|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 09 2019 23:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2019 22:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2019 21:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 09 2019 18:28 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2019 18:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 09 2019 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 09 2019 09:49 Doodsmack wrote:On December 09 2019 08:51 Gahlo wrote:On December 09 2019 08:41 Doodsmack wrote:Interesting to see the media dismissing the idea that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election as "Russian disinformation." Back when it wasn't fatal to their narrative, they were reporting that Ukraine meddled in the election: Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. Politico "The narrative" is that the Russians interfering with the DNC/democratic candidates never happened and it was all Ukrainian, which is supposed to "something, something, profit" into justifying withholding aid from Ukraine. Nice try though. The narrative is that it can't possibly be the case that Ukraine meddled, because that's simply Russian disinformation. Which in turn means that any attempt to investigate Ukraine or Biden is automatically corrupt. And it also means that any attempt to investigate the Obama administration's potential involvement in inducing Ukrainian meddling is corrupt. (Granted, I'm not excusing an attempt to withhold military aid to Ukraine here.) Did noticing neoliberal media was trying to manipulate you with misleading or outright misinformation move you to the right or left? I would love to know who and what is the "neoliberal media". Almost all corporate news. So would you put, say, the BBC, the New York Times, Haaretz, Fox News, Libération, El Pais, The Times and The Sun under one umbrella term - implying they all have the same agenda? Just to clarify. Agenda might be a bit strong, sounds like they're having a conspiracy. Outlook, ideology, world view... something like that. Other than "everyone who doesn't agree with me is a neoliberal villain", that makes absolutely zero sense. I don't think Libération (property of Rotschild btw) and Fox News have ever agreed on one single thing. Not on economy, not on society, not on politics, not on ideology, not on immigration, not on foreign affairs, nada. My impression is that for some of you guys, anyone who doesn't have complete left-wing purity is a henchman of neoliberalism with a sinister agenda. That's the reason I preferred so much this thread when it was not taken hostage by this really dull, binary and repetitive world view, a few months ago.
In terms of Politics with a capital p it makes perfect rational sense that most corporate press would converge to the same place. If you go too far into fascism, you'll get people who don't like the "press" part, and if you go too far into socialism, you'll get people who don't like the "corporate" part. Liberal is what's left in the middle, and of course not all liberalism is neoliberal, but neoliberalism is the form that's dominant in the capitalist world today.
All in all, it would be weird if they didn't tend to end up in the ideological place that has the most room for their existence, don't you think?
I think what would be much weirder is if that didn't happen. There I would need to find a reason why.
"My impression is that for some of you guys, anyone who doesn't have complete left-wing purity is a henchman of neoliberalism with a sinister agenda."
This sentence has two main issues. First, I specifically reacted against using the word agenda because it's obviously not a conspiracy involving all "the media" (how would that even work?), and you don't care to update your impression. Second, it frames liberalism as a "less pure version" of leftism, which it's not. It's a different ideology. We don't disagree with liberals because they aren't pure enough, we disagree with liberals because they do not think society should be organized in the same way that we do. I get it when Americans do this because the liberal party has been their leftwing party for a while now but how come Europeans are starting to do this? Do you think Macron is a less pure version of Mélenchon?
|
On December 09 2019 23:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2019 22:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2019 21:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 09 2019 18:28 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2019 18:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 09 2019 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 09 2019 09:49 Doodsmack wrote:On December 09 2019 08:51 Gahlo wrote:On December 09 2019 08:41 Doodsmack wrote:Interesting to see the media dismissing the idea that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election as "Russian disinformation." Back when it wasn't fatal to their narrative, they were reporting that Ukraine meddled in the election: Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. Politico "The narrative" is that the Russians interfering with the DNC/democratic candidates never happened and it was all Ukrainian, which is supposed to "something, something, profit" into justifying withholding aid from Ukraine. Nice try though. The narrative is that it can't possibly be the case that Ukraine meddled, because that's simply Russian disinformation. Which in turn means that any attempt to investigate Ukraine or Biden is automatically corrupt. And it also means that any attempt to investigate the Obama administration's potential involvement in inducing Ukrainian meddling is corrupt. (Granted, I'm not excusing an attempt to withhold military aid to Ukraine here.) Did noticing neoliberal media was trying to manipulate you with misleading or outright misinformation move you to the right or left? I would love to know who and what is the "neoliberal media". Almost all corporate news. So would you put, say, the BBC, the New York Times, Haaretz, Fox News, Libération, El Pais, The Times and The Sun under one umbrella term - implying they all have the same agenda? Just to clarify. Agenda might be a bit strong, sounds like they're having a conspiracy. Outlook, ideology, world view... something like that. Other than "everyone who doesn't agree with me is a neoliberal villain", that makes absolutely zero sense. I don't think Libération (property of Rotschild btw) and Fox News have ever agreed on one single thing. Not on economy, not on society, not on politics, not on ideology, not on immigration, not on foreign affairs, nada. My impression is that for some of you guys, anyone who doesn't have complete left-wing purity is a henchman of neoliberalism with a sinister agenda. That's the reason I preferred so much this thread when it was not taken hostage by this really dull, binary and repetitive world view, a few months ago. And that's also why I have a serious alarm signal in my brain everytime I hear the term "neoliberalism". It has meant something once, but nowadays you can be certain that 99% of the time it's used, it's gonna be very, very dumb. It's a bit like "globalists" for the far right.
Did you miss the discussion on my use of neoliberal?
The obvious thing neoliberals agree on is keeping various renditions of capitalism as our economic system.
|
Northern Ireland23824 Posts
On December 09 2019 23:14 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2019 21:22 Silvanel wrote:
I recommend to everyone to play EUIV a bit. You will see how the effects of shitty rulers or policies are felt many years after the ruler is gone or policy implemented. How a country can propsper with having an imbecile with stats 0/0/0 (lowest possible) and be in shambles with having ruler with stats 6/6/6 (highest possible) because of things that happened many years before. I am not kidding. That game is realy good in showing how long it takes for a policy change to realy take effect and how prosperity or lack of therof is rooted in past decisions (not present).
And expanding on the above: You will feel true and whole effect of Trump administration many years from now. I agree this is true for most policies historically, but the stock market is historically unprecedented in both how quickly and how arbitrarily it is affected, and for people that believe economy = stock market, it equates to meaningful economic change. The moment it was announced Trump became President, the stock market began soaring; I doubt that it was just coincidental timing from one of Obama’s or Bush’s policy decisions. In fact, the stock market = economy dynamic is an effective way for the small amount of super-wealthy people to make a warped form of trickle-down economics happen. It’s completely based on perception of the market, so any government policies that happen don’t need to be based on sound economic theory, just sound appealing to the big stock market players (a.k.a. de-regulation). The super-wealthy then make big moves, which encourages the wealthy to make big moves, which encourages everyone else to make moves, and all of a sudden you get zenist’s saying that he’s saved the economy. Then of course since people have more confidence, more small businesses and therefore jobs open up, which means more relevant economic indicators like GDP per capita increase as well. However, wage share (amount of capital going to labor wages) has been steadily decreasing since the 80s, which means a proletariat revolt of some sort is the likely outcome of policies like Trumps; just a matter of when. TLDR; the stock market fluctuates quickly and to the arbitrary will of the super-wealthy while also having a huge impact on public perception, which goes hand in hand with Trump the con-man and his way of doing things.
The stock market is perception, basically and people put far too much stock in it, pun very much intended.
If you actually know what’s going on internally in a company it’s insider trading, and bad.
Not that I’m defending the latter, but when the illicit form of trading is the one that is most informed says something about the whole enterprise.
|
Northern Ireland23824 Posts
On December 09 2019 23:24 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2019 23:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 09 2019 22:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2019 21:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 09 2019 18:28 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2019 18:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 09 2019 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 09 2019 09:49 Doodsmack wrote:On December 09 2019 08:51 Gahlo wrote:On December 09 2019 08:41 Doodsmack wrote:Interesting to see the media dismissing the idea that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election as "Russian disinformation." Back when it wasn't fatal to their narrative, they were reporting that Ukraine meddled in the election: [quote] Politico "The narrative" is that the Russians interfering with the DNC/democratic candidates never happened and it was all Ukrainian, which is supposed to "something, something, profit" into justifying withholding aid from Ukraine. Nice try though. The narrative is that it can't possibly be the case that Ukraine meddled, because that's simply Russian disinformation. Which in turn means that any attempt to investigate Ukraine or Biden is automatically corrupt. And it also means that any attempt to investigate the Obama administration's potential involvement in inducing Ukrainian meddling is corrupt. (Granted, I'm not excusing an attempt to withhold military aid to Ukraine here.) Did noticing neoliberal media was trying to manipulate you with misleading or outright misinformation move you to the right or left? I would love to know who and what is the "neoliberal media". Almost all corporate news. So would you put, say, the BBC, the New York Times, Haaretz, Fox News, Libération, El Pais, The Times and The Sun under one umbrella term - implying they all have the same agenda? Just to clarify. Agenda might be a bit strong, sounds like they're having a conspiracy. Outlook, ideology, world view... something like that. Other than "everyone who doesn't agree with me is a neoliberal villain", that makes absolutely zero sense. I don't think Libération (property of Rotschild btw) and Fox News have ever agreed on one single thing. Not on economy, not on society, not on politics, not on ideology, not on immigration, not on foreign affairs, nada. My impression is that for some of you guys, anyone who doesn't have complete left-wing purity is a henchman of neoliberalism with a sinister agenda. That's the reason I preferred so much this thread when it was not taken hostage by this really dull, binary and repetitive world view, a few months ago. In terms of Politics with a capital p it makes perfect rational sense that most corporate press would converge to the same place. If you go too far into fascism, you'll get people who don't like the "press" part, and if you go too far into socialism, you'll get people who don't like the "corporate" part. Liberal is what's left in the middle, and of course not all liberalism is neoliberal, but neoliberalism is the form that's dominant in the capitalist world today. All in all, it would be weird if they didn't tend to end up in the ideological place that has the most room for their existence, don't you think? I think what would be much weirder is if that didn't happen. There I would need to find a reason why. "My impression is that for some of you guys, anyone who doesn't have complete left-wing purity is a henchman of neoliberalism with a sinister agenda." This sentence has two main issues. First, I specifically reacted against using the word agenda because it's obviously not a conspiracy involving all "the media" (how would that even work?), and you don't care to update your impression. Second, it frames liberalism as a "less pure version" of leftism, which it's not. It's a different ideology. We don't disagree with liberals because they aren't pure enough, we disagree with liberals because they do not think society should be organized in the same way that we do. I get it when Americans do this because the liberal party has been their leftwing party for a while now but how come Europeans are starting to do this? Do you think Macron is a less pure version of Mélenchon?
It’s not a conspiracy, nor is there some overarching agenda or particular end goal. I feel people profoundly miss the mark when viewing the world’s ills (whatever they see them as) as being due to some shadowy cabal somewhere.
Media, like society at large operates in a capitalistic space with certain norms, and thus reflects and amplifies those norms.
There is considerable divergence within that space, but one can’t really escape that fundamental tenet.
Media is dependent on advertising revenue, and advertising and marketing happiness to people is the most capitalist thing there is.
|
On December 09 2019 22:36 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2019 21:56 Silvanel wrote:On December 09 2019 21:25 Wombat_NI wrote:
But Trump has the best stats, huge stats! Believe me Like 0/1/0 Babbling Buffon, Loose lips, Petty ??? (Those are autentic traits from game)  More in spoiler: + Show Spoiler +Babbling Buffoon -1 Diplomatic relations Loose Lips -20% Foreign Spy detection Petty -0,05% Mnadate growth Seems pretty accurate in regards to Trump This game sounds enjoyable, what’s it called again? Oh wait Europa Universalis?
Yeah. EUIV Stands for Europa Universalis IV.
|
On December 09 2019 23:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2019 22:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2019 21:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 09 2019 18:28 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2019 18:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 09 2019 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 09 2019 09:49 Doodsmack wrote:On December 09 2019 08:51 Gahlo wrote:On December 09 2019 08:41 Doodsmack wrote:Interesting to see the media dismissing the idea that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election as "Russian disinformation." Back when it wasn't fatal to their narrative, they were reporting that Ukraine meddled in the election: Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. Politico "The narrative" is that the Russians interfering with the DNC/democratic candidates never happened and it was all Ukrainian, which is supposed to "something, something, profit" into justifying withholding aid from Ukraine. Nice try though. The narrative is that it can't possibly be the case that Ukraine meddled, because that's simply Russian disinformation. Which in turn means that any attempt to investigate Ukraine or Biden is automatically corrupt. And it also means that any attempt to investigate the Obama administration's potential involvement in inducing Ukrainian meddling is corrupt. (Granted, I'm not excusing an attempt to withhold military aid to Ukraine here.) Did noticing neoliberal media was trying to manipulate you with misleading or outright misinformation move you to the right or left? I would love to know who and what is the "neoliberal media". Almost all corporate news. So would you put, say, the BBC, the New York Times, Haaretz, Fox News, Libération, El Pais, The Times and The Sun under one umbrella term - implying they all have the same agenda? Just to clarify. Agenda might be a bit strong, sounds like they're having a conspiracy. Outlook, ideology, world view... something like that. Other than "everyone who doesn't agree with me is a neoliberal villain", that makes absolutely zero sense. I don't think Libération (property of Rotschild btw) and Fox News have ever agreed on one single thing. Not on economy, not on society, not on politics, not on ideology, not on immigration, not on foreign affairs, nada. My impression is that for some of you guys, anyone who doesn't have complete left-wing purity is a henchman of neoliberalism with a sinister agenda. That's the reason I preferred so much this thread when it was not taken hostage by this really dull, binary and repetitive world view, a few months ago. And that's also why I have a serious alarm signal in my brain everytime I hear the term "neoliberalism". It has meant something once, but nowadays you can be certain that 99% of the time it's used, it's gonna be very, very dumb. It's a bit like "globalists" for the far right.
It is a shame when we have good discussions on a variety of topics, it has to return to one of three topics. Never fails.
|
On December 10 2019 02:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2019 23:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 09 2019 22:06 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2019 21:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 09 2019 18:28 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2019 18:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 09 2019 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 09 2019 09:49 Doodsmack wrote:On December 09 2019 08:51 Gahlo wrote:On December 09 2019 08:41 Doodsmack wrote:Interesting to see the media dismissing the idea that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election as "Russian disinformation." Back when it wasn't fatal to their narrative, they were reporting that Ukraine meddled in the election: [quote] Politico "The narrative" is that the Russians interfering with the DNC/democratic candidates never happened and it was all Ukrainian, which is supposed to "something, something, profit" into justifying withholding aid from Ukraine. Nice try though. The narrative is that it can't possibly be the case that Ukraine meddled, because that's simply Russian disinformation. Which in turn means that any attempt to investigate Ukraine or Biden is automatically corrupt. And it also means that any attempt to investigate the Obama administration's potential involvement in inducing Ukrainian meddling is corrupt. (Granted, I'm not excusing an attempt to withhold military aid to Ukraine here.) Did noticing neoliberal media was trying to manipulate you with misleading or outright misinformation move you to the right or left? I would love to know who and what is the "neoliberal media". Almost all corporate news. So would you put, say, the BBC, the New York Times, Haaretz, Fox News, Libération, El Pais, The Times and The Sun under one umbrella term - implying they all have the same agenda? Just to clarify. Agenda might be a bit strong, sounds like they're having a conspiracy. Outlook, ideology, world view... something like that. Other than "everyone who doesn't agree with me is a neoliberal villain", that makes absolutely zero sense. I don't think Libération (property of Rotschild btw) and Fox News have ever agreed on one single thing. Not on economy, not on society, not on politics, not on ideology, not on immigration, not on foreign affairs, nada. My impression is that for some of you guys, anyone who doesn't have complete left-wing purity is a henchman of neoliberalism with a sinister agenda. That's the reason I preferred so much this thread when it was not taken hostage by this really dull, binary and repetitive world view, a few months ago. And that's also why I have a serious alarm signal in my brain everytime I hear the term "neoliberalism". It has meant something once, but nowadays you can be certain that 99% of the time it's used, it's gonna be very, very dumb. It's a bit like "globalists" for the far right. It is a shame when we have good discussions on a variety of topics, it has to return to one of three topics. Never fails.
fwiw I wasn't intending on discussing neoliberalism and that's why I referenced the last time it came up. My interest was in doodsmack's noticeable shift in perspective over the last couple years.
|
I also reacted to Biff's post and wasn't going to bring any of this up otherwise.
|
I was just remarking that this thread always circles back to a few select topics and then participation wanes and it grows stale. Nothing more.
|
On December 10 2019 02:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I was just remarking that this thread always circles back to a few select topics and then participation wanes and it grows stale. Nothing more.
Fair enough. Recently I have been more interested in Politics than in politics, admittedly. Side effect of my political journey I suppose.
|
On December 10 2019 02:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I was just remarking that this thread always circles back to a few select topics and then participation wanes and it grows stale. Nothing more.
I'm curious what you think those few select topics are?
|
Northern Ireland23824 Posts
On December 10 2019 02:25 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2019 02:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I was just remarking that this thread always circles back to a few select topics and then participation wanes and it grows stale. Nothing more. Fair enough. Recently I have been more interested in Politics than in politics, admittedly. Side effect of my political journey I suppose.
I personally prefer the big picture fundamental stuff and those discussions myself, forum permitting.
|
In other news, the IG released their report on the investigation of improperly using their power to investigate the trump campaign today. I suspect it confirms what most people thought and just goes to show what a massive waste of time and money this was. Looking forward to the talking points going forward because it doesn't really do either side any favors.
The Russia investigation was "properly" predicated and an internal watchdog found no evidence of political bias — but there were numerous problems with the surveillance of a former junior campaign aide to Donald Trump.
Inspector General Michael Horowitz documents those findings in a new report unveiled on Monday. Read the report here.
Overall, the report found no evidence that the FBI and Justice Department acted with political bias in the broad frame of the Russia investigation, but investigators discovered 17 significant errors and omissions in the application for surveillance on Carter Page, who had advised Trump's 2016 campaign.
Horowitz's report concluded the problems with the Page surveillance application represented "serious performance failures" by the FBI and other officials involved.
Source
|
On December 09 2019 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2019 09:49 Doodsmack wrote:On December 09 2019 08:51 Gahlo wrote:On December 09 2019 08:41 Doodsmack wrote:Interesting to see the media dismissing the idea that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election as "Russian disinformation." Back when it wasn't fatal to their narrative, they were reporting that Ukraine meddled in the election: Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. Politico "The narrative" is that the Russians interfering with the DNC/democratic candidates never happened and it was all Ukrainian, which is supposed to "something, something, profit" into justifying withholding aid from Ukraine. Nice try though. The narrative is that it can't possibly be the case that Ukraine meddled, because that's simply Russian disinformation. Which in turn means that any attempt to investigate Ukraine or Biden is automatically corrupt. And it also means that any attempt to investigate the Obama administration's potential involvement in inducing Ukrainian meddling is corrupt. (Granted, I'm not excusing an attempt to withhold military aid to Ukraine here.) Did noticing neoliberal media was trying to manipulate you with misleading or outright misinformation move you to the right or left?
I would say to the right a bit, or at least it brought the media's bias into a clearer contrast.
|
On December 10 2019 04:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:In other news, this came out today. I suspect it confirms what most people thought and just goes to show what a massive waste of time and money this was. Looking forward to the talking points going forward because it doesn't really do either side any favors. Show nested quote +The Russia investigation was "properly" predicated and an internal watchdog found no evidence of political bias — but there were numerous problems with the surveillance of a former junior campaign aide to Donald Trump.
Inspector General Michael Horowitz documents those findings in a new report unveiled on Monday. Read the report here.
Overall, the report found no evidence that the FBI and Justice Department acted with political bias in the broad frame of the Russia investigation, but investigators discovered 17 significant errors and omissions in the application for surveillance on Carter Page, who had advised Trump's 2016 campaign.
Horowitz's report concluded the problems with the Page surveillance application represented "serious performance failures" by the FBI and other officials involved. Source
Very interesting to see John Durham release a statement disputing Horowitz's key findings on predication. Regarding the FISA applications, I find it odd that Horowitz would not address the implications of what apparently is a clear violation of the FISA court's Rules of Procedure. Violation of internal FBI policies is one thing, but it would seem that a court's rules are a whole different matter. I guess Horowitz could claim that the court's rules are out of his purview, but if the question is the propriety of FBI officials' conduct, then violation of court rules is relevant.
|
On December 10 2019 04:23 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2019 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 09 2019 09:49 Doodsmack wrote:On December 09 2019 08:51 Gahlo wrote:On December 09 2019 08:41 Doodsmack wrote:Interesting to see the media dismissing the idea that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election as "Russian disinformation." Back when it wasn't fatal to their narrative, they were reporting that Ukraine meddled in the election: Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. Politico "The narrative" is that the Russians interfering with the DNC/democratic candidates never happened and it was all Ukrainian, which is supposed to "something, something, profit" into justifying withholding aid from Ukraine. Nice try though. The narrative is that it can't possibly be the case that Ukraine meddled, because that's simply Russian disinformation. Which in turn means that any attempt to investigate Ukraine or Biden is automatically corrupt. And it also means that any attempt to investigate the Obama administration's potential involvement in inducing Ukrainian meddling is corrupt. (Granted, I'm not excusing an attempt to withhold military aid to Ukraine here.) Did noticing neoliberal media was trying to manipulate you with misleading or outright misinformation move you to the right or left? I would say to the right a bit, or at least it brought the media's bias into a clearer contrast.
Don't think you're going to find a more trustworthy press on the right unfortunately 
Laura Kuenssberg being today's example at the BBC but this is off topic.
(Very good take by NewSunshine below.)
|
I would never say that the media's bias has pushed me one way or the other, but it is important to hold a nuanced view. For instance I find CNN preposterous as one of the biggest proponents of political spectacle, the whole politics as a team sport thing. But I would get bounced back to the left twice as hard by Fox News if I let that influence my views. Ultimately though, they both perpetuate elements of the status quo that are toxic in the long term. Some aggravation at those who supposedly represent the Left in America should be expected. They're doing a poorer and poorer job of it as time goes on.
|
On December 09 2019 20:37 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2019 19:58 zenist wrote:On December 08 2019 04:31 ShambhalaWar wrote:On December 07 2019 07:22 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2019 07:14 iamthedave wrote:On December 07 2019 04:59 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2019 04:31 Xxio wrote:On December 06 2019 22:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Biden's ' No Malarkey' tour kicked off in Iowa with him telling an 84 year old farmer "let’s do pushups together here, man. Let’s run. Let’s do whatever you want to do. Let’s take an IQ test. OK?". Biden is comedy gold, if that ain't malarkey then what is? He's still the frontrunner, somehow.Warren collapsing on RCP poll averages. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/05/joe-biden-iowa-voter-fat I wonder if the DNC will turn away from him. The "gaffs" are adding up and attracting attention. I'd like to see more of this from Biden, just done better. He was great up until the point where he asked about an IQ test. Keep it strictly to bravado, no need for the iamverysmart. I mean... really? If this rates positively on the meter, this election is gonna be a traaaaaaaaainwreck. I don't see the sense behind anyone on here supporting Biden at all. I can see the electoral logic for the less informed, but everyone on here must know Trump will crush Biden like a paper cup and toss him in the trash. He's Trump's perfect kind of opponent. I'm far from pro-Biden, but the general electorate is sub-garbage and they really like shows of strength and masculinity. Imagine being someone who thinks it is a good thing to buy a truck without working in construction or some other profession that uses a truck. That's who is voting. That is why Biden doing shit like this is a good thing is he gets the nomination. I think if it's Biden, there's 80-90% chance trump gets reelected and we're fucked... along with the world. People wanted real change, and Biden represents the norm. People say that now back to the norm is all we want, but I don't believe people really want things to keep going this way... it's unsustainable. If trump wins, I'll seriously consider leaving the country, if Biden wins... I will also seriously consider it... because nothing will really get better here. Wages will still be shit, healthcare shit, housing will eventually crash... nothing here is sustainable unless you are already rich... It's all kind of a mess waiting to fall apart. Who would want to have a kid here with the gun problem in schools? Or even bring a kid into the world when we don't seriously do anything about climate change? I think the only real chance we have is with Bernie, and if he wasn't getting blacked out by the media sooo much, I think the nominee would be him, hands down. They have to suppress him to get some corporate asshole in his place.It should be Bernie, and the slogan should be "real change." Warren also stands a chance is she just rallies with Bernie and stops trying to straddle the fence. Edit: Keeping that in mind I will 1,000% back and vote for any dem over that asshole trump... or any repub. Why we fucked though? The economy is doing well, jobs are being created, stock markets at all time high. Rather have an asshole that improve things than a gentleman that can't get anything done. How much of that is really attributable to Trump and his policies specifically though? But yeah point taken. A lot of people don’t care for the economy in an abstract sense, much less the stock market, it’s how those things interact with their lives and what they value. As an employee my selling strategy for my company stocks is when I get wind of some scheme that I think is a terrible idea, wait until it’s announced publicly and then sell shortly after and I usually get a nice bump. Not a particularly subtle strategy, if something is going to be bad for employees it almost certainly gets investors hard because their interests are not aligned.
One thing for sure, is that people are working and getting paid.
All that matters.
|
United States41983 Posts
On December 10 2019 06:49 zenist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2019 20:37 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 09 2019 19:58 zenist wrote:On December 08 2019 04:31 ShambhalaWar wrote:On December 07 2019 07:22 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2019 07:14 iamthedave wrote:On December 07 2019 04:59 Mohdoo wrote:On December 07 2019 04:31 Xxio wrote:On December 06 2019 22:36 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Biden's ' No Malarkey' tour kicked off in Iowa with him telling an 84 year old farmer "let’s do pushups together here, man. Let’s run. Let’s do whatever you want to do. Let’s take an IQ test. OK?". Biden is comedy gold, if that ain't malarkey then what is? He's still the frontrunner, somehow.Warren collapsing on RCP poll averages. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/05/joe-biden-iowa-voter-fat I wonder if the DNC will turn away from him. The "gaffs" are adding up and attracting attention. I'd like to see more of this from Biden, just done better. He was great up until the point where he asked about an IQ test. Keep it strictly to bravado, no need for the iamverysmart. I mean... really? If this rates positively on the meter, this election is gonna be a traaaaaaaaainwreck. I don't see the sense behind anyone on here supporting Biden at all. I can see the electoral logic for the less informed, but everyone on here must know Trump will crush Biden like a paper cup and toss him in the trash. He's Trump's perfect kind of opponent. I'm far from pro-Biden, but the general electorate is sub-garbage and they really like shows of strength and masculinity. Imagine being someone who thinks it is a good thing to buy a truck without working in construction or some other profession that uses a truck. That's who is voting. That is why Biden doing shit like this is a good thing is he gets the nomination. I think if it's Biden, there's 80-90% chance trump gets reelected and we're fucked... along with the world. People wanted real change, and Biden represents the norm. People say that now back to the norm is all we want, but I don't believe people really want things to keep going this way... it's unsustainable. If trump wins, I'll seriously consider leaving the country, if Biden wins... I will also seriously consider it... because nothing will really get better here. Wages will still be shit, healthcare shit, housing will eventually crash... nothing here is sustainable unless you are already rich... It's all kind of a mess waiting to fall apart. Who would want to have a kid here with the gun problem in schools? Or even bring a kid into the world when we don't seriously do anything about climate change? I think the only real chance we have is with Bernie, and if he wasn't getting blacked out by the media sooo much, I think the nominee would be him, hands down. They have to suppress him to get some corporate asshole in his place.It should be Bernie, and the slogan should be "real change." Warren also stands a chance is she just rallies with Bernie and stops trying to straddle the fence. Edit: Keeping that in mind I will 1,000% back and vote for any dem over that asshole trump... or any repub. Why we fucked though? The economy is doing well, jobs are being created, stock markets at all time high. Rather have an asshole that improve things than a gentleman that can't get anything done. How much of that is really attributable to Trump and his policies specifically though? But yeah point taken. A lot of people don’t care for the economy in an abstract sense, much less the stock market, it’s how those things interact with their lives and what they value. As an employee my selling strategy for my company stocks is when I get wind of some scheme that I think is a terrible idea, wait until it’s announced publicly and then sell shortly after and I usually get a nice bump. Not a particularly subtle strategy, if something is going to be bad for employees it almost certainly gets investors hard because their interests are not aligned. One thing for sure, is that people are working and getting paid. All that matters.
How much they’re getting paid matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
