|
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 November 01 2017 13:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 13:17 Danglars wrote:On November 01 2017 13:02 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the whole Russia/Trump collusion narrative went on life support today: Top lawyers from Facebook and Twitter said Tuesday that Russian-linked posts and advertisements placed on the social networks after Election Day sought to sow doubt about President Donald Trump's victory.
Facebook general counsel Colin Stretch told a Senate Judiciary panel that content generated by a Russian troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency after Nov. 8 centered on “fomenting discord about the validity of [Trump’s] election.” That's a change from Russia's pre-election activity, which was largely centered on trying to denigrate Hillary Clinton, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in a January report.
“During the election, they were trying to create discord between Americans, most of it directed against Clinton. After the election you saw Russian-tied groups and organizations trying to undermine President Trump’s legitimacy. Is that what you saw on Facebook?” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked at the hearing.
Stretch and his Twitter counterpart, Sean Edgett, called that an "accurate" statement.
The disclosure opened a new wrinkle in the continuing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, which has increasingly focused on the role of the biggest internet companies. Tuesday's hearing marks the first time representatives of Facebook, Google and Twitter have testified publicly about what they've learned about Kremlin meddling on their platforms in the presidential campaign. The companies face additional lawmaker scrutiny Wednesday with back-to-back hearings by the Senate and House Intelligence committees.
James Lewis, an international cyber policy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the revelation about Russian anti-Trump activity on social media post-election fits with typical Kremlin information-warfare efforts.
“Their goal is to create confusion and dissent. The target is the U.S. and NATO, not any particular candidate. They just want chaos," Lewis said. "It went from being a grudge match against Clinton to what they thought was a priceless opportunity to inflict harm." Source. Efforts that paled in comparison to the media establishments adopted narrative. I think that it would be more fun to point out that the entire left wing establishment has been a tool of the Russians. Some heads might actually explode from the cognitive dissonance.
I'd think a lawyer and a constitution wonk would appreciation your courts getting the workout.
|
On November 01 2017 13:02 xDaunt wrote:Looks like the whole Russia/Trump collusion narrative went on life support today: Show nested quote +Top lawyers from Facebook and Twitter said Tuesday that Russian-linked posts and advertisements placed on the social networks after Election Day sought to sow doubt about President Donald Trump's victory.
Facebook general counsel Colin Stretch told a Senate Judiciary panel that content generated by a Russian troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency after Nov. 8 centered on “fomenting discord about the validity of [Trump’s] election.” That's a change from Russia's pre-election activity, which was largely centered on trying to denigrate Hillary Clinton, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in a January report.
“During the election, they were trying to create discord between Americans, most of it directed against Clinton. After the election you saw Russian-tied groups and organizations trying to undermine President Trump’s legitimacy. Is that what you saw on Facebook?” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked at the hearing.
Stretch and his Twitter counterpart, Sean Edgett, called that an "accurate" statement.
The disclosure opened a new wrinkle in the continuing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, which has increasingly focused on the role of the biggest internet companies. Tuesday's hearing marks the first time representatives of Facebook, Google and Twitter have testified publicly about what they've learned about Kremlin meddling on their platforms in the presidential campaign. The companies face additional lawmaker scrutiny Wednesday with back-to-back hearings by the Senate and House Intelligence committees.
James Lewis, an international cyber policy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the revelation about Russian anti-Trump activity on social media post-election fits with typical Kremlin information-warfare efforts.
“Their goal is to create confusion and dissent. The target is the U.S. and NATO, not any particular candidate. They just want chaos," Lewis said. "It went from being a grudge match against Clinton to what they thought was a priceless opportunity to inflict harm." Source.
Am I misremembering you posting quite a bit at the time about how the #NotMyPresident people were only strengthening Trump by making his opposition look petty and extreme? If so, why would Russia feeding that side contradict anybody's Trump/Russia narrative?
I get that you liked the sensationalism of your introduction to that article. But unless I misremember what your position was at the time, it's a direct contradiction to your own arguments.
|
The way people responded to that article you would think no one ever suggested that Russia was helping Trump in exchange for favorable legislation/regulation.
You guys could try to own it at least a little bit.
|
I remember that right after Trump won, some high-ranking Russian officials straight up said that they expected nothing to change with regards to sanctions policy. Nothing really did. Although the diplomatic tit-for-tats have become a wee bit stupider lately.
|
On November 01 2017 14:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
The way people responded to that article you would think no one ever suggested that Russia was helping Trump in exchange for favorable legislation/regulation.
You guys could try to own it at least a little bit.
You could try to own anything said by every Tom, Dick and Harry on the subject of white supremacy at least a little bit. I'm not actually going to ask you to because it's an unreasonable request.
That being said, the concept that Russia told/implied to members of the Trump team they wanted favourable legislation because it's a better pitch than "we're trying to sabotage your country's institutions", and that Russia wouldn't have objected to any favourable legislation which did come about as a result, doesn't seem at all inconsistent with Russia covertly trying to make Trump look bad once he was the President-in-waiting.
|
On November 01 2017 14:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
The way people responded to that article you would think no one ever suggested that Russia was helping Trump in exchange for favorable legislation/regulation.
You guys could try to own it at least a little bit.
You'd think the way people are crowing about this article, the exact same things weren't said months ago when 1) this whole thing first started, and 2) when the Facebook ad thing first came up.
Yes, we already knew that Russia took out ads against multiple parties and candidates. I know some people don't like reading news from sources they call fake, but people really should try to keep up.
|
United States43534 Posts
Does anyone have any clue why xDaunt thinks
1) Russia actively worked with Trump to help him get elected
and
2) Russia muddied the waters once Trump was elected
can't both be true?
Because it seems a lot likeWhy would Russia try to weaken the position of the American president after working so hard to put the weakest candidate there? and I'm just not getting which part of it isn't meant to make sense.
|
Would make a boring Hollywood movie without a straightforward plot and singular endgame, or something, so it can't be true.
|
|
|
On November 01 2017 03:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 02:49 Artisreal wrote:On November 01 2017 02:38 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 01 2017 01:28 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2017 19:32 Danglars wrote:
Boehner’s having some fun in his retirement.
Deserved because Trump is just that bad?
For farva and Mr Kulturkampf. if your intention was to discredit her publication by posting a tweet that doesn't offer anything regarding what it states ("ignores founding fathers") in the link posted, you failed miserably. The wording of the tweet probably already triggered you so reading comprehension was down the drain already. nothing less to expect from you though. Important take-away from her text might be: Show nested quote + Implicit in the metaphor is the idea that we will have reached gender equality when men and women alike embrace both halves of their humanity: masculinity and femininity.[/qoute] Note that this means to accept a virtue as something desirable in whomever it manifests, be it man or woman. A "female virtue", say compassion, is not a weakness in a man as vigour isn't in a woman. What you also could have noted by reading is, that feminism isn't just about women. + Show Spoiler +Feminist critiques of projects like Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In (2013), for example—those that exhort women to compete with men in male-dominated workplaces—suggest that women’s embrace of masculinity may be good for individual women but actually quite bad for society.9 Relishing competition over cooperation, taking pleasure in beating opponents, and showing no remorse for hoarding wealth and exploiting power are features of a masculine “politics of domination.”10 Is it really a better world if half of the winners of this game are women? It's about equality. And her final paragraphs adress her take on toxic masculinity + Show Spoiler +If we’re going to survive both President Trump and the kind of people he has emboldened, we need to attack masculinity directly. I don’t mean that we should recuperate masculinity—that is, press men to identify with a kinder, gentler version of it—I mean that we should reject the idea that men have a psychic need to distinguish themselves from women in order to feel good about themselves. This idea is sexist on its face and it’s unsettling that we so rarely think of it that way.
In fact, we should be as suspicious of males who strongly identify as men as we are of white people who strongly identify as white. We should understand, in hindsight, that one of the reasons women were so keen to embrace masculinity in the first place was because it feels good to feel superior. And we should recognize, as well, that it is men’s belief that they should be superior to women and other men that is the cause of so much of their rage, self-hatred, and suffering.
We are here in Trump’s America in part because we have been too delicate in our treatment of dangerous ideas. The problem is not toxic masculinity; it’s that masculinity is toxic. Its appeal is its alluring promise that if we obey it, we can all bask in a sense of superiority over someone. It’s simply not compatible with liberty and justice for all.
If we are going to finish the gender revolution, then, we need to call masculinity out as a hazardous ideology and denounce anyone who chooses to identify with it. We need to stop talking about what it means to be a “real man” or an “empowered woman,” and begin talking, instead, about what it means to be a good person and a good citizen. Our nation’s future depends upon it. icon This, again, underscores that feminism isn't about women dominating men, but to disavow the domination of one another as a goal and aspiration. It doesn’t get much better/different in light of the quoted portion. It’s not about separating toxic from regular and recuperating the term ... it’s about rejecting the entire idea in her view. It’s pretty much straight radical egalitarianism. It stuck out to me because farva pulled out toxic masculinity by saying its just I’ll defined in English compared to machismo. I was interested if he (and others from those pages) were willing to admit the term and it’s use does apply broadly in areas of academia and it’s a natural takeaway from today’s use of the term. As opposed to defined narrowly and having natural limits. For all I know, the conversation has shifted again and the people from that conversation are in wholehearted agreement. In addition to what kwark said, can you rephrase the bolded part? I'm too dumb to understand it. Might also be an autocorrect issue but I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. The entire three paragraphs are the basic screed. She says we need to attack masculinity directly, not recuperate (separate out toxic, what I understood to be farva’s point). That it’s all about feeling good about yourself and the need to stand opposed. That masculinity itself is suspicious for arousing feelings of superiority. Masculinity is a hazardous ideology. These are her arguments and are stunning. Femininity and masculinity were previously realized as a broad range of personality traits, attitudes, and sometimes virtues that stood somewhat opposed to each other and somewhat not (compare how innocent it is for asking a man to get more in touch with his feminine side). Abandoning one side of that structure is core sexual egalitarianism. It’s right there in the writing. I’m too much convinced that people have made up their mind on third wave feminism and toxic masculinity to argue someone into believing that today’s emanations are dangerous to society. My first question was if the forum leftists agreed with this person’s take or disagreed: its masculinity itself that needs to be opposed and talking about toxic (as differentiated) falls by the wayside. Not reform but dismantlement. My second question from people that remember the machismo discussion was if they could now see why some men conclude toxic masculinity was always about making the term overbroad and attacking the base.
If virtues oppose each other, how is one of them not false? Or the attribution to a gender arbitrary?
She argues that the distinction between toxic masculinity and masculinity blurred due to trump (simplified) and thus the way society sees how a man must be is standing between now and equal rights for all.
But not wanting to dismiss your comment, what are contrasting examples of sides/virtues in your mind?
That both are valuable character traits for the individual and society as a whole?
Why is asking a man to get in touch with his feminine side ridiculous? Because it is based on the notion that we have different sides, though the attribution of those is just societal. Again, her point. I don't know where you are going to with this comment. You also leave out that this broad range of traits was acceptable only with a relatively small overlap. Egoistic woman - bad mother, caring man - weakling, independent woman - hard to get, independent man - role model. (Examples in part exaggerated)
As I'm pretty sure we don't have a similar understanding what you mean with base sexual egalitarianism I will postpone my comment on this until I've heard you explain your thoughts without the obscurity of words that can interpreted in a broad spectrum.
The rest of your post refers to a discussion I don't recall. Sorry can't comment in that context.
But important for you arguing reform and not rebirth is that with the penultimate masculine role model being a pice of shit, and similar to POCs, the journey to equality being halted, there is no reason to believe the current concept of masculinity being different from toxic masculinity.
Though this is where you disagreed. But so you do with the poc stuff and we all know how ridiculous you are whenever that comes up.
|
Mueller is coming really hard. The first details of the first indictment, including the china trips, the cyprus connection, and the multiple fake identities, are merely the surface of the surface of the entire thing. I think this leads to jail for Trump, if the correct legal and political process is followed.
|
On November 01 2017 18:50 Twinkle Toes wrote:
Mueller is coming really hard. The first details of the first indictment, including the china trips, the cyprus connection, and the multiple fake identities, are merely the surface of the surface of the entire thing. I think this leads to jail for Trump, if the correct legal and political process is followed.
Is there any actual link to Trump himself yet? I don't know of one.
|
On November 01 2017 19:48 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 18:50 Twinkle Toes wrote:
Mueller is coming really hard. The first details of the first indictment, including the china trips, the cyprus connection, and the multiple fake identities, are merely the surface of the surface of the entire thing. I think this leads to jail for Trump, if the correct legal and political process is followed. Is there any actual link to Trump himself yet? I don't know of one.
Because of the way pleading standards and claim/issue preclusion work in US courts, we likely won't see direct links to Trump until Mueller makes progress on the periphery. He might even wait until after '18 given the direction his first indictments take.
|
That's a weird dinner for sure.
|
There are two fairly obvious causes for such an event, I'll let you decide which they might be.
|
A meeting of senior government officials, Trump was otherwise engaged so he sent Kelly as his representative instead?
|
On November 01 2017 21:10 Gorsameth wrote:
A meeting of senior government officials, Trump was otherwise engaged so he sent Kelly as his representative instead?
i would imagine he’d send jared or don jr
so in that case either business as usual or if we’re trying to jump to conclusions, conspiracy AGAINST THE PRESIDENT(he he. that would be fun.)
and well mcconnell doesn’t have the balls. so, probably just business as usual. or maybe they’re just trying to figure out how to distance themselves from the fire.
|
On November 01 2017 19:51 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 19:48 Aquanim wrote:On November 01 2017 18:50 Twinkle Toes wrote:
Mueller is coming really hard. The first details of the first indictment, including the china trips, the cyprus connection, and the multiple fake identities, are merely the surface of the surface of the entire thing. I think this leads to jail for Trump, if the correct legal and political process is followed. Is there any actual link to Trump himself yet? I don't know of one. Because of the way pleading standards and claim/issue preclusion work in US courts, we likely won't see direct links to Trump until Mueller makes progress on the periphery. He might even wait until after '18 given the direction his first indictments take.
Well, sure, but "that's what you'd say if you were guilty" isn't a great answer to "I'm innocent".
I can see an argument that it would be difficult for the entire Trump campaign to be rotten without Trump himself knowing about it, but it's not such an amazing argument that I'm celebrating Trump being in a jail cell already.
|
On November 01 2017 21:39 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 19:51 farvacola wrote:On November 01 2017 19:48 Aquanim wrote:On November 01 2017 18:50 Twinkle Toes wrote:
Mueller is coming really hard. The first details of the first indictment, including the china trips, the cyprus connection, and the multiple fake identities, are merely the surface of the surface of the entire thing. I think this leads to jail for Trump, if the correct legal and political process is followed. Is there any actual link to Trump himself yet? I don't know of one. Because of the way pleading standards and claim/issue preclusion work in US courts, we likely won't see direct links to Trump until Mueller makes progress on the periphery. He might even wait until after '18 given the direction his first indictments take. Well, sure, but "that's what you'd say if you were guilty" isn't a great answer to "I'm innocent". I can see an argument that it would be difficult for the entire Trump campaign to be rotten without Trump himself knowing about it, but it's not such an amazing argument that I'm celebrating Trump being in a jail cell already.
Read this article on how Papadopoulos got to the Trump campaign. What's clear from it is that the Trump campaign was a bad case of amateur hour. I'm reminded of an article that I read from January 2015 or so where the topic being reported on was how the Jeb campaign had sucked up all of the Republican foreign policy talent, thereby making it very difficult for the other candidates to get qualified people. What we're seeing in this WSJ piece are some of the after-effects of that. Candidates were scrambling for anyone who had anything resembling foreign policy qualification, including (in the case of Papadopoulos) stuff as limited as Model UN experience.
|
On November 01 2017 21:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 21:39 Aquanim wrote:On November 01 2017 19:51 farvacola wrote:On November 01 2017 19:48 Aquanim wrote:On November 01 2017 18:50 Twinkle Toes wrote:
Mueller is coming really hard. The first details of the first indictment, including the china trips, the cyprus connection, and the multiple fake identities, are merely the surface of the surface of the entire thing. I think this leads to jail for Trump, if the correct legal and political process is followed. Is there any actual link to Trump himself yet? I don't know of one. Because of the way pleading standards and claim/issue preclusion work in US courts, we likely won't see direct links to Trump until Mueller makes progress on the periphery. He might even wait until after '18 given the direction his first indictments take. Well, sure, but "that's what you'd say if you were guilty" isn't a great answer to "I'm innocent". I can see an argument that it would be difficult for the entire Trump campaign to be rotten without Trump himself knowing about it, but it's not such an amazing argument that I'm celebrating Trump being in a jail cell already. Read this article on how Papadopoulos got to the Trump campaign. What's clear from it is that the Trump campaign was a bad case of amateur hour. I'm reminded of an article that I read from January 2015 or so where the topic being reported on was how the Jeb campaign had sucked up all of the Republican foreign policy talent, thereby making it very difficult for the other candidates to get qualified people. What we're seeing in this WSJ piece are some of the after-effects of that. Candidates were scrambling for anyone who had anything resembling foreign policy qualification, including (in the case of Papadopoulos) stuff as limited as Model UN experience.
Sure, If you ignore all the other shit people that Trump surrounded himself with that were fired or had to resign, both during the election and after.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
