|
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 October 19 2020 00:56 micronesia wrote:
The conversation has somehow turned from Trump's (the President's!) incredibly reckless behavior regarding rallies during a pandemic (without even calling strongly for masks) to exactly how partisan health officials are in decisions to chastize large groups of people. Absent: acknowledgement that Trumps' behavior is unacceptable regardless of any other whataboutism on the part of people raising issues with the original concern (or alternately, endorse Trump's behavior here).
A better comparison than Trump's rallies to a women's march is Biden's rallies. To my knowledge, he is not recklessly holding large mostly-maskless rallies while killing off his supporters (cough Herman Cain) in the process.
The media critique absolutely must include the women’s march. Thousands together, mixed mask usage. The previous warning about starting a surge, versus the current surge. It’s in fact very telling to count the amount of people that look at both and condemn both. I don’t really mind either; the press is acting like the pandemic is over in only distinguishing between ideological causes.
So why even pretend? I won’t even disparage someone that condemns both. I will laugh to myself as people find all the ways to remain approving of left-wing events, and hiss at right wing events. That’s how they “lockdown response” got perverted and destroyed in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
On October 19 2020 01:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2020 01:01 Doodsmack wrote:
The very smart people who have spent their entire lives studying viruses recommend against mass gatherings, period. It's unsafe. But they also say things like this:
And what is your point? If someone asked the health professional they would say "They should have large gatherings, but if they are going to they should social distance, wear masks and stay outdoors". There is no double standard because what you are comparing is not the same (as micro points out), it is just a silly victim mentality.
That the only honest advice is to recommend against mass gatherings, period, at least if you're following the science. You can certainly argue there's a difference of degree between a Trump rally and a liberal protest due to the prevalence of masks, but it's dishonest to say or imply that the liberal protest is fine.
|
So, Rudy himself has admitted there's a 50% chance one of the people he got information from is a russian spy.
In the story he also says he gave Trump an early heads up on this story.
Sure, the U.S. Treasury Department may have declared one of his former associates—Ukrainian parliamentarian Andrii Derkach, who worked with Giuliani on his hunt for dirt on the Bidens—to be an “active Russian agent.” But that’s some Deep State talk, he added. “The chance that Derkach is a Russian spy is no better than 50/50.”
“My guess is that George Soros is behind this counter-offensive… because he wants to create a socialist country,” Giuliani baselessly alleged. “He’d like to see us collapse and see us taken over by the international... whatever.” Giuliani said that Derkach’s eventual sanctioning was the result of “an intelligence ploy to try to create problems for Trump—because Derkach could probably bury Obama.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/rudy-giuliani-says-theres-only-5050-chance-i-worked-with-a-russian-spy-to-dig-dirt-on-bidens
NYT adds to it that these are from the Burisma hack, not from a personal laptop
Some security experts expressed skepticism about the provenance and authenticity of the emails. The Times reported last January that Burisma had been hacked by the same Russian GRU unit that was one of two groups that hacked the Democratic National Committee in 2016. Last month, United States intelligence analysts contacted several people with knowledge of the Burisma hack for further information after they had picked up chatter that stolen Burisma emails would be leaked in the form of an "October surprise."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/hunter-biden-ukraine-facebook-twitter.html
Michael Cohen has said that Rudy is drunk 100% of the time, which makes him an easy mark for Russians.
"The problem here is that Rudy isn't a soldier. Rudy is—Rudy is drunk all the time, which is a big problem and that's what makes him susceptible because his faculties are gone. He behaves crazy."
Cohen replied. "Rudy is being played by the Russians.
"He's 100 percent susceptible to being used by the Russians because... the disinformation, he runs right back to President Trump like a child running to a parent: (saying) 'Look what I have. Look what I have.'"
He described how Trump "speaks and behaves like the mob boss" and that "he's using his soldier", referring to attempts in Ukraine at getting dirt on the former vice president.
Melber challenges Cohen on this point, asking, "are you sharing an opinion or are you sharing an observation like you've seen him drink X amount?"
Cohen, who was jailed in 2018 for arranging payments to silence women who claimed to have affairs with Trump, continued: "I've seen him drink to the point like he's a high school drunk," adding, "and it makes him susceptible." Newsweek has contacted Giuliani's office for comment.
https://www.newsweek.com/giuliani-cohen-trump-1540002
NBC has confirmed the AP's report that the FBI is investigating the emails for being a foreign operation.
Federal investigators are examining whether the emails allegedly describing activities by Joe Biden and his son Hunter and found on a laptop at a Delaware repair shop are linked to a foreign intelligence operation, two people familiar with the matter told NBC News.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/feds-examining-if-alleged-hunter-biden-emails-are-linked-foreign-n1243620
Also, the NYP has not released the metadata or actual emails for investigation by the public or other papers. They've released screenshots of the emails, which a 5th grader could have faked using nothing but mspaint.
Rudy's daughter wrote an op-ed begging for people to vote Trump out. (Not super relevant info, other than that he has the same beliefs in private and she comments disparagingly on yes men).
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/10/rudy-giulianis-daughter-on-voting-for-biden
edit:
The photos provided also have metadata disproving large elements of the alleged story.
On October 19 2020 01:18 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2020 01:08 JimmiC wrote:On October 19 2020 01:01 Doodsmack wrote:
The very smart people who have spent their entire lives studying viruses recommend against mass gatherings, period. It's unsafe. But they also say things like this:
And what is your point? If someone asked the health professional they would say "They should have large gatherings, but if they are going to they should social distance, wear masks and stay outdoors". There is no double standard because what you are comparing is not the same (as micro points out), it is just a silly victim mentality. That the only honest advice is to recommend against mass gatherings, period, at least if you're following the science. You can certainly argue there's a difference of degree between a Trump rally and a liberal protest due to the prevalence of masks, but it's dishonest to say or imply that the liberal protest is fine.
And yes, the protests were dumb during a pandemic. All they're useful for is preventing riots, which are more effective at actually causing change. So I'm glad to see our conservatives coming around to see the favor of riots.
|
On October 19 2020 01:01 Doodsmack wrote:
The very smart people who have spent their entire lives studying viruses recommend against mass gatherings, period. It's unsafe. But they also say things like this:
They're also for a lockdown, but we saw what happened when we tried that and some people got huffy about the inconvenience and dipping stock markets.
|
|
|
Once again, one rally was started by the incumbent president and presidential candidate. If it were a random rally of Trump supporters it wouldn't be newsworthy. Political leaders should be held to a different standard of accountability than citizens. But I guess now if a president were to shoot someone, the thing to do is to post video of a shooting in your neighborhood and say, "why don't you condemn both???"
|
Trump supporters literally have no standard for their leader aside from "he's not a lefty". He can do literally no wrong, because as long as they can point to someone - anyone - who can compare to him in that moment, what he's doing becomes OK.
|
On October 19 2020 03:05 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2020 01:18 Doodsmack wrote:On October 19 2020 01:08 JimmiC wrote:On October 19 2020 01:01 Doodsmack wrote:
The very smart people who have spent their entire lives studying viruses recommend against mass gatherings, period. It's unsafe. But they also say things like this:
And what is your point? If someone asked the health professional they would say "They should have large gatherings, but if they are going to they should social distance, wear masks and stay outdoors". There is no double standard because what you are comparing is not the same (as micro points out), it is just a silly victim mentality. That the only honest advice is to recommend against mass gatherings, period, at least if you're following the science. You can certainly argue there's a difference of degree between a Trump rally and a liberal protest due to the prevalence of masks, but it's dishonest to say or imply that the liberal protest is fine. Who has implied that it is fine? Can you link any health authority recommending it? They would clearly wish no one did it.
It's the one-way scolding from the media and others. The protesters deserve to be scolded and shamed for having engaged in a mass gathering during a pandemic. But instead all you see is praise for them. And you don't hear of peep of criticism from the public health professionals.
|
|
|
On October 19 2020 04:52 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2020 03:05 JimmiC wrote:On October 19 2020 01:18 Doodsmack wrote:On October 19 2020 01:08 JimmiC wrote:On October 19 2020 01:01 Doodsmack wrote:
The very smart people who have spent their entire lives studying viruses recommend against mass gatherings, period. It's unsafe. But they also say things like this:
And what is your point? If someone asked the health professional they would say "They should have large gatherings, but if they are going to they should social distance, wear masks and stay outdoors". There is no double standard because what you are comparing is not the same (as micro points out), it is just a silly victim mentality. That the only honest advice is to recommend against mass gatherings, period, at least if you're following the science. You can certainly argue there's a difference of degree between a Trump rally and a liberal protest due to the prevalence of masks, but it's dishonest to say or imply that the liberal protest is fine. Who has implied that it is fine? Can you link any health authority recommending it? They would clearly wish no one did it. It's the one-way scolding from the media and others. The protesters deserve to be scolded and shamed for having engaged in a mass gathering during a pandemic. But instead all you see is praise for them. And you don't hear of peep of criticism from the public health professionals.
You're having a hard time with the concept that Trump is continuing to do actively harmful things and, predictably, continues to get called out on his bullshit. It's not difficult.
|
You guys have been saying "a trump rally is so different from protest" when in fact you were failing to see that mass gatherings shouldn't be happening at all right now. You were basically saying that only one of the two events deserves criticism. I am merely pointing out your double standard.
|
And we're pointing out that you (and Danglars, for what it's worth) are spouting complete nonsense by trying to paint the two as identical circumstances that justify Trump spreading the virus more. Why they're happening, the cause people are there for, whether it's being headed by the fucking president or not, and how seriously they take the virus in those moments changes everything, and you just aren't listening when people tell you why the two are different.
I would never be so conceited as to tell people they can't protest for their civil rights, because then Trump is justified in spreading a damn virus. They're taking every precaution they can, before, during, and after the protests, and championing a cause that's been crucial to them their whole lives. How seriously do you think the Trump crowd takes the virus on a daily basis?
|
No actually I acknowledged there's a difference of degree between the two. The only thing I'm saying is that if you scold and shame the people engaging in one you should also do so for the other. That's very different from excusing trump rallies.
|
On October 19 2020 05:24 Doodsmack wrote:
No actually I acknowledged there's a difference of degree between the two. The only thing I'm saying is that if you scold and shame the people engaging in one you should also do so for the other. That's very different from excusing trump rallies.
You're acknowledging that there's nuance and difference in the two situations, but no difference whatsoever in how you treat them. Is that right?
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On October 18 2020 08:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2020 07:08 WombaT wrote:On October 18 2020 04:00 Danglars wrote:On October 18 2020 02:14 Nouar wrote:On October 18 2020 01:47 Doodsmack wrote:
The real danger for biden here is if he engaged in profit sharing with hunter while he was VP. Hunter's people are apparently starting to turn on him, so more could come out. For all we know the FBI has an active investigation on this, considering the FBI seized the contents of the computer shop laptop.
An anonymous source of course. Glad to see the WH Press Secretary going on a campaign. Is she bankrolled by the Trump campaign or by taxpayers ? At least it's from her private account. Glad to see she is taking anonymous sources for verified information. IF this is true, it should of course get prosecuted (about as much as foreign money influx into Trump's residences). However, is there any history of Joe being referenced at as "the big guy" ? It could be anyone lol. It is comforting to see you've learned the lesson about anonymous sources. If more could've done this in the disastrous leak campaign against Trump for the last 4-5 years, the country would be in much better shape. On October 18 2020 02:19 Uldridge wrote:On October 18 2020 00:34 Danglars wrote:
The echo chamber in this case is everybody telling themselves that the average joe that disagrees with you are not trained in critical thought and dwelling in their own echo chambers. I don't think forming this echo chamber is justified or even elevated above the echo chambers it purports to combat. No? I dont care if the average joe agrees with me or not. Fact is that they're not trained in critical thought and get easily sucked into consumerism and propaganda. I have lost the count of people telling me random shit they don't agree with or don't like that's just surface level analysis at best, when the actual situation is always more complex. Populism relies on the fact that the average joe needs/wants these simplifications, but all that happens is a gross misrepresentation of reality, causing a deeply flawed system. In a sense, the average joe is the greatest asset - because you need them to win elections - and the deepest pitfall for society. I'd trust the average joe than a random selection of the people on this forum or running this website. The people concerned with the apparent lack of critical thought in the public at large have proven incapable of applying it when a big orange idiot is composing mean tweets on twitter. I think that's absolutely a problem with reducing a complex situation to a falsely simple one: you don't have to worry about Trump's election, because it wasn't legitimate--you don't have to worry about the people that voted Trump, because they were either deceived, or are racist ingrates--you don't have to worry about the norms people are destroying to stop Trump, because he's always worse in that respect, and the country's peril is so imminent to justify all destructive actions. I've lost count at how many people think themselves to possess critical analytical abilities, and play into propagandistic viewpoints of how the other side thinks and acts. That's why I said I think you're in an echo chamber that justifies the conclusion that your tribe possesses a higher degree of analytic faculties, and it isn't morally above the various echo chambers you decry. As per the denizens of this particular thread this feels a gross misreading of general sentiment, or indeed divergences of opinion. As an observation of someone on a ‘vote blue no matter who’ Facebook page or something it’s absolutely accurate. I don’t recall too much chat about Trump’s election not being legitimate. Plenty about the electoral college being a bad system that should be reformed, but nothing that under the conditions of the day that that victory was illegitimate. People can make up their own minds, this constant bemoaning of echo chambers and being fair and understanding other’s views is only a worthwhile endeavour if the ‘other side’ are working around a consistent ideological framework of difference whereupon negotiation can occur. Case in point the ‘you can’t nominate a Supreme Court justice, the people need their voice heard at the polls first’. From my point of view I don’t think that’s a bad argument, indeed I don’t particularly like how the Supreme Court and lifetime appointments work as a roll of the roulette wheel depending what President is in office. Then a complete flip on that and commentators doing arcane incantations to show it’s actually totally different this time etc. If your buddy continually cheats in your card games do you withhold from that activity or give in to his whining about you not being a good sport? Just to take one of innumerable examples. I think you'd change your mind on the "feels a gross misreading" if you reread any span of 100 pages of 2020 or 2019. These sorts of things only "stick out" to people that don't agree with them--people that agree with them skim over it and have an extremely limited ability to grasp perspective. Secondly, you're barking up the wrong tree regarding echo chambers. You should examine both your beliefs and other people's beliefs critically. It doesn't matter if you think the "other side" is working around "a consistent ideological framework." You're just more likely to fail to diagnose your echo chambers. It's a bad shortcut in logic, which is to say, not logic at all. Compare to alt-universe WombaT: "I don't need to examine liberals echo chambers, because they fail to cohere around a consistent ideological framework. On the other hand, my side (on the right) is fair and understanding." You're both wrong in your presumptions and ought to pursue investigation and analysis.
How does that not matter? You talk the very previous sentence about the importance of critically examining the beliefs of others (and yourself), how exactly is this done without there being some kind of structure underpinning said beliefs?
I have zero interest in discussing external echo chambers, I largely confine my political discussion to this thread for a dislike of said phenomenon. Probably worse on the left end of the spectrum as moderators tend to be more censorious and happy to wield the bad hammer.
I just don’t see how this thread is particularly echoey, what with Jimmy and GH arguing like an old married couple, lively disputes on formerly undisputed observations on the size of newspapers and the like .
|
On October 19 2020 05:33 JimmiC wrote:
If the people in the protests were not wearing masks, not distancing they would scolded and shamed. The social pressure is working from the pictures and they are.
If Biden had organized big outdoor rallies there would be scolding, and a lot more if he was promoting not wearing masks or distancing.
Hell even on the Trump rallies when he moved them outside people were pleased.
Your argument is completely illogical, it is like you ask me if I like orange juice and I say yes, then you offer me some tomato juice and I say no thanks and you are all mad because I told you I like orange juice and now I won't drink your tomatoes juice. Then you accuse me of conservative bias cause I won't drink your juice when I just said I like juice.
There are times to show bias, but this is a horrible hill to die on because you are not comparing the same things.
So you think that so long as a mass gathering involves masks and distancing, then those who attend mass gatherings during a deadly pandemic should not be scolded and shamed? In other words it's fine or no big deal to attend mass gatherings during a deadly pandemic under certain conditions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
