Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On September 29 2019 12:51 GreenHorizons wrote: EDIT: As an aside I think it's kinda silly to mention the potential of Russia manipulating opinions on Warren without addressing the clear and far more serious implications of corporate media doing the same.
This is an incredibly dangerous mindset to have. The Russians targeted both Sanders and Clinton in the primaries prior to the last election with the intent of killing enthusiasm for both. It is 100% reasonable to assume they are already doing the exact same thing right now for all of the major frontrunners. Also that account you shared seems rather suspect. It has no personal identifying information, was created 6 months ago, has tweeted over 1000 times per month (they must have a lot of free time), has retweeted others just as much, only tweets about wedge issues on the left, and mostly shares content from other accounts that look strikingly similar. I'd take what they say with a grain of salt to say the least. If not a troll account from a foreign entity, it could be an account created by someone supporting Trump with the intent of splitting the left. Again, trust nothing that isn't verified on social media.
Corporate media manipulation of opinions on candidates and foreign misinformation campaigns attempting to do the same are mutually exclusive topics in my view.
On September 29 2019 21:44 Velr wrote: I doubt anyone gives a shit about this. And even if some people do, the alternative is fucking trump which does worse all the time.
If this skews you away from voting warren and with that enabling trump your just a moron.
Yes, precisely. It is the explicit goal of both right-wing media and various misinformation campaigns of foreign governments to attempt to create false equivalences between the minor past mistakes of the various Democrat candidates and the many egregious things Trump has done. In doing so they want to create impossible standards for the Democrat candidates to have to meet while allowing Trump to be just as terrible as always. They want to make it so none of the candidates look appealing with hopes of killing enthusiasm for them, and thus suppressing voting on election day. We can't fall for this again.
If you were a fraction as skeptical of corporate media as you were that twitter account you'd see that their promotion of Trump (for profit) was exponentially more damaging than the best possible misinformation campaign from trolls.
Like I said before, Warren is a hard no for me, it's the primary, and I'd like to see Democrats not make the same mistake they made in 2016 arguing opposition to their candidate was all part of a misinformation campaign to split Democrats and sexism.
That billionaire is just some spoiled brat (maybe a future neoliberal Trump?), the significant part is MSNBC giving her a platform for that nonsense.
On September 30 2019 02:54 farvacola wrote: An individual's affiliation with Center for American Progress is a pretty good indicator that their political take will be awful.
CAP is representative of some of the worst parts of the party and is campaigning harder against medicare for all than Republicans are lately. The more they embrace Warren the worse she comes off as a candidate imo.
More Bernie supporters voted for Hillary than Hillary supporters (PUMAs) voted for Obama so that narrative is bunkum.
Besides following Sanders closely in 2016, I never actually heard about a "bernie bro" they way they are always talked about. Does anyone actually have an example for this "group"? I know that Sanders himself never really attacked Hillary, even when he very well could have/was invited to by interviewers. So blaming Sanders is really just trying to find a scapegoat for losing /being unable to beat trump which is in essence sad and pretty undemocratic in my opinion.
Looks like we'll be replacing "experience" and "qualified" with "detailed plans", but if you don't support Warren you're already a Trump supporting sexist...
Things like this are so cancerous.
It’s a ridiculous narrative way too wedded to party loyalties and tribalism.
At least some section of his support liked his genuine left wing policies, because they’re left wing, and weren’t enthused about Clinton because she’s not. It is really that simple.
Added to the DNC’s own behaviour during that cycle, and the subsequent insulting charge that a lukewarm reception at best for Clinton was down to sexism. Really not one to endear oneself to the Democrats as a political party that represents you and your desires.
On September 29 2019 12:51 GreenHorizons wrote: EDIT: As an aside I think it's kinda silly to mention the potential of Russia manipulating opinions on Warren without addressing the clear and far more serious implications of corporate media doing the same.
This is an incredibly dangerous mindset to have. The Russians targeted both Sanders and Clinton in the primaries prior to the last election with the intent of killing enthusiasm for both. It is 100% reasonable to assume they are already doing the exact same thing right now for all of the major frontrunners. Also that account you shared seems rather suspect. It has no personal identifying information, was created 6 months ago, has tweeted over 1000 times per month (they must have a lot of free time), has retweeted others just as much, only tweets about wedge issues on the left, and mostly shares content from other accounts that look strikingly similar. I'd take what they say with a grain of salt to say the least. If not a troll account from a foreign entity, it could be an account created by someone supporting Trump with the intent of splitting the left. Again, trust nothing that isn't verified on social media.
Corporate media manipulation of opinions on candidates and foreign misinformation campaigns attempting to do the same are mutually exclusive topics in my view.
On September 29 2019 21:44 Velr wrote: I doubt anyone gives a shit about this. And even if some people do, the alternative is fucking trump which does worse all the time.
If this skews you away from voting warren and with that enabling trump your just a moron.
Yes, precisely. It is the explicit goal of both right-wing media and various misinformation campaigns of foreign governments to attempt to create false equivalences between the minor past mistakes of the various Democrat candidates and the many egregious things Trump has done. In doing so they want to create impossible standards for the Democrat candidates to have to meet while allowing Trump to be just as terrible as always. They want to make it so none of the candidates look appealing with hopes of killing enthusiasm for them, and thus suppressing voting on election day. We can't fall for this again.
If you were a fraction as skeptical of corporate media as you were that twitter account you'd see that their promotion of Trump (for profit) was exponentially more damaging than the best possible misinformation campaign from trolls.
Like I said before, Warren is a hard no for me, it's the primary, and I'd like to see Democrats not make the same mistake they made in 2016 arguing opposition to their candidate was all part of a misinformation campaign to split Democrats and sexism.
That billionaire is just some spoiled brat (maybe a future neoliberal Trump?), the significant part is MSNBC giving her a platform for that nonsense.
On September 30 2019 02:54 farvacola wrote: An individual's affiliation with Center for American Progress is a pretty good indicator that their political take will be awful.
CAP is representative of some of the worst parts of the party and is campaigning harder against medicare for all than Republicans are lately. The more they embrace Warren the worse she comes off as a candidate imo.
I am just as skeptical of corporate media and it has been something I have brought up here in the past several times. In particular, I've brought up the New York Times several times due to both the bizarre behaviour of their editorial department and their exchanging access for puffy articles citing admin officials that have the effect of normalizing the administration's abnormal activities. Similarly with CNN continuing to allow administration representatives on their programs to spout misinformation while doing not nearly enough to push back against it. MSNBC has also been particularly problematic with Chuck Todd's softball interviews and several other MSNBC anchors' willingness to forgo journalistic integrity in exchange for poorly sourced stories that sounded too good to be true (see that story Lawrence O'Donnell had to retract a little while back). We've all seen those supercut videos of the major media entities seemingly forgetting the existence of Bernie, but he isn't the only one they have done that to. There's also videos floating around of the same type of thing happening with Warren, Buttigieg, and several others, especially earlier in the year when the media was all championing Biden. In many ways, the media is just as bad or worse with regard to creating the false equivalences, boosting Trump or attacking Democrat candidates in exchange for a perceived benefit.
However, I view the media versus misinformation campaigns doing similar things as mutually exclusive because the two entities behave this way for entirely different reasons. The social media outrage stuff we were talking about isn't the realm of the corporate media. It's an entirely separate beast, and one that has been prone to manipulation in the past. That's all I'm saying. There's a lot of outrage on social media. Is some of it valid? Sure. But still, be incredibly suspicious of a lot of it.
On September 29 2019 12:51 GreenHorizons wrote: EDIT: As an aside I think it's kinda silly to mention the potential of Russia manipulating opinions on Warren without addressing the clear and far more serious implications of corporate media doing the same.
This is an incredibly dangerous mindset to have. The Russians targeted both Sanders and Clinton in the primaries prior to the last election with the intent of killing enthusiasm for both. It is 100% reasonable to assume they are already doing the exact same thing right now for all of the major frontrunners. Also that account you shared seems rather suspect. It has no personal identifying information, was created 6 months ago, has tweeted over 1000 times per month (they must have a lot of free time), has retweeted others just as much, only tweets about wedge issues on the left, and mostly shares content from other accounts that look strikingly similar. I'd take what they say with a grain of salt to say the least. If not a troll account from a foreign entity, it could be an account created by someone supporting Trump with the intent of splitting the left. Again, trust nothing that isn't verified on social media.
Corporate media manipulation of opinions on candidates and foreign misinformation campaigns attempting to do the same are mutually exclusive topics in my view.
On September 29 2019 21:44 Velr wrote: I doubt anyone gives a shit about this. And even if some people do, the alternative is fucking trump which does worse all the time.
If this skews you away from voting warren and with that enabling trump your just a moron.
Yes, precisely. It is the explicit goal of both right-wing media and various misinformation campaigns of foreign governments to attempt to create false equivalences between the minor past mistakes of the various Democrat candidates and the many egregious things Trump has done. In doing so they want to create impossible standards for the Democrat candidates to have to meet while allowing Trump to be just as terrible as always. They want to make it so none of the candidates look appealing with hopes of killing enthusiasm for them, and thus suppressing voting on election day. We can't fall for this again.
If you were a fraction as skeptical of corporate media as you were that twitter account you'd see that their promotion of Trump (for profit) was exponentially more damaging than the best possible misinformation campaign from trolls.
Like I said before, Warren is a hard no for me, it's the primary, and I'd like to see Democrats not make the same mistake they made in 2016 arguing opposition to their candidate was all part of a misinformation campaign to split Democrats and sexism.
That billionaire is just some spoiled brat (maybe a future neoliberal Trump?), the significant part is MSNBC giving her a platform for that nonsense.
On September 30 2019 02:54 farvacola wrote: An individual's affiliation with Center for American Progress is a pretty good indicator that their political take will be awful.
CAP is representative of some of the worst parts of the party and is campaigning harder against medicare for all than Republicans are lately. The more they embrace Warren the worse she comes off as a candidate imo.
I am just as skeptical of corporate media and it has been something I have brought up here in the past several times. In particular, I've brought up the New York Times several times due to both the bizarre behaviour of their editorial department and their exchanging access for puffy articles citing admin officials that have the effect of normalizing the administration's abnormal activities. Similarly with CNN continuing to allow administration representatives on their programs to spout misinformation while doing not nearly enough to push back against it. MSNBC has also been particularly problematic with Chuck Todd's softball interviews and several other MSNBC anchors' willingness to forgo journalistic integrity in exchange for poorly sourced stories that sounded too good to be true (see that story Lawrence O'Donnell had to retract a little while back). We've all seen those supercut videos of the major media entities seemingly forgetting the existence of Bernie, but he isn't the only one they have done that to. There's also videos floating around of the same type of thing happening with Warren, Buttigieg, and several others, especially earlier in the year when the media was all championing Biden. In many ways, the media is just as bad or worse with regard to creating the false equivalences, boosting Trump or attacking Democrat candidates in exchange for a perceived benefit.
However, I view the media versus misinformation campaigns doing similar things as mutually exclusive because the two entities behave this way for entirely different reasons. The social media outrage stuff we were talking about isn't the realm of the corporate media. It's an entirely separate beast, and one that has been prone to manipulation in the past. That's all I'm saying. There's a lot of outrage on social media. Is some of it valid? Sure. But still, be incredibly suspicious of a lot of it.
They are all doing it for the same reason, wealth and power. Same reason we influence elections with misinformation campaigns and beyond around the world
I can understand wanting to separate them as long as we both understand Russia is a drop in the bucket compared to our manipulative domestic misinformation problem or divisive rhetoric from CAP/billionaire heiresses on MSNBC. The ~.1% of impressions/budget that Russia contributed to 2016 shouldn't be the priority, it's the other ~99% that's the real problem people should be watching out for.
That said, it seems this just served to divert attention away from the legitimate criticism of Warren under the guise of skepticism.
Is their a satisfactory reason for why the democrats never reached out to Jimmy Carter this election? Jimmy is the most qualified, universally well liked by dems, least scandal ridden politician in the last 50 years that is eligible to run, but nobody contacted out to him? Jimmy even got ahead of the MeToo movement before it gained steam by becoming a advocate for women.
I guess people would say Jimmy is too old but Mike Gravel who has been running for president going on a year now is about the same age as Jim. It would be an easy win for Dems if Carter ran imo
I certainly like Jimmy Carter more than I like most american presidents, but I had the impression losing a general election essentially means you can't run again. (not by law, but by custom.)
On September 30 2019 23:33 redlightdistrict wrote: Is their a satisfactory reason for why the democrats never reached out to Jimmy Carter this election? Jimmy is the most qualified, universally well liked by dems, least scandal ridden politician in the last 50 years that is eligible to run, but nobody contacted out to him? Jimmy even got ahead of the MeToo movement before it gained steam by becoming a advocate for women. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfW3aZCFfLA I guess people would say Jimmy is too old but Mike Gravel who has been running for president going on a year now is about the same age as Jim. It would be an easy win for Dems if Carter ran imo
he’s way too old. and part of the reason he’s so well liked is that he’s not a politician anymore
On September 30 2019 23:33 redlightdistrict wrote: Is their a satisfactory reason for why the democrats never reached out to Jimmy Carter this election? Jimmy is the most qualified, universally well liked by dems, least scandal ridden politician in the last 50 years that is eligible to run, but nobody contacted out to him? Jimmy even got ahead of the MeToo movement before it gained steam by becoming a advocate for women. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfW3aZCFfLA I guess people would say Jimmy is too old but Mike Gravel who has been running for president going on a year now is about the same age as Jim. It would be an easy win for Dems if Carter ran imo
Jimmy Carter is 95. He's way too old to be running for president.
Mike Gravel was also pretty open about not actually wanting to become president at his age. He just wanted to get a spot on the debate stage to push the other candidates/voters further left on foreign policy.
On September 30 2019 23:33 redlightdistrict wrote: Is their a satisfactory reason for why the democrats never reached out to Jimmy Carter this election? Jimmy is the most qualified, universally well liked by dems, least scandal ridden politician in the last 50 years that is eligible to run, but nobody contacted out to him? Jimmy even got ahead of the MeToo movement before it gained steam by becoming a advocate for women. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfW3aZCFfLA I guess people would say Jimmy is too old but Mike Gravel who has been running for president going on a year now is about the same age as Jim. It would be an easy win for Dems if Carter ran imo
he’s way too old. and part of the reason he’s so well liked is that he’s not a politician anymore
Indeed, if he did make that kind of return it would focus attention back on to his weaknesses and perceived/real failings in office.
I think the Dems maybe do miss a trick in employing him in some kind of elder statesman capacity, although that also assumes he’d want to do that.
On October 01 2019 00:11 Mohdoo wrote: This whole witness intimidation thing is pretty sketchy. Curious if Twitter will really let Trump just let loose with this whole civil war stuff.
Considering the #Resistance seemed to be planning a picnic (#CivilWarSignup) in opposition, I'm going with yes.
On October 01 2019 00:11 Mohdoo wrote: This whole witness intimidation thing is pretty sketchy. Curious if Twitter will really let Trump just let loose with this whole civil war stuff.
Considering the #Resistance seemed to be planning a picnic (#CivilWarSignup) in opposition, I'm going with yes.
I suppose this does a good job at once again displaying the fact that what is good for business is often not good for society. Twitter would greatly benefit from a civil war. Most people would not benefit from a civil war.
McConnell has said that he does not see a way for him to avoid holding a trial in the Senate if the House were to pass articles of impeachment. So pass them articles!
On October 01 2019 02:40 farvacola wrote: McConnell has said that he does not see a way for him to avoid holding a trial in the Senate if the House were to pass articles of impeachment. So pass them articles!
Remember how Mueller "exonerated" Trump? A senate trial will get you the same result unfortunately.
On October 01 2019 02:50 farvacola wrote: Nah, the contexts are sufficiently different, particularly in terms of how information can be presented.
Trump's approval is towards it's peak lately and it should make for better TV/clips and it might even make a difference electorally but I seriously doubt Republicans are going to impeach (Democrats don't even have the votes yet), and if/when they don't Trump will say he had a trial and was found not guilty or whatever. Then point to the multiple failed attempts at impeachment as evidence of an out of control congress.
I can see Republicans impeaching him if he won again though.
The voter who would be inclined to vote against Trump so long as Dems stop investigating his misconduct is mostly imaginary or of no importance, and I don’t put any stock in Trump’s approval ratings or any supposed trends drawn from them.
On September 29 2019 06:00 Introvert wrote: edit: @farv, though this applies generally.
I haven't found it, but I think the Ukrainians have also denied it. "Ah, but they would, to stay on Trump's good side!" We have no contrary reporting on that matter and everything else we know fits with it being true. Trump still has hard feelings over the Ukraine/DNC work in 2016, heard that Zelenskiy is an anti-corruption guy, hates the idea of foreign aid (espeically when he feels like the US is doing all the work). He speaks stream of consciousness and just regurgitates what he's heard. And surely Zelenskiy knew this, as we can see his flattery efforts on full display. He was prepped.
Trump was mouthing off, talking about one thing then another, not connecting the two. And again, it seems that the Ukrainians understood that. Guliaini's role is more troubling, but from all we know, he took this up on his own accord and Trump still doesn't grasp that it's not Rudy's job. I mean Rudy's been talking about this publicly for months.
I'm not sure "the President is too uninformed and careless to be responsible for his actions" is really a defense that one can or should be able to apply.
On September 30 2019 23:38 Liquid`Drone wrote: I certainly like Jimmy Carter more than I like most american presidents, but I had the impression losing a general election essentially means you can't run again. (not by law, but by custom.)
It be pretty terrible if we elected Jimmy again. He was such a choir boy which is why he was elected after Nixon. In his time he wasn't considered a good president it was only after the fact information was declassified which painted him in a much better light.
EPT
