on it more. Following that, it's surprising that they would echo the "news is biased against us waaaaah" criticism, cause that one very demonstrably emanates from the "party" type of republican support, in an effort to hide the fact that they're comically evil. I never got the impression that they vote party line, it's more like their balance of concerns is different enough from what some wish it would be in such a way that voting Republican makes sense often.
I can agree with that to an extent, but that's not really an answer to my question is it?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
From everything I have read, it feels like Hillary's campaign was too heavily focused on control - control of the agenda (against the Sandernista onslaught), control over campaign operations, control over establishment support, and so on. It was clear that they saw no path to defeat against Trump, that he was so bad and the circumstances of the election were so favorable that a loss could not happen. But then this-and-that event happened, and both campaigns hit a serious rock-bottom of approval (and for those that want a Russia connection, this is where it would have come into play). Ultimately it was so close that the "impossible" ended up happening because for two shitty candidates the one with a surprisingly strong base of dedicated support carried the day.
Dumbstruck by a surprise loss, the huge base of establishment folk who were in the tank for Hillary have flailed aimlessly since, trying to prove that Trump is sooo bad (he is, we know) and that foreigners and deplorables brought us here. Though little thought as to where to go from "here" rather than perhaps just back to Clinton.
|
On October 18 2017 02:41 LegalLord wrote:
I personally am sort of unsure what to make of the uranium story. Sounds like funny business but I don't know who looks culpable and who should see their time in prison for it. And so I dunno where to go from there.
The first step is to investigate why Rosenstein and McCabe quashed the investigation and the context of that decision. It's entirely possible that no punishable crime took place, just bad judgement. It doesn't seem likely, but starting with "who should we send to jail/punish" isn't how our justice system works.
At least not until we start hailing our Russian overlords.
|
Ah, Rosenstein. This all make way more sense now.
|
On October 18 2017 02:53 LegalLord wrote:
From everything I have read, it feels like Hillary's campaign was too heavily focused on control - control of the agenda (against the Sandernista onslaught), control over campaign operations, control over establishment support, and so on. It was clear that they saw no path to defeat against Trump, that he was so bad and the circumstances of the election were so favorable that a loss could not happen. But then this-and-that event happened, and both campaigns hit a serious rock-bottom of approval (and for those that want a Russia connection, this is where it would have come into play). Ultimately it was so close that the "impossible" ended up happening because for two shitty candidates the one with a surprisingly strong base of dedicated support carried the day.
Dumbstruck by a surprise loss, the huge base of establishment folk who were in the tank for Hillary have flailed aimlessly since, trying to prove that Trump is sooo bad (he is, we know) and that foreigners and deplorables brought us here. Though little thought as to where to go from "here" rather than perhaps just back to Clinton.
Then dumbstruck for a second time to by why America wasn't totally on board with the politicization of everything and resisting everything Trump says and does. It turns out that giving up on the argument and going for character assassinations makes for some very plucky opponents.
Then double down on how "whiteness" is the problem and deplorables in general are still the real plague on America's democracy and politics. They've been getting what they deserved.
|
(attorney who argued the case)
edit; wasnt scotus, was district court. dude did a lot of stuff in front of scotus so made an assumption my b.
|
You'd think after trying 3 times they would learn how to structure it to not get blocked.
|
On October 18 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:You'd think after trying 3 times they would learn how to structure it to not get blocked.
It is a problem when the underlying thing they are attempting to do is so legally questionable.
|
On October 18 2017 03:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 02:53 LegalLord wrote:
From everything I have read, it feels like Hillary's campaign was too heavily focused on control - control of the agenda (against the Sandernista onslaught), control over campaign operations, control over establishment support, and so on. It was clear that they saw no path to defeat against Trump, that he was so bad and the circumstances of the election were so favorable that a loss could not happen. But then this-and-that event happened, and both campaigns hit a serious rock-bottom of approval (and for those that want a Russia connection, this is where it would have come into play). Ultimately it was so close that the "impossible" ended up happening because for two shitty candidates the one with a surprisingly strong base of dedicated support carried the day.
Dumbstruck by a surprise loss, the huge base of establishment folk who were in the tank for Hillary have flailed aimlessly since, trying to prove that Trump is sooo bad (he is, we know) and that foreigners and deplorables brought us here. Though little thought as to where to go from "here" rather than perhaps just back to Clinton. Then dumbstruck for a second time to by why America wasn't totally on board with the politicization of everything and resisting everything Trump says and does. It turns out that giving up on the argument and going for character assassinations makes for some very plucky opponents. Then double down on how "whiteness" is the problem and deplorables in general are still the real plague on America's democracy and politics. They've been getting what they deserved.
Trump's approval is down around 1/3, so I'd say the resistance is doing pretty well.
|
I love that the source for this is apparently anonymous
|
On October 18 2017 02:15 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 02:01 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2017 01:49 Velr wrote:On October 18 2017 01:44 Gorsameth wrote:
A Russian living in the US who pretends to be British, believes all EU posters live in Mega Cities and that Eastern Europeans cant integrate into the EU because they didn't accept USSR oppression is the last person anyone is going to take seriously on when it concerns Russia's actions.
Keep on shilling LL, gotta earn that Kremlin paycheck. We shoud copy paste this and just throw it at LL everyime he shows up in the EU tread... Good job @realityisweirdasfuckforyourself No news is unbiased but Fox/Breitbard and co. are actively pushing agendas. Thats why they get shit on by everyone not on their page. Breitbart never pretended not to have an agenda, which is the key difference here. I never understood why republicans are so mad that the news have an agenda... The agenda is to keep things the way they are because that helps the people in power. The way things are is a strong democratic party who is quite corporatist and pretends to be the left, and a strong republican party who is intellectually and morally bankrupt. If the news didn't have this agenda, it would be harsher on your party. Unbiased news would treat republicans worse than your news treat them. You can look at the news from other countries, who I'm sure you'll agree don't have any specific agenda regarding what happens in your politics; do you think they tell us republicans and Trump are awesome or something?
Media in other countries know their consumers are generally against Trump, and inclined to give them what they want: Trump bashing. Being biased about other countries has much less consequenzes, just think about how countries like North Korea and Sudan are generally covered.
Trump is all about polarisation, and makes it very difficult for any newspaper or tv station to be unbiased. Many have even tried, and failed, because he simply bullshits too much.
|
Hmmm. Remarks from an influential investor :
Marc Faber, the über-bearish author of an investing newsletter who frequently appears as a guest on financial TV, wrote in his latest "Gloom, Doom, and Boom" report that he was glad the US "enjoyed 200 years in the economic and political sun under a white majority."
In the October edition of his report, which is available only in print and was seen by Business Insider, Faber focused on the economic policies of major governments.
In a section of the report discussing "Free Markets and Capitalism Versus Socialism," Faber variously decried the tearing down of Confederate monuments as well as what he called the "liberal media" and New York City's "righteous socialist" mayor, Bill de Blasio.
Faber said contemporary society focused too much on issues like the monuments rather than on issues such as the growing amount of outstanding debt and "unfunded government pension liabilities." The report then went into an aside regarding his thoughts on the Confederate monuments.
From the report:
"I don't want to enter into a serious discussion of the tearing down of monuments of historical personalities, but I cannot omit mentioning how the liberal hypocrites condemned the Taliban when they blew up the world's two largest standing Buddhas (one of them 165 feet high), situated at the foot of the Hindu Kush mountains of central Afghanistan, in 2001. But the very same people are now disturbed by statues of honourable people whose only crime was to defend what all societies had done for more than 5,000 years: keep a part of the population enslaved. And thank God white people populated America, and not the blacks. Otherwise, the US would look like Zimbabwe, which it might look like one day anyway, but at least America enjoyed 200 years in the economic and political sun under a white majority. I am not a racist, but the reality — no matter how politically incorrect — needs to be spelled out as well. (And let's not forget that the African tribal heads were more than happy to sell their own slaves to white, black, and Arab slave dealers.)"
Faber, also known as "Dr. Doom," has been a provocative market commentator for some time, predicting that various possible economic calamities would cause large crashes in the stock market.
Faber confirmed to Business Insider that the report was authentic.
"I am naturally standing by this comment since this is an undisputable fact," Faber said in an email.
In a follow-up email, Faber further defended the note: "If stating some historical facts makes me a racist, then I suppose that I am a racist. For years, Japanese were condemned because they denied the Nanking massacre."
http://www.businessinsider.com/marc-faber-investment-letter-white-people-blacks-confederate-statues-2017-10
|
Cherry picking historical fact can, in fact, make you a racist.
|
Faber is a perma-bear who has made a career out of heavily implying that the market is going to crash each year because of a bunch of warning signs, then declares himself a genius visionary when it finally does happen every decade or so. But when it doesn't, he just says he was pointing to underlying instability or whatever. I do remember when he said that low interest rates would lead to Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation though, that was funny. He's a B-tier or C-tier investor, but a pretty good self promoter.
But anyways, sounds like he's got some more hot takes.
|
I expected a "he spoke to him instead" as the followup to that first tweet tbh
|
On October 18 2017 05:55 Nevuk wrote:
From the report:
"I don't want to enter into a serious discussion of the tearing down of monuments of historical personalities, but I cannot omit mentioning how the liberal hypocrites condemned the Taliban when they blew up the world's two largest standing Buddhas (one of them 165 feet high), situated at the foot of the Hindu Kush mountains of central Afghanistan, in 2001. But the very same people are now disturbed by statues of honourable people whose only crime was to defend what all societies had done for more than 5,000 years: keep a part of the population enslaved. And thank God white people populated America, and not the blacks. Otherwise, the US would look like Zimbabwe, which it might look like one day anyway, but at least America enjoyed 200 years in the economic and political sun under a white majority. I am not a racist, but the reality — no matter how politically incorrect — needs to be spelled out as well. (And let's not forget that the African tribal heads were more than happy to sell their own slaves to white, black, and Arab slave dealers.)"
"I am not a racist, but...": the slogan of every racist under the sun.
|
On October 18 2017 06:24 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 05:55 Nevuk wrote:
From the report:
"I don't want to enter into a serious discussion of the tearing down of monuments of historical personalities, but I cannot omit mentioning how the liberal hypocrites condemned the Taliban when they blew up the world's two largest standing Buddhas (one of them 165 feet high), situated at the foot of the Hindu Kush mountains of central Afghanistan, in 2001. But the very same people are now disturbed by statues of honourable people whose only crime was to defend what all societies had done for more than 5,000 years: keep a part of the population enslaved. And thank God white people populated America, and not the blacks. Otherwise, the US would look like Zimbabwe, which it might look like one day anyway, but at least America enjoyed 200 years in the economic and political sun under a white majority. I am not a racist, but the reality — no matter how politically incorrect — needs to be spelled out as well. (And let's not forget that the African tribal heads were more than happy to sell their own slaves to white, black, and Arab slave dealers.)" "I am not a racist, but...": the slogan of every racist under the sun.
I am not a racist, but thank god for white people am I right? Thank GOD the blacks did not found america... not racist at all
|
Hmm that sounds familiar
Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.
They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
On this whole Russia thing, you guys are giving LL a lot of shit (some of it rightfully so) but go back to when this was first getting started. I've asked several times what it was about this that was actually upsetting people and made them think it was a huge deal. The answers rarely came and when they did they usually didn't make any sense and have moved "goalposts" as much or more than LL.
Someone mentioned "Trump's approval is at 1/3 so the resistance is doing a good job." That's the resistance in a nutshell. Get his approval to where it was when he beat Hillary to become president and pat themselves on the back.
I'll ask again just in case things have changed:
What is it about this Russia controversy that is significantly different than US psyops/political ops around the world?
On October 18 2017 06:24 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2017 05:55 Nevuk wrote:
From the report:
"I don't want to enter into a serious discussion of the tearing down of monuments of historical personalities, but I cannot omit mentioning how the liberal hypocrites condemned the Taliban when they blew up the world's two largest standing Buddhas (one of them 165 feet high), situated at the foot of the Hindu Kush mountains of central Afghanistan, in 2001. But the very same people are now disturbed by statues of honourable people whose only crime was to defend what all societies had done for more than 5,000 years: keep a part of the population enslaved. And thank God white people populated America, and not the blacks. Otherwise, the US would look like Zimbabwe, which it might look like one day anyway, but at least America enjoyed 200 years in the economic and political sun under a white majority. I am not a racist, but the reality — no matter how politically incorrect — needs to be spelled out as well. (And let's not forget that the African tribal heads were more than happy to sell their own slaves to white, black, and Arab slave dealers.)" "I am not a racist, but...": the slogan of every racist under the sun.
Looking forward to Black Panther.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
