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 December 05 2019 05:10 JimmiC wrote: I thought this editorial from Garry Kasparov was a very interesting read. He ends up taking on the most powerful countries in the world US, Russia and China. I think it is interesting how he compares what it was like in the USSR before the wall came down and how it is now in the US. I also thought it was interesting how he takes a bite out of Apple and Google on them bending to Authoritarian regimes. "there is no news in the truth and no truth in the news." is a great line as well.
‘ The internet was supposed to shine the light of truth into every corner of the world, breaking the authoritarians' monopoly on information. But it has also become a light-speed delivery system of lies and propaganda. The web has been chopped into pieces. Like a shattered mirror, each fragment reflects a different distorted image instead of a single reality’
Have honestly never heard it put better. Entirely reflects my disappointment over what the internet promised and what it delivered.
He’s entirely right on this point.
Yes you can see why he was Chess champion he is clearly a brilliant man with some great insights given where he has lived in what times. Also very brave given that Germany just expelled Russian diplomats because they are convinced they had someone killed there. I'm going to look to read more from him in the future.
He’s a good combination of exceedingly smart, (far smarter than I am anyway) and seems to have a moral compass and doesn’t give a fuck about being rich and especially influential.
Pretty good combo to have for someone commentating on various issues.
Frankly Kasparov is a rather horrible person. He was as a chess player and kind of remained that way in politics. He happens to be against Putin and so on, which is great but he is a complete hawk, that unconditionally supports Israel and its shenanigans and was talking for the Heritage foundation for years. Not a great guy even though he says interesting things sometimes.
On December 05 2019 07:05 Erasme wrote: People can be incredibly brillant at one thing, and yet be clueless about others. Even if kasparov is an incredible chess player with a brillant mind, i'd probably wouldn't take history lessons from him. Latin was used until Gutenberg came around.
True and with his math brain he was probably drawn to mathematical explanations, and if we discounted everything people said based on one conspiracy theory they supported we would have to discount many of posters in this thread.
he’s not wrong about lying and falsehoods coming from trump and putin. i just wonder why he or anyone else thinks that it is important to repeat what everyone already knows, because now it is coming from him. there are three overlapping considerations: he is a celebrity; his russianness confirms his linking of putin and trump as similar, bad guys; invoking putin at all continues the russian collusion narrative
i dont see why any of us would be excited about any of those things. on his own merits his only political qualifications are that he defined himself politically as the anti-putin and that he is basically a reagan-thatcher-clintonite liberal who spent most of his adult life obsessively thinking about chess
nothing about the abstraction of chess should suggest that one of the greatest chess players of all time has a particularly tight grip on reality, and my earlier posts were meant to call that proposition into even greater doubt
hmm, so that's the idea with Putin + Erdogan; they want to 'take back' the Russian Hordes' territory(slavs+turkic). ww3 triggering idea. (yea, was the wrong one)
Not with the content per se, but with the context and positioning. It is objectively a boring article. That is part of the context: look at this boring article saying stuff we already know—but look who is saying it! It's a classic appeal to authority in that sense.
Look, my intention was certainly not to impugn your sense of judgment in posting it, especially if you aren't overly familiar with Kasparov. I was just giving my thoughts on it.
On December 05 2019 07:05 Erasme wrote: People can be incredibly brillant at one thing, and yet be clueless about others. Even if kasparov is an incredible chess player with a brillant mind, i'd probably wouldn't take history lessons from him. Latin was used until Gutenberg came around.
Reminds me of Ben Carson and the Pyramids/grain silos and mummies/scare crows.
Today is the 50th anniversary of the FBI and Chicago PD coordinating in the assassination of Fred Hampton. The FBI headquarters still bares its architects name (the architect of the assassinations of civil rights leaders, not the architect of the building).
On December 05 2019 12:42 redlightdistrict wrote: CLinton is claiming Sanders is being backed by the Russians on todays Howard Stern interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKOHZXhnCyM She must be trying to curb his momentum so she can enter the race.
If she enters the race, then she and her twin (Biden) will split moderates evenly, making it even more likely that Bernie wins.
On December 05 2019 12:42 redlightdistrict wrote: CLinton is claiming Sanders is being backed by the Russians on todays Howard Stern interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKOHZXhnCyM She must be trying to curb his momentum so she can enter the race.
If she enters the race, then she and her twin (Biden) will split moderates evenly, making it even more likely that Bernie wins.
Would they, or would the bottom just fall out of Biden and Buttigieg's campaigns then moderates and neoliberals consolidate back around Clinton?
On December 05 2019 12:42 redlightdistrict wrote: CLinton is claiming Sanders is being backed by the Russians on todays Howard Stern interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKOHZXhnCyM She must be trying to curb his momentum so she can enter the race.
If she enters the race, then she and her twin (Biden) will split moderates evenly, making it even more likely that Bernie wins.
Would they, or would the bottom just fall out of Biden and Buttigieg's campaigns then moderates and neoliberals consolidate back around Clinton?
Could be that too, although I feel like Hillary would have declared she was running a while ago if she was confident she still had the overwhelming support of moderates. I don't know if her missing all the debates would be a good thing or a bad thing for her... On one hand, her opponents would have attacked her more; on the other hand, Biden and Buttigieg have clearly replaced her as the darlings of the centrists. I feel like she can't possibly do better in this primary/ general than she did last election.
Sigh, no Clinton isn't running..... There are already a couple of states where the filing date has passed so she couldn't even be on the ballot there.
I do love how redlightdistrict has to come in here again to throw in a random piece of "here Democrats please hate eachother" before running off to find the next piece to drop in a weeks time.
On December 05 2019 12:42 redlightdistrict wrote: CLinton is claiming Sanders is being backed by the Russians on todays Howard Stern interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKOHZXhnCyM She must be trying to curb his momentum so she can enter the race.
Clinton. Is. Not. Running!
She was never going to run. She never claimed she wanted to. She can't run. It's literally too late. Please stop this nonsense already.
She could just be that desperate to sell her book. I imagine the bank account drains pretty quick without all the 6 figure speeches and not-bribes to the foundations coming in.
As for running, she doesn't have to, they can just give her the nomination if they want. Secondly she doesn't have to win the nomination outright if she did run, just enough to make it a split convention. Lastly people could write her in.
That said, it's clear what redlight has been doing for a while now.
Honestly I think that's giving far too much credit. He just crawls out of whatever dark corner of YouTube he's been occupying whenever he finds something that will blow the lib sheeple's minds. Which is every second thing he comes across. I don't know why people even engage.
I suspect Clinton would immediately end Biden and buttigieg's runs if she were to enter, but would struggle to beat Warren/Bernie this time around and would get trounced by Trump if she did make it to the general. With the field as weak as it is, there was always a chance she would re-emerge, but it's highly unlikely now the filing dates have started to pass. I don't see much point in discussing it unless she does.
would she end biden and buttigieg? I haven't seen a single person remotely positive towards her running. I get that there are people, that are entirely outside any of my circles, but like.. I just don't understand how she could have any impact, aside from possibly making some democrats like, or dislike a candidate she backs, or criticizes.
On December 05 2019 21:33 Liquid`Drone wrote: would she end biden and buttigieg? I haven't seen a single person remotely positive towards her running. I get that there are people, that are entirely outside any of my circles, but like.. I just don't understand how she could have any impact, aside from possibly making some democrats like, or dislike a candidate she backs, or criticizes.
I mean a lot of their staff are people that definitely prefer Hillary. A lot of their support are the most diehard Clintonites. Biden is only still considered viable/top tier because of Hillary's "fire wall" down south. Pete's campaign is going to evaporate on it's own, but she'd take at least half his support killing him in the cradle.
Hillary makes both Biden and Pete lose viability (even with just a part of each of their supporters) then the rest fall in line when she is the best/only establishment option remaining.
But she has to find the exact right time to enter and score some favorability (since it hasn't gone up like most politicians when they aren't in office). Fingers crossed, that time never comes.
On December 05 2019 21:33 Liquid`Drone wrote: would she end biden and buttigieg? I haven't seen a single person remotely positive towards her running. I get that there are people, that are entirely outside any of my circles, but like.. I just don't understand how she could have any impact, aside from possibly making some democrats like, or dislike a candidate she backs, or criticizes.
She'd compete with Biden but definitely wouldn't end his run.
Buttigieg's base is different than Biden's no matter how badly people want to paint him as the same type of candidate.
EPT
