• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 22:48
CEST 04:48
KST 11:48
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall12HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed8Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll2Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension2Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7
StarCraft 2
General
Who will win EWC 2025? Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) WardiTV Mondays Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL Starcraft in widescreen BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ A cwal.gg Extension - Easily keep track of anyone
Tourneys
Cosmonarchy Pro Showmatches [Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 482 users

US Politics Mega-Blog - Page 122

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 120 121 122 123 124 171 Next
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23197 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-01-02 23:15:48
January 02 2019 23:14 GMT
#2421
On January 03 2019 08:10 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 03 2019 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 03 2019 06:09 ChristianS wrote:
On January 03 2019 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 03 2019 00:46 ChristianS wrote:
On January 02 2019 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
On December 29 2018 08:02 ChristianS wrote:
On December 29 2018 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
On December 29 2018 06:16 ChristianS wrote:
On December 29 2018 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]

I don't mean to be disrespectful, just frank.

Yes those, but more specifically spreading either negligently bad or intentionally deceitful reporting/commentary from which they were drawing/supporting their assertions on the significance or validity of those types of claims.

Oh, was this the story about a rally organized by Russian operatives or whatever that you kept badgering P6 about? I never researched it independently, but I'll take your word for it that it was bullshit. If that's all you're writing off as propaganda, fair enough. I was under the impression you were complaining about the entire "Russian influence campaign swung the election" narrative and calling all of it a disingenuous propaganda campaign by the corporate media, which is where I have trouble following you.


Well it's an example. It happens to be a stark one that can't really be mealy mouthed around. Of course that's not it. Just a lot of the other stuff is more subtle, less widely spread, was edited/taken down, etc...

The facebook rally organized by Russians (it wasn't) stands as an example of several of the aspects I'm referencing.

It's so pervasive and misleading that yes the entire "Russia influence campaign swung the election" narrative is trash designed to distract and displace.

The story and it's terrible headline is still up.

It's so pervasive that it's still being cited as an example of Russian manipulation, but get this, by the right saying the left was manipulated by Russians. That's how out of hand it's gotten.


See, when you sweep the entire news industry into the generalization it's hard to follow you based on one example. I mean, when Jeff Gerstmann got fired it was pretty clear Gamespot had a problem separating its advertising business from its journalism, but that wasn't really sufficient evidence to condemn the entire industry as lying whores.

Like, Radiolab did an episode on Russian election interference. Am I to believe that Radiolab staff are all corporate shills reading a script handed to them by Warren Buffett? Or are they useful idiots for the corporate cause? Or does Buffett have some kind of kompromat on Jad Abumrad?

A lot of people thought the Russian influence campaign was a big story, in part because its efficacy was unclear (especially in such a close election). Looking back, I'd guess at this point it didn't have much impact, but it doesn't seem very likely to me that everybody writing articles about it from 2016 until now knew it didn't have much impact and just wrote about it to further their corporate overlords' interests. I don't know if that's what you're claiming, but if it is I'd certainly be interested to see more evidence.


This is one example of what it looks like. The $100,000 spent by these dipshits in a $51 million Alabama race is much greater proportionately than Russia spent for 2016 (notwithstanding a great deal of that spending by Russia had nothing to do with the 2016 election)

Yet NYT frames it as inconsequential to the race and literally calls it "modest"


Secret Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics

As Russia’s online election machinations came to light last year, a group of Democratic tech experts decided to try out similarly deceptive tactics in the fiercely contested Alabama Senate race, according to people familiar with the effort and a report on its results.

The secret project, carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race, in which the Democratic candidate it was designed to help, Doug Jones, edged out the Republican, Roy S. Moore. But it was a sign that American political operatives of both parties have paid close attention to the Russian methods, which some fear may come to taint elections in the United States.

One participant in the Alabama project, Jonathon Morgan, is the chief executive of New Knowledge, a small cyber security firm that wrote a scathing account of Russia’s social media operations in the 2016 election that was released this week by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

An internal report on the Alabama effort, obtained by The New York Times, says explicitly that it “experimented with many of the tactics now understood to have influenced the 2016 elections.”

The project’s operators created a Facebook page on which they posed as conservative Alabamians, using it to try to divide Republicans and even to endorse a write-in candidate to draw votes from Mr. Moore. It involved a scheme to link the Moore campaign to thousands of Russian accounts that suddenly began following the Republican candidate on Twitter, a development that drew national media attention.

“We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet,” the report says.

The project had a budget of just $100,000, in a race that cost approximately $51 million, including the primaries, according to Federal Election Commission records.

But however modest, the influence effort in Alabama may be a sign of things to come.


www.nytimes.com

If nothing else Democrats should just hire IRA and let them run their campaign and save everyone about a billion dollars and beat Trump.

EDIT: To wrap up the point the simple juxtaposition of how much each group spent was a very rudimentary step that most corporate publications simply avoided in their non-stop coverage. Instead every number related to Russian influence was treated like a big deal and rarely if ever was what constitutes "an impression" dissected. Neither was the potential that many of those impressions were recorded from the bots themselves investigated. The narrative was that Russia interfered, it was one of the things that swung the election, anyone disagreeing has been compromised by Russian propaganda. More recently the push by corporate media to try to convince people that Hillary's performance sucked with Black people because of Russia and not her shitty record/campaign.

I suppose people could argue it's easy to not think to compare how much spending was done by various entities when talking about Russian influence but I'd argue they shouldn't be journalists/pundits making 6 and 7 figure salaries if they are that incompetent.

But "how much they spent" is a weird metric for Russia's 2016 activity. A big part of the supposed effectiveness comes from the deception of it - they're not going through normal political advertising channels, they're pretending to be grassroots activists and trying to trick people into following their will. In the stock market, for instance, I believe it's illegal to be paid to endorse a stock without disclosing that you're being paid to do so.

The side of this we're ignoring, by the way, is the espionage side of Russia's 2016 activity. Hacking one side and releasing all their private information is a big deal in a way that couldn't be dismissed by knowing the hackers weren't paid very much. This part of their campaign, by the way, was likely much more impactful than the social influence campaign, and for my money, easily impactful enough to change the result.


I was just giving you another specific example. How much they spent, how many impressions they garnered compared to the election in general, the significance of an impression and whether they can find anyone who reports being duped are all important factors that were largely or completely ignored.

As for the deception that was a big part of the story you're responding to so that's not different either.

It's clear they weren't investigating or informing people with relevant information, they were selling the idea that Russia's meddling was significant, not trying to determine if it was.

They sold it long before they had any data (as paltry as it is) to back it up. When they got the reports instead of stepping back and looking at whether it had been overhyped they took a Buff Bernie coloring book and some masturbation memes and did their best to convince people that's what cost Hillary the election.

EDIT: Can you show me any corporate publications that ever addressed that widely (and still) circulated fake news about the thousands that attended a rally organized by the Russians?

If not that seems like a pretty gaping failure of the media does it not?

I'm gonna be pretty busy for the next week and a half (I'm getting married on Friday!) so I might have trouble getting back to you on this, but I'll try to remember to when I get back. Feel free to remind me


rip ChristianS.

j/k Gratz and best wishes.

On January 03 2019 04:37 xDaunt wrote:
On January 03 2019 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 03 2019 03:12 xDaunt wrote:
The phrasing was deliberate. The implementation of socialist policy is typically a matter of degree. Countries that crank it up to an 11 like Chavez did inevitably destroy themselves. Lesser implementations will cause harm, but not lead to "national ruin."


But something like socialized healthcare would be an improvement correct? So perhaps the question would get a better answer if I asked, where (if anywhere) besides healthcare do you think socialism can be applied to our benefit? What benefits do you think it provides (when implemented correctly in your view)?



Offering a form of socialized healthcare does not improve health care services. It merely offers a solution to a political problem.


Really? Because socialized healthcare sure seems to improve healthcare services for millions around the world.

I have to presume you think socialized healthcare is at least a lateral move or are you genuinely trying to make healthcare worse for political gain?

Socialized healthcare only provides access. There is no logical relation between access to healthcare and quality of healthcare, other than the rule of scarcity tends to dictate an inverse relationship between the two.


That sounds like an elaborate "yes, I want to make healthcare worse for political gain".

Vote's a vote I guess?
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
January 02 2019 23:23 GMT
#2422
On January 03 2019 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 03 2019 08:10 xDaunt wrote:
On January 03 2019 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 03 2019 06:09 ChristianS wrote:
On January 03 2019 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 03 2019 00:46 ChristianS wrote:
On January 02 2019 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
On December 29 2018 08:02 ChristianS wrote:
On December 29 2018 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
On December 29 2018 06:16 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
Oh, was this the story about a rally organized by Russian operatives or whatever that you kept badgering P6 about? I never researched it independently, but I'll take your word for it that it was bullshit. If that's all you're writing off as propaganda, fair enough. I was under the impression you were complaining about the entire "Russian influence campaign swung the election" narrative and calling all of it a disingenuous propaganda campaign by the corporate media, which is where I have trouble following you.


Well it's an example. It happens to be a stark one that can't really be mealy mouthed around. Of course that's not it. Just a lot of the other stuff is more subtle, less widely spread, was edited/taken down, etc...

The facebook rally organized by Russians (it wasn't) stands as an example of several of the aspects I'm referencing.

It's so pervasive and misleading that yes the entire "Russia influence campaign swung the election" narrative is trash designed to distract and displace.

The story and it's terrible headline is still up.

It's so pervasive that it's still being cited as an example of Russian manipulation, but get this, by the right saying the left was manipulated by Russians. That's how out of hand it's gotten.

https://twitter.com/RedRumRaider/status/1078444897894612992

See, when you sweep the entire news industry into the generalization it's hard to follow you based on one example. I mean, when Jeff Gerstmann got fired it was pretty clear Gamespot had a problem separating its advertising business from its journalism, but that wasn't really sufficient evidence to condemn the entire industry as lying whores.

Like, Radiolab did an episode on Russian election interference. Am I to believe that Radiolab staff are all corporate shills reading a script handed to them by Warren Buffett? Or are they useful idiots for the corporate cause? Or does Buffett have some kind of kompromat on Jad Abumrad?

A lot of people thought the Russian influence campaign was a big story, in part because its efficacy was unclear (especially in such a close election). Looking back, I'd guess at this point it didn't have much impact, but it doesn't seem very likely to me that everybody writing articles about it from 2016 until now knew it didn't have much impact and just wrote about it to further their corporate overlords' interests. I don't know if that's what you're claiming, but if it is I'd certainly be interested to see more evidence.


This is one example of what it looks like. The $100,000 spent by these dipshits in a $51 million Alabama race is much greater proportionately than Russia spent for 2016 (notwithstanding a great deal of that spending by Russia had nothing to do with the 2016 election)

Yet NYT frames it as inconsequential to the race and literally calls it "modest"


Secret Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics

As Russia’s online election machinations came to light last year, a group of Democratic tech experts decided to try out similarly deceptive tactics in the fiercely contested Alabama Senate race, according to people familiar with the effort and a report on its results.

The secret project, carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race, in which the Democratic candidate it was designed to help, Doug Jones, edged out the Republican, Roy S. Moore. But it was a sign that American political operatives of both parties have paid close attention to the Russian methods, which some fear may come to taint elections in the United States.

One participant in the Alabama project, Jonathon Morgan, is the chief executive of New Knowledge, a small cyber security firm that wrote a scathing account of Russia’s social media operations in the 2016 election that was released this week by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

An internal report on the Alabama effort, obtained by The New York Times, says explicitly that it “experimented with many of the tactics now understood to have influenced the 2016 elections.”

The project’s operators created a Facebook page on which they posed as conservative Alabamians, using it to try to divide Republicans and even to endorse a write-in candidate to draw votes from Mr. Moore. It involved a scheme to link the Moore campaign to thousands of Russian accounts that suddenly began following the Republican candidate on Twitter, a development that drew national media attention.

“We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet,” the report says.

The project had a budget of just $100,000, in a race that cost approximately $51 million, including the primaries, according to Federal Election Commission records.

But however modest, the influence effort in Alabama may be a sign of things to come.


www.nytimes.com

If nothing else Democrats should just hire IRA and let them run their campaign and save everyone about a billion dollars and beat Trump.

EDIT: To wrap up the point the simple juxtaposition of how much each group spent was a very rudimentary step that most corporate publications simply avoided in their non-stop coverage. Instead every number related to Russian influence was treated like a big deal and rarely if ever was what constitutes "an impression" dissected. Neither was the potential that many of those impressions were recorded from the bots themselves investigated. The narrative was that Russia interfered, it was one of the things that swung the election, anyone disagreeing has been compromised by Russian propaganda. More recently the push by corporate media to try to convince people that Hillary's performance sucked with Black people because of Russia and not her shitty record/campaign.

I suppose people could argue it's easy to not think to compare how much spending was done by various entities when talking about Russian influence but I'd argue they shouldn't be journalists/pundits making 6 and 7 figure salaries if they are that incompetent.

But "how much they spent" is a weird metric for Russia's 2016 activity. A big part of the supposed effectiveness comes from the deception of it - they're not going through normal political advertising channels, they're pretending to be grassroots activists and trying to trick people into following their will. In the stock market, for instance, I believe it's illegal to be paid to endorse a stock without disclosing that you're being paid to do so.

The side of this we're ignoring, by the way, is the espionage side of Russia's 2016 activity. Hacking one side and releasing all their private information is a big deal in a way that couldn't be dismissed by knowing the hackers weren't paid very much. This part of their campaign, by the way, was likely much more impactful than the social influence campaign, and for my money, easily impactful enough to change the result.


I was just giving you another specific example. How much they spent, how many impressions they garnered compared to the election in general, the significance of an impression and whether they can find anyone who reports being duped are all important factors that were largely or completely ignored.

As for the deception that was a big part of the story you're responding to so that's not different either.

It's clear they weren't investigating or informing people with relevant information, they were selling the idea that Russia's meddling was significant, not trying to determine if it was.

They sold it long before they had any data (as paltry as it is) to back it up. When they got the reports instead of stepping back and looking at whether it had been overhyped they took a Buff Bernie coloring book and some masturbation memes and did their best to convince people that's what cost Hillary the election.

EDIT: Can you show me any corporate publications that ever addressed that widely (and still) circulated fake news about the thousands that attended a rally organized by the Russians?

If not that seems like a pretty gaping failure of the media does it not?

I'm gonna be pretty busy for the next week and a half (I'm getting married on Friday!) so I might have trouble getting back to you on this, but I'll try to remember to when I get back. Feel free to remind me


rip ChristianS.

j/k Gratz and best wishes.

On January 03 2019 04:37 xDaunt wrote:
On January 03 2019 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 03 2019 03:12 xDaunt wrote:
The phrasing was deliberate. The implementation of socialist policy is typically a matter of degree. Countries that crank it up to an 11 like Chavez did inevitably destroy themselves. Lesser implementations will cause harm, but not lead to "national ruin."


But something like socialized healthcare would be an improvement correct? So perhaps the question would get a better answer if I asked, where (if anywhere) besides healthcare do you think socialism can be applied to our benefit? What benefits do you think it provides (when implemented correctly in your view)?



Offering a form of socialized healthcare does not improve health care services. It merely offers a solution to a political problem.


Really? Because socialized healthcare sure seems to improve healthcare services for millions around the world.

I have to presume you think socialized healthcare is at least a lateral move or are you genuinely trying to make healthcare worse for political gain?

Socialized healthcare only provides access. There is no logical relation between access to healthcare and quality of healthcare, other than the rule of scarcity tends to dictate an inverse relationship between the two.


That sounds like a elaborate "yes, I want to make healthcare worse for political gain".


Sort of, but not really. Any given society's healthcare system has three main properties that vary: cost, access, and quality. Giving everyone access to the highest quality healthcare is simply prohibitively expensive. Reducing cost will necessarily have an adverse impact upon access and/or quality. The key is finding the optimal balance. It is against this backdrop that healthcare policy must be decided.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23197 Posts
January 02 2019 23:30 GMT
#2423
On January 03 2019 08:23 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 03 2019 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 03 2019 08:10 xDaunt wrote:
On January 03 2019 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 03 2019 06:09 ChristianS wrote:
On January 03 2019 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 03 2019 00:46 ChristianS wrote:
On January 02 2019 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
On December 29 2018 08:02 ChristianS wrote:
On December 29 2018 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]

Well it's an example. It happens to be a stark one that can't really be mealy mouthed around. Of course that's not it. Just a lot of the other stuff is more subtle, less widely spread, was edited/taken down, etc...

The facebook rally organized by Russians (it wasn't) stands as an example of several of the aspects I'm referencing.

It's so pervasive and misleading that yes the entire "Russia influence campaign swung the election" narrative is trash designed to distract and displace.

The story and it's terrible headline is still up.

It's so pervasive that it's still being cited as an example of Russian manipulation, but get this, by the right saying the left was manipulated by Russians. That's how out of hand it's gotten.

https://twitter.com/RedRumRaider/status/1078444897894612992

See, when you sweep the entire news industry into the generalization it's hard to follow you based on one example. I mean, when Jeff Gerstmann got fired it was pretty clear Gamespot had a problem separating its advertising business from its journalism, but that wasn't really sufficient evidence to condemn the entire industry as lying whores.

Like, Radiolab did an episode on Russian election interference. Am I to believe that Radiolab staff are all corporate shills reading a script handed to them by Warren Buffett? Or are they useful idiots for the corporate cause? Or does Buffett have some kind of kompromat on Jad Abumrad?

A lot of people thought the Russian influence campaign was a big story, in part because its efficacy was unclear (especially in such a close election). Looking back, I'd guess at this point it didn't have much impact, but it doesn't seem very likely to me that everybody writing articles about it from 2016 until now knew it didn't have much impact and just wrote about it to further their corporate overlords' interests. I don't know if that's what you're claiming, but if it is I'd certainly be interested to see more evidence.


This is one example of what it looks like. The $100,000 spent by these dipshits in a $51 million Alabama race is much greater proportionately than Russia spent for 2016 (notwithstanding a great deal of that spending by Russia had nothing to do with the 2016 election)

Yet NYT frames it as inconsequential to the race and literally calls it "modest"


Secret Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics

As Russia’s online election machinations came to light last year, a group of Democratic tech experts decided to try out similarly deceptive tactics in the fiercely contested Alabama Senate race, according to people familiar with the effort and a report on its results.

The secret project, carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race, in which the Democratic candidate it was designed to help, Doug Jones, edged out the Republican, Roy S. Moore. But it was a sign that American political operatives of both parties have paid close attention to the Russian methods, which some fear may come to taint elections in the United States.

One participant in the Alabama project, Jonathon Morgan, is the chief executive of New Knowledge, a small cyber security firm that wrote a scathing account of Russia’s social media operations in the 2016 election that was released this week by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

An internal report on the Alabama effort, obtained by The New York Times, says explicitly that it “experimented with many of the tactics now understood to have influenced the 2016 elections.”

The project’s operators created a Facebook page on which they posed as conservative Alabamians, using it to try to divide Republicans and even to endorse a write-in candidate to draw votes from Mr. Moore. It involved a scheme to link the Moore campaign to thousands of Russian accounts that suddenly began following the Republican candidate on Twitter, a development that drew national media attention.

“We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet,” the report says.

The project had a budget of just $100,000, in a race that cost approximately $51 million, including the primaries, according to Federal Election Commission records.

But however modest, the influence effort in Alabama may be a sign of things to come.


www.nytimes.com

If nothing else Democrats should just hire IRA and let them run their campaign and save everyone about a billion dollars and beat Trump.

EDIT: To wrap up the point the simple juxtaposition of how much each group spent was a very rudimentary step that most corporate publications simply avoided in their non-stop coverage. Instead every number related to Russian influence was treated like a big deal and rarely if ever was what constitutes "an impression" dissected. Neither was the potential that many of those impressions were recorded from the bots themselves investigated. The narrative was that Russia interfered, it was one of the things that swung the election, anyone disagreeing has been compromised by Russian propaganda. More recently the push by corporate media to try to convince people that Hillary's performance sucked with Black people because of Russia and not her shitty record/campaign.

I suppose people could argue it's easy to not think to compare how much spending was done by various entities when talking about Russian influence but I'd argue they shouldn't be journalists/pundits making 6 and 7 figure salaries if they are that incompetent.

But "how much they spent" is a weird metric for Russia's 2016 activity. A big part of the supposed effectiveness comes from the deception of it - they're not going through normal political advertising channels, they're pretending to be grassroots activists and trying to trick people into following their will. In the stock market, for instance, I believe it's illegal to be paid to endorse a stock without disclosing that you're being paid to do so.

The side of this we're ignoring, by the way, is the espionage side of Russia's 2016 activity. Hacking one side and releasing all their private information is a big deal in a way that couldn't be dismissed by knowing the hackers weren't paid very much. This part of their campaign, by the way, was likely much more impactful than the social influence campaign, and for my money, easily impactful enough to change the result.


I was just giving you another specific example. How much they spent, how many impressions they garnered compared to the election in general, the significance of an impression and whether they can find anyone who reports being duped are all important factors that were largely or completely ignored.

As for the deception that was a big part of the story you're responding to so that's not different either.

It's clear they weren't investigating or informing people with relevant information, they were selling the idea that Russia's meddling was significant, not trying to determine if it was.

They sold it long before they had any data (as paltry as it is) to back it up. When they got the reports instead of stepping back and looking at whether it had been overhyped they took a Buff Bernie coloring book and some masturbation memes and did their best to convince people that's what cost Hillary the election.

EDIT: Can you show me any corporate publications that ever addressed that widely (and still) circulated fake news about the thousands that attended a rally organized by the Russians?

If not that seems like a pretty gaping failure of the media does it not?

I'm gonna be pretty busy for the next week and a half (I'm getting married on Friday!) so I might have trouble getting back to you on this, but I'll try to remember to when I get back. Feel free to remind me


rip ChristianS.

j/k Gratz and best wishes.

On January 03 2019 04:37 xDaunt wrote:
On January 03 2019 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 03 2019 03:12 xDaunt wrote:
The phrasing was deliberate. The implementation of socialist policy is typically a matter of degree. Countries that crank it up to an 11 like Chavez did inevitably destroy themselves. Lesser implementations will cause harm, but not lead to "national ruin."


But something like socialized healthcare would be an improvement correct? So perhaps the question would get a better answer if I asked, where (if anywhere) besides healthcare do you think socialism can be applied to our benefit? What benefits do you think it provides (when implemented correctly in your view)?



Offering a form of socialized healthcare does not improve health care services. It merely offers a solution to a political problem.


Really? Because socialized healthcare sure seems to improve healthcare services for millions around the world.

I have to presume you think socialized healthcare is at least a lateral move or are you genuinely trying to make healthcare worse for political gain?

Socialized healthcare only provides access. There is no logical relation between access to healthcare and quality of healthcare, other than the rule of scarcity tends to dictate an inverse relationship between the two.


That sounds like a elaborate "yes, I want to make healthcare worse for political gain".


Sort of, but not really. Any given society's healthcare system has three main properties that vary: cost, access, and quality. Giving everyone access to the highest quality healthcare is simply prohibitively expensive. Reducing cost will necessarily have an adverse impact upon access and/or quality. The key is finding the optimal balance. It is against this backdrop that healthcare policy must be decided.


Don't all the studies about this refute the idea that paying more gives us better access and quality?

Don't they all say that other countries pay less for more access and better outcomes?
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
January 02 2019 23:38 GMT
#2424
On January 03 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 03 2019 08:23 xDaunt wrote:
On January 03 2019 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 03 2019 08:10 xDaunt wrote:
On January 03 2019 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 03 2019 06:09 ChristianS wrote:
On January 03 2019 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 03 2019 00:46 ChristianS wrote:
On January 02 2019 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
On December 29 2018 08:02 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
See, when you sweep the entire news industry into the generalization it's hard to follow you based on one example. I mean, when Jeff Gerstmann got fired it was pretty clear Gamespot had a problem separating its advertising business from its journalism, but that wasn't really sufficient evidence to condemn the entire industry as lying whores.

Like, Radiolab did an episode on Russian election interference. Am I to believe that Radiolab staff are all corporate shills reading a script handed to them by Warren Buffett? Or are they useful idiots for the corporate cause? Or does Buffett have some kind of kompromat on Jad Abumrad?

A lot of people thought the Russian influence campaign was a big story, in part because its efficacy was unclear (especially in such a close election). Looking back, I'd guess at this point it didn't have much impact, but it doesn't seem very likely to me that everybody writing articles about it from 2016 until now knew it didn't have much impact and just wrote about it to further their corporate overlords' interests. I don't know if that's what you're claiming, but if it is I'd certainly be interested to see more evidence.


This is one example of what it looks like. The $100,000 spent by these dipshits in a $51 million Alabama race is much greater proportionately than Russia spent for 2016 (notwithstanding a great deal of that spending by Russia had nothing to do with the 2016 election)

Yet NYT frames it as inconsequential to the race and literally calls it "modest"


Secret Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics

As Russia’s online election machinations came to light last year, a group of Democratic tech experts decided to try out similarly deceptive tactics in the fiercely contested Alabama Senate race, according to people familiar with the effort and a report on its results.

The secret project, carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race, in which the Democratic candidate it was designed to help, Doug Jones, edged out the Republican, Roy S. Moore. But it was a sign that American political operatives of both parties have paid close attention to the Russian methods, which some fear may come to taint elections in the United States.

One participant in the Alabama project, Jonathon Morgan, is the chief executive of New Knowledge, a small cyber security firm that wrote a scathing account of Russia’s social media operations in the 2016 election that was released this week by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

An internal report on the Alabama effort, obtained by The New York Times, says explicitly that it “experimented with many of the tactics now understood to have influenced the 2016 elections.”

The project’s operators created a Facebook page on which they posed as conservative Alabamians, using it to try to divide Republicans and even to endorse a write-in candidate to draw votes from Mr. Moore. It involved a scheme to link the Moore campaign to thousands of Russian accounts that suddenly began following the Republican candidate on Twitter, a development that drew national media attention.

“We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet,” the report says.

The project had a budget of just $100,000, in a race that cost approximately $51 million, including the primaries, according to Federal Election Commission records.

But however modest, the influence effort in Alabama may be a sign of things to come.


www.nytimes.com

If nothing else Democrats should just hire IRA and let them run their campaign and save everyone about a billion dollars and beat Trump.

EDIT: To wrap up the point the simple juxtaposition of how much each group spent was a very rudimentary step that most corporate publications simply avoided in their non-stop coverage. Instead every number related to Russian influence was treated like a big deal and rarely if ever was what constitutes "an impression" dissected. Neither was the potential that many of those impressions were recorded from the bots themselves investigated. The narrative was that Russia interfered, it was one of the things that swung the election, anyone disagreeing has been compromised by Russian propaganda. More recently the push by corporate media to try to convince people that Hillary's performance sucked with Black people because of Russia and not her shitty record/campaign.

I suppose people could argue it's easy to not think to compare how much spending was done by various entities when talking about Russian influence but I'd argue they shouldn't be journalists/pundits making 6 and 7 figure salaries if they are that incompetent.

But "how much they spent" is a weird metric for Russia's 2016 activity. A big part of the supposed effectiveness comes from the deception of it - they're not going through normal political advertising channels, they're pretending to be grassroots activists and trying to trick people into following their will. In the stock market, for instance, I believe it's illegal to be paid to endorse a stock without disclosing that you're being paid to do so.

The side of this we're ignoring, by the way, is the espionage side of Russia's 2016 activity. Hacking one side and releasing all their private information is a big deal in a way that couldn't be dismissed by knowing the hackers weren't paid very much. This part of their campaign, by the way, was likely much more impactful than the social influence campaign, and for my money, easily impactful enough to change the result.


I was just giving you another specific example. How much they spent, how many impressions they garnered compared to the election in general, the significance of an impression and whether they can find anyone who reports being duped are all important factors that were largely or completely ignored.

As for the deception that was a big part of the story you're responding to so that's not different either.

It's clear they weren't investigating or informing people with relevant information, they were selling the idea that Russia's meddling was significant, not trying to determine if it was.

They sold it long before they had any data (as paltry as it is) to back it up. When they got the reports instead of stepping back and looking at whether it had been overhyped they took a Buff Bernie coloring book and some masturbation memes and did their best to convince people that's what cost Hillary the election.

EDIT: Can you show me any corporate publications that ever addressed that widely (and still) circulated fake news about the thousands that attended a rally organized by the Russians?

If not that seems like a pretty gaping failure of the media does it not?

I'm gonna be pretty busy for the next week and a half (I'm getting married on Friday!) so I might have trouble getting back to you on this, but I'll try to remember to when I get back. Feel free to remind me


rip ChristianS.

j/k Gratz and best wishes.

On January 03 2019 04:37 xDaunt wrote:
On January 03 2019 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 03 2019 03:12 xDaunt wrote:
The phrasing was deliberate. The implementation of socialist policy is typically a matter of degree. Countries that crank it up to an 11 like Chavez did inevitably destroy themselves. Lesser implementations will cause harm, but not lead to "national ruin."


But something like socialized healthcare would be an improvement correct? So perhaps the question would get a better answer if I asked, where (if anywhere) besides healthcare do you think socialism can be applied to our benefit? What benefits do you think it provides (when implemented correctly in your view)?



Offering a form of socialized healthcare does not improve health care services. It merely offers a solution to a political problem.


Really? Because socialized healthcare sure seems to improve healthcare services for millions around the world.

I have to presume you think socialized healthcare is at least a lateral move or are you genuinely trying to make healthcare worse for political gain?

Socialized healthcare only provides access. There is no logical relation between access to healthcare and quality of healthcare, other than the rule of scarcity tends to dictate an inverse relationship between the two.


That sounds like a elaborate "yes, I want to make healthcare worse for political gain".


Sort of, but not really. Any given society's healthcare system has three main properties that vary: cost, access, and quality. Giving everyone access to the highest quality healthcare is simply prohibitively expensive. Reducing cost will necessarily have an adverse impact upon access and/or quality. The key is finding the optimal balance. It is against this backdrop that healthcare policy must be decided.


Don't all the studies about this refute the idea that paying more gives us better access and quality?

Don't they all say that other countries pay less for more access and better outcomes?


The studies are mixed, and in some respects, they are flawed because they fail to control for variables that are truly extraneous to the quality of the care. But more to the point, the US currently does not have a free market health care system and has not had once since before Medicare was enacted. What we currently have is some kind of bastardized mess of government interference in the market that creates massive price distortions.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23197 Posts
January 02 2019 23:41 GMT
#2425
On January 03 2019 08:38 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 03 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 03 2019 08:23 xDaunt wrote:
On January 03 2019 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 03 2019 08:10 xDaunt wrote:
On January 03 2019 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 03 2019 06:09 ChristianS wrote:
On January 03 2019 01:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 03 2019 00:46 ChristianS wrote:
On January 02 2019 21:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]

This is one example of what it looks like. The $100,000 spent by these dipshits in a $51 million Alabama race is much greater proportionately than Russia spent for 2016 (notwithstanding a great deal of that spending by Russia had nothing to do with the 2016 election)

Yet NYT frames it as inconsequential to the race and literally calls it "modest"


[quote]

www.nytimes.com

If nothing else Democrats should just hire IRA and let them run their campaign and save everyone about a billion dollars and beat Trump.

EDIT: To wrap up the point the simple juxtaposition of how much each group spent was a very rudimentary step that most corporate publications simply avoided in their non-stop coverage. Instead every number related to Russian influence was treated like a big deal and rarely if ever was what constitutes "an impression" dissected. Neither was the potential that many of those impressions were recorded from the bots themselves investigated. The narrative was that Russia interfered, it was one of the things that swung the election, anyone disagreeing has been compromised by Russian propaganda. More recently the push by corporate media to try to convince people that Hillary's performance sucked with Black people because of Russia and not her shitty record/campaign.

I suppose people could argue it's easy to not think to compare how much spending was done by various entities when talking about Russian influence but I'd argue they shouldn't be journalists/pundits making 6 and 7 figure salaries if they are that incompetent.

But "how much they spent" is a weird metric for Russia's 2016 activity. A big part of the supposed effectiveness comes from the deception of it - they're not going through normal political advertising channels, they're pretending to be grassroots activists and trying to trick people into following their will. In the stock market, for instance, I believe it's illegal to be paid to endorse a stock without disclosing that you're being paid to do so.

The side of this we're ignoring, by the way, is the espionage side of Russia's 2016 activity. Hacking one side and releasing all their private information is a big deal in a way that couldn't be dismissed by knowing the hackers weren't paid very much. This part of their campaign, by the way, was likely much more impactful than the social influence campaign, and for my money, easily impactful enough to change the result.


I was just giving you another specific example. How much they spent, how many impressions they garnered compared to the election in general, the significance of an impression and whether they can find anyone who reports being duped are all important factors that were largely or completely ignored.

As for the deception that was a big part of the story you're responding to so that's not different either.

It's clear they weren't investigating or informing people with relevant information, they were selling the idea that Russia's meddling was significant, not trying to determine if it was.

They sold it long before they had any data (as paltry as it is) to back it up. When they got the reports instead of stepping back and looking at whether it had been overhyped they took a Buff Bernie coloring book and some masturbation memes and did their best to convince people that's what cost Hillary the election.

EDIT: Can you show me any corporate publications that ever addressed that widely (and still) circulated fake news about the thousands that attended a rally organized by the Russians?

If not that seems like a pretty gaping failure of the media does it not?

I'm gonna be pretty busy for the next week and a half (I'm getting married on Friday!) so I might have trouble getting back to you on this, but I'll try to remember to when I get back. Feel free to remind me


rip ChristianS.

j/k Gratz and best wishes.

On January 03 2019 04:37 xDaunt wrote:
On January 03 2019 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 03 2019 03:12 xDaunt wrote:
The phrasing was deliberate. The implementation of socialist policy is typically a matter of degree. Countries that crank it up to an 11 like Chavez did inevitably destroy themselves. Lesser implementations will cause harm, but not lead to "national ruin."


But something like socialized healthcare would be an improvement correct? So perhaps the question would get a better answer if I asked, where (if anywhere) besides healthcare do you think socialism can be applied to our benefit? What benefits do you think it provides (when implemented correctly in your view)?



Offering a form of socialized healthcare does not improve health care services. It merely offers a solution to a political problem.


Really? Because socialized healthcare sure seems to improve healthcare services for millions around the world.

I have to presume you think socialized healthcare is at least a lateral move or are you genuinely trying to make healthcare worse for political gain?

Socialized healthcare only provides access. There is no logical relation between access to healthcare and quality of healthcare, other than the rule of scarcity tends to dictate an inverse relationship between the two.


That sounds like a elaborate "yes, I want to make healthcare worse for political gain".


Sort of, but not really. Any given society's healthcare system has three main properties that vary: cost, access, and quality. Giving everyone access to the highest quality healthcare is simply prohibitively expensive. Reducing cost will necessarily have an adverse impact upon access and/or quality. The key is finding the optimal balance. It is against this backdrop that healthcare policy must be decided.


Don't all the studies about this refute the idea that paying more gives us better access and quality?

Don't they all say that other countries pay less for more access and better outcomes?


The studies are mixed, and in some respects, they are flawed because they fail to control for variables that are truly extraneous to the quality of the care. But more to the point, the US currently does not have a free market health care system and has not had once since before Medicare was enacted. What we currently have is some kind of bastardized mess of government interference in the market that creates massive price distortions.


Can you show me one that shows otherwise? Not that I don't believe you, I've just never seen one.

Is there a country with a free market healthcare system?
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
iamthedave
Profile Joined February 2011
England2814 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-01-03 09:47:27
January 03 2019 09:47 GMT
#2426
Switzerland and Singapore are quite close (or at least closer than the US). Doesn't seem there's any that's 100% free market though.
I'm not bad at Starcraft; I just think winning's rude.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23197 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-01-03 11:06:45
January 03 2019 11:03 GMT
#2427
On January 03 2019 18:47 iamthedave wrote:
Switzerland and Singapore are quite close (or at least closer than the US). Doesn't seem there's any that's 100% free market though.


Interesting. Seems mandates and limits on profits are a part of every remotely successful healthcare system. Granted Singapore's seem pretty weak and to be a problem. Up to 40% operating margins seems like exploiting sick people to me. That's more and better healthcare being turned into luxury goods instead which frankly strikes me as perverse.

EDIT: On the shutdown they just keep conceding ground until Trump and his base are happy. Keep in mind the horrific practices this "border security" money they've already offered him is going to fund.

Democrats are voting on a PAYGO rule to kill progressive legislation in the next session and if they succeed they'll be pretty much conceding 2020 to Trump.

"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12161 Posts
January 03 2019 14:21 GMT
#2428
On January 03 2019 18:47 iamthedave wrote:
Switzerland and Singapore are quite close (or at least closer than the US). Doesn't seem there's any that's 100% free market though.


Switzerland has private health insurance companies but it (thankfully) functions very differently from a free market. Without having looked into it a ton I'd guess there are more regulations than under Obamacare in our system.
No will to live, no wish to die
iamthedave
Profile Joined February 2011
England2814 Posts
January 03 2019 15:57 GMT
#2429
On January 03 2019 20:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 03 2019 18:47 iamthedave wrote:
Switzerland and Singapore are quite close (or at least closer than the US). Doesn't seem there's any that's 100% free market though.


Interesting. Seems mandates and limits on profits are a part of every remotely successful healthcare system. Granted Singapore's seem pretty weak and to be a problem. Up to 40% operating margins seems like exploiting sick people to me. That's more and better healthcare being turned into luxury goods instead which frankly strikes me as perverse.

EDIT: On the shutdown they just keep conceding ground until Trump and his base are happy. Keep in mind the horrific practices this "border security" money they've already offered him is going to fund.

Democrats are voting on a PAYGO rule to kill progressive legislation in the next session and if they succeed they'll be pretty much conceding 2020 to Trump.



What ground have they conceded so far? All I'm seeing is articles saying they're digging in their heels. And what's PAYGO and how would it kill progressive legislation?
I'm not bad at Starcraft; I just think winning's rude.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23197 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-01-03 16:54:53
January 03 2019 16:53 GMT
#2430
On January 04 2019 00:57 iamthedave wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 03 2019 20:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 03 2019 18:47 iamthedave wrote:
Switzerland and Singapore are quite close (or at least closer than the US). Doesn't seem there's any that's 100% free market though.


Interesting. Seems mandates and limits on profits are a part of every remotely successful healthcare system. Granted Singapore's seem pretty weak and to be a problem. Up to 40% operating margins seems like exploiting sick people to me. That's more and better healthcare being turned into luxury goods instead which frankly strikes me as perverse.

EDIT: On the shutdown they just keep conceding ground until Trump and his base are happy. Keep in mind the horrific practices this "border security" money they've already offered him is going to fund.

Democrats are voting on a PAYGO rule to kill progressive legislation in the next session and if they succeed they'll be pretty much conceding 2020 to Trump.



What ground have they conceded so far? All I'm seeing is articles saying they're digging in their heels. And what's PAYGO and how would it kill progressive legislation?


Funding the horrific "border security" practices Trump has been responsible for to the tune of billions, just a question of how many billions they will concede to Trump.


After Republicans ran up the federal deficit by $1 trillion, House Democrats want to establish themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility.

House Democratic leaders want to institute a “pay as you go,” or PAYGO, rule for the next two years. The rule means any legislation increasing mandatory spending (like entitlement programs) or cutting taxes — and therefore increasing the deficit over the next 10 years — would have to be offset with budget cuts to mandatory spending or tax increases. The rule can only be waived with a majority vote.

But for some House Democrats, particularly progressives who want to pursue ambitious new ideas like a Green New Deal, requiring budget cuts or tax increases to pay for them is galling.

At least three Democratic lawmakers — Reps. Ro Khanna (CA), Tim Ryan (OH), and newly elected progressive Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) — have spoken out against the rule change.

“It is terrible economics,” Khanna tweeted, saying he would vote against the House Democratic rules package. He added: “PayGo would be a terrible policy that unilaterally disarms the incoming Democratic majority’s ability to govern.”


www.vox.com

Democrats want to lose so damn bad.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12161 Posts
January 03 2019 16:56 GMT
#2431
Basically it says that you have to make sure a proposition you make doesn't increase the deficit, so it has to come with cuts to mandatory spending or a tax increase. It's a weapon against the left for obvious reasons, and it's basically the first move that Pelosi made after getting power, for the three people in the back who still thought the democratic party was progressive.
No will to live, no wish to die
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23197 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-01-03 17:01:25
January 03 2019 17:00 GMT
#2432
On January 04 2019 01:56 Nebuchad wrote:
Basically it says that you have to make sure a proposition you make doesn't increase the deficit, so it has to come with cuts to mandatory spending or a tax increase. It's a weapon against the left for obvious reasons, and it's basically the first move that Pelosi made after getting power, for the three people in the back who still thought the democratic party was progressive.


"Fool me once shame on you, fool me 793712490224824 times and I'm a Democrat"

Democrats are almost as bad as Republicans when it comes to refusing to see the flaws in their political party or simply relentlessly justifying them.

The PAYGO rule effectively allows Pelosi to refuse to even bring up progressive legislation and to blame the paygo rule (as if she didn't put it in place).

But they pwomised they would waive it for those policies they've been fighting tooth and nail against so far...
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
January 03 2019 17:17 GMT
#2433
If you dig into it, it is impossible to find out who floated the PayGo rule and who supports it. There is some dumb wing of conservative Democrats pushing for this so they can make one last desperate attempt to appeal to unhappy Republicans. But they totally don’t want to be known as the people floated the stupid rule when the package was created. It is so dumb that even centerists like Tim Ryan oppose it. I doubt it will survive long.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
January 03 2019 17:23 GMT
#2434
Trump is in mid-campaign form already:

Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12161 Posts
January 03 2019 17:26 GMT
#2435
Okay, I actually smiled at this one for once, you got me ^.^
No will to live, no wish to die
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23197 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-01-03 17:32:34
January 03 2019 17:29 GMT
#2436
On January 04 2019 02:17 Plansix wrote:
If you dig into it, it is impossible to find out who floated the PayGo rule and who supports it. There is some dumb wing of conservative Democrats pushing for this so they can make one last desperate attempt to appeal to unhappy Republicans. But they totally don’t want to be known as the people floated the stupid rule when the package was created. It is so dumb that even centerists like Tim Ryan oppose it. I doubt it will survive long.


What are you talking about? They need 18 Dems to stop it and can't get it. Makes it pretty obvious virtually all the Democrats (certainly leadership does) supports governing as conservatives (say they will govern) with austerity.

It's a stupid rule that's made remarkably more stupid by Democrats imposing it on themselves to ease their big money donors minds.
On January 04 2019 02:23 xDaunt wrote:
Trump is in mid-campaign form already:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1080858959404240896


I'm impressed at how fast the viability of her campaign dissipated. She's dead in the water after the paltry response to her announcement.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12161 Posts
January 03 2019 17:34 GMT
#2437
Even a bunch of the supposedly progressive democrats are voting for the paygo thing because they "got assurances that it would be waived in key battles" (lol). I'm pretty sure it's there to stay, they're just going to pretend that it comes from an obscure source and they don't quite know why it's there.
No will to live, no wish to die
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
January 03 2019 17:36 GMT
#2438
On January 04 2019 02:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm impressed at how fast the viability of her campaign dissipated. She's dead in the water after the paltry response to her announcement.


I thought her announcement was as delusional and misguided as Jeb's for the 2016 campaign.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23197 Posts
January 03 2019 17:36 GMT
#2439
On January 04 2019 02:34 Nebuchad wrote:
Even a bunch of the supposedly progressive democrats are voting for the paygo thing because they "got assurances that it would be waived in key battles" (lol). I'm pretty sure it's there to stay, they're just going to pretend that it comes from an obscure source and they don't quite know why it's there.


Blows my mind Democrats are so reflexively defensive of their party against progressive critique they can't see their leaders for what they are.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
January 03 2019 17:41 GMT
#2440
Why exactly do we think that it is a good idea to blow up the budget? It's not a problem that's easily dealt with. In the current environment of rising interest rates, it's fiscally disastrous. Going back to a ZIRP regime isn't good progressive policy, either, as the inflation has a huge regressive impact. The people who don't own anything (ie the lower classes) are the ones who get screwed.
Prev 1 120 121 122 123 124 171 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Replay Cast
00:00
SEL Masters #4 - Day 2
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 271
ProTech54
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 25331
Artosis 869
NaDa 44
Sharp 25
Icarus 8
Dota 2
monkeys_forever1138
NeuroSwarm138
League of Legends
JimRising 752
Trikslyr93
Counter-Strike
Fnx 1449
Stewie2K281
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox1031
Other Games
summit1g15758
shahzam1394
Day[9].tv463
C9.Mang0262
WinterStarcraft229
Maynarde159
Mew2King29
RuFF_SC228
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick3443
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH229
• Mapu12
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Scarra2519
• Rush1727
Other Games
• Day9tv463
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
7h 13m
WardiTV European League
13h 13m
ShoWTimE vs sebesdes
Percival vs NightPhoenix
Shameless vs Nicoract
Krystianer vs Scarlett
ByuN vs uThermal
Harstem vs HeRoMaRinE
PiGosaur Monday
21h 13m
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
1d 13h
Replay Cast
1d 21h
The PondCast
2 days
Replay Cast
2 days
Epic.LAN
3 days
CranKy Ducklings
4 days
Epic.LAN
4 days
[ Show More ]
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
Online Event
5 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
5 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Liquipedia Results

Completed

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Championship of Russia 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters

Upcoming

CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
K-Championship
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.