US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9110

Senators from both parties took tech company officials to task in a hearing Wednesday for failing to better identify, defuse and investigate Russia's campaign to manipulate American voters over social media during the 2016 presidential campaign.

In the second of three Capitol Hill hearings this week on Russian's online information operation, members of the Senate intelligence committee challenged Facebook, Google and Twitter in strikingly direct terms that, at times, seemed to carry the implicit threat of legislation that could reign in the nation's wildly profitable technology industry.

"I don't think you get it," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), whose home state includes all three companies. "What we're talking about is a cataclysmic change. What we're talking about is the beginning of cyber-warfare. What we're talking about is a major foreign power with sophistication and ability to involve themselves in a presidential election and sow conflict and discontent all over this country. We are not going to go away gentlemen. And this is a very big deal."

Authorities said Wednesday that the 29-year-old man accused of mowing down pedestrians and cyclists on a Manhattan bike path, killing eight people, had plotted for weeks before carrying out the attack in the name of the Islamic State.

Officials identified the suspected attacker as Sayfullo Saipov, a legal permanent resident of the United States who arrived in the country from Uzbekistan in 2010. They said Saipov was influenced by the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, and its violent tactics after he came to the United States.

Saipov left notes pledging his allegiance to the group, also known as ISIS, authorities said, though they have not identified any direct connections between Saipov and the organization.

Saipov’s notes were handwritten in Arabic and contained a combination of symbols and words saying essentially “that the Islamic State would endure forever,” John Miller, the deputy New York police commissioner for intelligence and counter-terrorism, said at a news briefing on Wednesday.

...

New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) said authorities believe Saipov was a lone wolf who became “radicalized domestically” while living in the United States.

On November 02 2017 01:30 KwarK wrote:

Are you familiar with the concept of moral leadership?

On November 02 2017 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:


"Hooray for xenophobia because people are stupid"

You have just been full of garbage takes lately.

On November 02 2017 01:30 Toadesstern wrote:
the right might be on to something about the civil war statues and all. Let them be in the open but make sure you add some plaque or inscription to each and every single one of them that puts them into context so you don't get away with statements as the one above from the WH about the civil war.

That way everyone should be happy. Noone is destroying "history" by destroying/putting away statues, as the people on the right like to claim. At the same time if it's clearly written there that it's a statue to remind everyone how awful of a person Robert E Lee was, how many americans died because of him and that it serves as a warning for future generations that should do it's job as well.

On November 02 2017 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:


"Hooray for xenophobia because people are stupid"

You have just been full of garbage takes lately.

On November 02 2017 01:36 Plansix wrote:

Do what terrorist want and then claim it's the best for America.

On November 02 2017 01:37 Mohdoo wrote:


Support 10% xenophobia --> lose to guy who supports 90% xenophobia --> country is now 90% xenophobic

Or,

Support 50% xenophobia --> beat guy who supports 90% xenophobia --> country is now 50% xenophobic.

There aren't other options. It's one or the other, as we are seeing.

On November 02 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:


Yes, but it doesn't do a lot of good when you lose because of it. I don't sleep any better at night knowing that my candidate lost because they supported an ethical position. If they lose, a much less ethical position becomes reality. Democrats aren't winning any battles by screaming not all muslims every time something like this happens. Shafting immigrants but winning an election is an enormous net benefit to the disadvantaged for this country and the world. I suppose the core of my argument is that so long as democrats keep losing, their pat on the back perspective on refugees and immigrants is 100% meaningless.

On November 02 2017 01:38 Plansix wrote:

So Democrats should pander to racists and xenophobia?

On November 02 2017 01:38 Plansix wrote:

So Democrats should pander to racists and xenophobia?

On November 02 2017 01:29 Mohdoo wrote:



Schumer's response kinda blows ass. If this guy really did come over on a visa system with diversity as an intended goal (rofl), we need to slam the brakes on that. It is obviously stupid. Schumer not even addressing the visa program makes me think it is just some shitty pat on the back sympathy crap. This is a battle democrats are super, super losing right now and it is really disappointing to see them cling on to "NOT ALL MUSLIMS" as if anyone cares about statistics. Sub-par humans make up most of the voters and sub-par humans don't care about statistics. Walk back your unpopular immigration program when it leads to a terrorist attack. Be smart. Listen to people.

On November 02 2017 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:


Not pander the way Trump does, but at least being like "Ok, maybe the program this guy used should be lessened or removed" in the same way we expect republicans to support certain gun regulations after a mass shooting. Democrats have developed an image in hick-country as overly politically correct Muslim sympathizers. They need to ditch that image. If they keep getting spanked in the rust belt, it doesn't matter what position they have because they don't get elected. There is a lot of value in meeting people halfway. Especially when your position is really, really ineffective. This is how democracy works. We enact some stupid shit because it has popular support. Until you have won the minds of voters, you're gonna lose.

Democrats being super firm in refugee stuff is a losing strategy. If it were up to me, I would greatly enhance our refugee strategy. But my strategy would lose every election ever. My beliefs are shitty when applied to the national population. My views are meaningless.

On November 02 2017 01:36 Gorsameth wrote:

I assume southern education is the main factor for this. Step 1 would be to get the federal government to mandate what is taught.
Same shit with creationism being taught in schools.

On November 02 2017 01:50 Plansix wrote:

Do you like losing? Because you do know that the Democrat’s base will core out the party if they reverse course on refugees or any of the other issues you are talking about? It would be a blood bath. Making some show of going to the right and reaching some middle ground with Trump’s Islamicphobic bullshit isn’t a winning plan. It is a game losing plan.

On November 02 2017 01:52 LegalLord wrote:

About as useful a metric as trying to figure out how many Americans Alexander the Great killed.

Well, except Ho Chi Minh I guess.

On November 02 2017 01:54 Mohdoo wrote:


I think we just disagree on the outcome of the scenario. In my eyes, Democrats conceding certain refugee programs would be a net positive. I don't think people will choose to vote for republicans because democrats ease their stance on refugees. I think it all depends on what areas you are talking about. As a national strategy, I certainly do think democrats would be aided in the rust belt by a more centrist position on refugees. I just can't imagine a world where someone says "Democrats support only half of existing refugee programs? Guess I'm voting Trump next year!"

On November 02 2017 02:00 Plansix wrote:

Yeah, I'm not really sure this "Democrats should fuck over some brown people a little bit to pander to white people's unfounded fears about refugees" is going to be that secret weapon that wins them the house. Or that is is a deal breaker in congressional elections.

On November 02 2017 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:


Did I miss the part in history about the American war with Alexander the Great?

On November 02 2017 02:03 Mohdoo wrote:


It doesn't need to be a silver bullet, just a way to make some gains. Democrats winning some seats by easing up on refugee stuff is still an enormous net benefit to refugees. The dude they'd be replacing would be a lot worse.

On November 02 2017 02:06 Velr wrote:


I think his point was that these wars weren't fought on american soil. But the example was pretty stupid.