|
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 20 2020 17:48 Erasme wrote:
They were allowed before as well. Plenty of people were discussing politics before in bars/town hall/wherever they would meet their friends. You just didn't see them. Now if they're posting on twitter, you can see it. Doesn't mean it wasn't there before.
Having little cliques of morons in bars is a different problem to having large networks of Flat Earthers or QAnon. It's a problem of scale. Most bars would have had a few guys who are not complete morons and mostly they would get listened to. Some bars would be full of morons, or have loud morons who shouted down the non-moron. But mostly communities know who their village idiots are and therefore shouldn't be listened to. All those village idiots now have an anonymous identity on the internet where they are indistinguishable from non-morons.
And while I don't doubt flat Earthers existed, they have grown immensely in number because they can reinforce one another far more easily. If someone read that maybe the earth is flat and mentions it to his friends, he gets laughed at for weeks. If he goes onto /r/flatearth he gets encouraged and fed a bunch of pseudoscientific drivel that reinforces his idea.
|
What I find interesting is that Giuliani is more trustworthy for some than sceptical media figures when it comes to the Biden story.
Like, how?
He went to Ukraine specifically to dig for dirt on Biden - like what? That's a divided country with an enormous Russian military presence and influence, skirmishes in the east mainly stopped there because of Corona.
By his own admission he might have gotten it from russian intelligence workers.
The inconsistent details surrounding the story have been posted already, and I ask again, how and why is this guy more credible? People lost their collective marbles, it is staggering.
|
On October 20 2020 21:23 plated.rawr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2020 19:52 Sermokala wrote:
Nothing makes you look worse than trying to use insider terms against people who have no idea what you're talking about.
I mean other than begging suburban women to like you while you call women derogatory terms or telling people that your opponent is going to do the insane thing of listening to scientists. Echo chamber neologisms such as "TDS" holds no value in general discourse, as it's intention is to be a signal of allegiance to allies akin to spouting 1488, calling news you disagree with for MSM, and strawmanning all political disagreement as cultural marxism, rather than an attempt to communicate ideas using ones own words in an open forum. Usage of echo chamber neologisms is usually a sign for me to ignore any nonfactual, non-well-documented claim of the writer.
The irony here is that it isn't even original : ODS, Obama Derangement Syndrome was for how conservatives would connect literally any topic to Obama, even if it had absolutely no connection (the "Thanks Obama" meme basically). TDS is just projection and revenge for having been rightfully mocked for blaming things like hurricanes and lightning strikes on Obama.
Trump is demanding Barr launch an investigation into the Hunter Biden stuff. Which is, of course, nonsense, but I'm sure Barr is going to feel compelled to at least pretend to do something.
|
On October 20 2020 14:11 Mazer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2020 12:59 Doodsmack wrote:On October 20 2020 12:35 Mazer wrote:On October 20 2020 12:22 Doodsmack wrote:On October 20 2020 11:47 Mazer wrote:On October 20 2020 11:30 Doodsmack wrote:On October 20 2020 11:16 Mazer wrote:On October 20 2020 11:02 NewSunshine wrote:
So, let me continue to try to get your shit straight. Trump supporters endlessly and blindly following him, despite his avalanche of illegal and otherwise highly immoral acts as president, no problems here. People suggesting the Hunter Biden story may just be a bunch of crap? "YoU mUsT hAvE lImItS". Trump and his crowd continually blaming everything wrong with the US on Mexico and China? Nothing to see here. Wondering if a story which no major outlet - even Fox - wants to run with might be a ploy by Russians, who absolutely would do and have done shit like this, suddenly liberals are collectively deranged.
You're lost, man. Get a grip. Worst part is tweet quoting Glenn Greenwald in an attempt to continue to downplay Russian influence: https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/10/18/steve-bannon-guccifer-2-0-glenn-greenwald-and-me-how-glenn-greenwald-defends-smear-artist-cowards/Good read. Empty Wheel is a great source to be quoting. Basically the equivalent of Seth Abramson. Yeah, says the guy quoting GG. Point out the issues in that article and maybe I'll cede that. You won't. If you don't like that one, here's another going over what we still haven't learned from the Mueller report that you and your kin gleefully cheer as a hoax: https://www.lawfareblog.com/whats-new-unredacted-mueller-reportTry that one if you prefer. You seem to know a lot about Flynn et al, enlighten us. I got far enough in to the empty wheel article to see that he/she is defending the excommunication of maggie haberman for merely linking to the NYP story. And he/she is dim enough to think that it was Maggie's tweet, more so than the viral reaction to Maggie's tweet, that actually drew attention to the NYP story. As for flynn I've posted plenty about his case. If you think the criminal and national security theories that were dreamt up against him for his (randomly surveilled) phone call were well founded, I've got a bridge for you. The NYP is a tabloid newspaper owned by Murdoch and MH is predominantly a self-serving journalist. That story has been amplified despite it being a complete load of bullshit and most respectable organizations know as much. That's why she's been called out (in her follow-up tweets, MH admits as much). Maybe think a bit more about how that 'viral reaction' came to fruition; why someone might push for such a reaction to this (and who). Flynn's a scumbag and has admitted guilt multiple times. His lawyer is just a complete rat-fucker which is suitable given the rest of the people connected to Trump that have been found guilty by their peers. Stop defending these crooks you hack. I'd recommend checking your TDS. Maggie linked to the NYP article in a single tweet and resistance twitter lost its mind. Similar to how, in trumps town hall recently, there was a woman nodding her head in the background in agreement with trump - and the resistance lost its collective mind. Also the mueller team threatened flynns son so he cut a deal. That's actually a very simple matter. You are only trying to criminalize your political opposition, because like many, you haven't gotten your TDS in check yet. I can only imagine what things will be like if trump wins again. TDS, really? We reddit now? Again, read the articles and the underlying sourced material. Gave you two options and you're doing nothing but gaslighting like that hack you are.
The hostility you direct toward someone who has the gall to point out the silliness of some of the attacks on trump and those around him, is itself evidence of derangement. But your empty wheel is some nonsense about "MAGA Haberman" and I've read enough lawfare to know how eager they are to criminalize trump. I might get around to the flynn article though because I do find that stuff interesting and I imagine it would be easy to point out the overzealousness of the lawfare writers' arguments.
|
On October 20 2020 23:22 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2020 21:23 plated.rawr wrote:On October 20 2020 19:52 Sermokala wrote:
Nothing makes you look worse than trying to use insider terms against people who have no idea what you're talking about.
I mean other than begging suburban women to like you while you call women derogatory terms or telling people that your opponent is going to do the insane thing of listening to scientists. Echo chamber neologisms such as "TDS" holds no value in general discourse, as it's intention is to be a signal of allegiance to allies akin to spouting 1488, calling news you disagree with for MSM, and strawmanning all political disagreement as cultural marxism, rather than an attempt to communicate ideas using ones own words in an open forum. Usage of echo chamber neologisms is usually a sign for me to ignore any nonfactual, non-well-documented claim of the writer. The irony here is that it isn't even original : ODS, Obama Derangement Syndrome was for how conservatives would connect literally any topic to Obama, even if it had absolutely no connection (the "Thanks Obama" meme basically). TDS is just projection and revenge for having been rightfully mocked for blaming things like hurricanes and lightning strikes on Obama. Trump is demanding Barr launch an investigation into the Hunter Biden stuff. Which is, of course, nonsense, but I'm sure Barr is going to feel compelled to at least pretend to do something.
If you dont believe TDS is real i have to imagine you dont use Twitter. Its actually a bit scary how deranged some people are. But thats interesting that you're fine with the term ODS.
|
Can't you just accept that Trump is a singularly bad president, and also a disgusting human being in pretty much any way you could be?
Do you have to bind yourself to him just because he somehow scammed himself into being the candidate of the regressives? Can you not be a conservative beyond Trump? Do you have to support everything that man does, just because he claims to represent you (while in fact only ever acting in the interests of Trump)?
Why do you have to contort yourself so much that you view people being critical of such an obviously flawed character as "derangement"? Can you really not see why people are critical of him? Can you really not understand why people view him incredibly negatively?
|
|
|
Glenn Greenwald throwing Reality Winner to the dogs also makes me not trust anything he says, on any topic, ever. A journalist giving up their source like that makes them not a journalist.
Also, 50 former intel officers have issued a joint letter condemning the Hunter Biden thing as either russian disinfo or provided by Russia.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000
|
To be clear I am really only countering the fringe arguments that take the Trump hatred too far (of which there are sadly too many). When I say things like "there's no good reason to try to criminalize Trump and everyone around him," that's very different from saying "I approve of everything Trump says and does."
|
On October 21 2020 00:25 Doodsmack wrote:
To be clear I am really only countering the fringe arguments that take the Trump hatred too far (of which there are sadly too many). When I say things like "there's no good reason to try to criminalize Trump and everyone around him," that's very different from saying "I approve of everything Trump says and does."
What about the ton of criminal things Trump and people around Trump do? Is that not a good reason to criminalize them?
And by criminal, I am talking about all the people who were around trump that are now in jail for breaking those pesky things called laws
|
Would you not agree that a lot of the stuff Trump does looks pretty criminal, or at least as if it should be criminal if it isn't?
You use criminalize in some weird way that indirectly implies that Trump isn't criminal, and even suggesting that he might be would be wrong. I think that a lot of the stuff which comes up surrounding Trump sounds as if it might be criminal.
Like paying 750$ in taxes as a self-proclaimed billionaire. Or threatening people to stop investigations into your possible wrongdoings. Or just ignoring any conflicts of interest between being president and running a business yourself. Or constantly lying about everything.
|
People like to outrage on very minor things Trump does, and Trump like any celebrity does get selectively quoted or media will make a 'shocking 'headline out of not a lot. ( Yesterday I read he ordered milkshakes during a classified briefing...wow interesting :X) This is just media being low quality and modern internet-brained people being to impatient to read beyond a title. This is where conservatives base their 'TDS' on.
BUT
Trump also does a metric fuckton of actually outrageous things which are well sourced and not quoted out of context and very often literally just his own words or actions. He pretty much makes shit up and lies, every single day. People get justifiably upset about a president doing such actions. Conservatives however live in an existence where they deny or ignore that these happen and laugh 'haha more TDS '
Like the motherfucker actually altered a weather forecast map for hurricane path prediction with a sharpie because he was too vain to admit he made a mistake and mentioned a wrong state getting hit. That's reality. That's the mindset that gets us now to 'Covid is over, don't vote for Biden he might listen to doctors and scientists'. The president is attacking an important doctor for being bad at baseball pitching today.
|
If the tax system is poorly organised it's possible for a billionaire to pay 750$ in taxes without being a criminal.
|
On October 20 2020 23:40 Nevuk wrote:Glenn Greenwald throwing Reality Winner to the dogs also makes me not trust anything he says, on any topic, ever. A journalist giving up their source like that makes them not a journalist. Also, 50 former intel officers have issued a joint letter condemning the Hunter Biden thing as either russian disinfo or provided by Russia. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000
That seems like an important distinction. If it's disinfo like the Hillary is literally the devil memes that's one thing. If it is a real scandal that Russia exposed, that's entirely different.
Obviously still a two party fptp system, so short of eating babies on live TV at the debate, Biden supporters will vote for him regardless.
Also this quote gives me the impression this was a clickbait appeal to authority.
“We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,”
|
On October 21 2020 00:41 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
People like to outrage on very minor things Trump does, and Trump like any celebrity does get selectively quoted or media will make a 'shocking 'headline out of not a lot. ( Yesterday I read he ordered milkshakes during a classified briefing...wow interesting :X) This is just media being low quality and modern internet-brained people being to impatient to read beyond a title. This is where conservatives base their 'TDS' on.
BUT
Trump also does a metric fuckton of actually outrageous things which are well sourced and not quoted out of context and very often literally just his own words or actions. He pretty much makes shit up and lies, every single day. People get justifiably upset about a president doing such actions. Conservatives however live in an existence where they deny or ignore that these happen and laugh 'haha more TDS '
Like the motherfucker actually altered a weather forecast map for hurricane path prediction with a sharpie because he was too vain to admit he made a mistake and mentioned a wrong state getting hit. That's reality. That's the mindset that gets us now to 'Covid is over, don't vote for Biden he might listen to doctors and scientists'. The president is attacking an important doctor for being bad at baseball pitching today.
I base my TDS on frequent claims Trump's actions are totally similar to what happened in Germany in the 30s, or that he's secretly-but-openly endorsing extremist right wing groups by dodging stupid questions. It's counterproductive. Firstly, it helps Trump convince his supporter's that the valid accusations are actually as made up as those silly claims. Secondly those claims might as well be (and often are) targeted at decent right wing politicians, which serves as a reminder that there is little to gain from openly joining team anti-Trump as a conservative.
|
On October 21 2020 00:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2020 23:40 Nevuk wrote:Glenn Greenwald throwing Reality Winner to the dogs also makes me not trust anything he says, on any topic, ever. A journalist giving up their source like that makes them not a journalist. Also, 50 former intel officers have issued a joint letter condemning the Hunter Biden thing as either russian disinfo or provided by Russia. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000 That seems like an important distinction. If it's disinfo like the Hillary is literally the devil memes that's one thing. If it is a real scandal that Russia exposed, that's entirely different. Obviously still a two party fptp system, so short of eating babies on live TV at the debate, Biden supporters will vote for him regardless. Also this quote gives me the impression this was a clickbait appeal to authority. Show nested quote +“We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,”
The issue is that Russia has a history of providing real emails mixed with fake emails. And yes, no definitive evidence, but when basically every security and IT expert is saying that there are clear problematic signs, there's good reason to discount it out of hand, as actual reporters (even at the paper that ran the story and fox news) have done.
Additionally, there's not really even any alleged underlying scandal. Burisma certainly tried to pay Hunter Biden in order to influence Joe Biden (there's no actual evidence of this either, but we know it from common sense as why else would they have paid him?), but it doesn't appear to have worked at all. The worst allegation in the emails so far is that Hunter introduced someone to Joe. It appears to literally just be an effort to get the words "Biden Emails" in the headlines to help Trump.
|
On October 21 2020 01:01 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2020 00:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2020 23:40 Nevuk wrote:Glenn Greenwald throwing Reality Winner to the dogs also makes me not trust anything he says, on any topic, ever. A journalist giving up their source like that makes them not a journalist. Also, 50 former intel officers have issued a joint letter condemning the Hunter Biden thing as either russian disinfo or provided by Russia. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000 That seems like an important distinction. If it's disinfo like the Hillary is literally the devil memes that's one thing. If it is a real scandal that Russia exposed, that's entirely different. Obviously still a two party fptp system, so short of eating babies on live TV at the debate, Biden supporters will vote for him regardless. Also this quote gives me the impression this was a clickbait appeal to authority. “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,” The issue is that Russia has a history of providing real emails mixed with fake emails. And yes, no definitive evidence, but when basically every security and IT expert is saying that there are clear problematic signs, there's good reason to discount it out of hand, as actual reporters (even at the paper that ran the story and fox news) have done. Additionally, there's not really even any alleged underlying scandal. Burisma certainly tried to pay Hunter Biden in order to influence Joe Biden (there's no actual evidence of this either, but we know it from common sense as why else would they have paid him?), but it doesn't appear to have worked at all. The worst allegation in the emails so far is that Hunter introduced someone to Joe. It appears to literally just be an effort to get the words "Biden Emails" in the headlines to help Trump.
I remember hearing all that about the Democrat/media emails we saw in 2016. Also the whole "but did they get the influence they paid for?" defense of the Clinton foundation (which has all but collapsed with her prospects at the presidency dashed).
|
On October 21 2020 00:25 Doodsmack wrote:
To be clear I am really only countering the fringe arguments that take the Trump hatred too far (of which there are sadly too many). When I say things like "there's no good reason to try to criminalize Trump and everyone around him," that's very different from saying "I approve of everything Trump says and does."
Countering 'fringe arguments'... of which there are too many. Somethingsomething thinking emoji.
|
On October 21 2020 01:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2020 01:01 Nevuk wrote:On October 21 2020 00:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2020 23:40 Nevuk wrote:Glenn Greenwald throwing Reality Winner to the dogs also makes me not trust anything he says, on any topic, ever. A journalist giving up their source like that makes them not a journalist. Also, 50 former intel officers have issued a joint letter condemning the Hunter Biden thing as either russian disinfo or provided by Russia. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000 That seems like an important distinction. If it's disinfo like the Hillary is literally the devil memes that's one thing. If it is a real scandal that Russia exposed, that's entirely different. Obviously still a two party fptp system, so short of eating babies on live TV at the debate, Biden supporters will vote for him regardless. Also this quote gives me the impression this was a clickbait appeal to authority. “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,” The issue is that Russia has a history of providing real emails mixed with fake emails. And yes, no definitive evidence, but when basically every security and IT expert is saying that there are clear problematic signs, there's good reason to discount it out of hand, as actual reporters (even at the paper that ran the story and fox news) have done. Additionally, there's not really even any alleged underlying scandal. Burisma certainly tried to pay Hunter Biden in order to influence Joe Biden (there's no actual evidence of this either, but we know it from common sense as why else would they have paid him?), but it doesn't appear to have worked at all. The worst allegation in the emails so far is that Hunter introduced someone to Joe. It appears to literally just be an effort to get the words "Biden Emails" in the headlines to help Trump. I remember hearing all that about the Democrat/media emails we saw in 2016. Also the whole "but did they get the influence they paid for?" defense of the Clinton foundation (which has all but collapsed with her prospects at the presidency dashed).
Ehh it's clearly different. The Clinton Foundation was directly run by the Clintons (including Hillary from 13-15), the scales of money we're talking about are very different (tens of millions vs <200$k), and we can easily see that Hunter has never really had influence over Joe. Come on, would you trust someone your crackhead son recommended to you?
Only a complete moron would use their addict son as a back channel for illicit acts. Hunter Biden is clearly an unethical person who should never be trusted with political power, but he's not on the ballot. It's barely even an indictment of Joe's parenting, as Hunter is 50.
|
On October 21 2020 01:27 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2020 01:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 21 2020 01:01 Nevuk wrote:On October 21 2020 00:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2020 23:40 Nevuk wrote:Glenn Greenwald throwing Reality Winner to the dogs also makes me not trust anything he says, on any topic, ever. A journalist giving up their source like that makes them not a journalist. Also, 50 former intel officers have issued a joint letter condemning the Hunter Biden thing as either russian disinfo or provided by Russia. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000 That seems like an important distinction. If it's disinfo like the Hillary is literally the devil memes that's one thing. If it is a real scandal that Russia exposed, that's entirely different. Obviously still a two party fptp system, so short of eating babies on live TV at the debate, Biden supporters will vote for him regardless. Also this quote gives me the impression this was a clickbait appeal to authority. “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,” The issue is that Russia has a history of providing real emails mixed with fake emails. And yes, no definitive evidence, but when basically every security and IT expert is saying that there are clear problematic signs, there's good reason to discount it out of hand, as actual reporters (even at the paper that ran the story and fox news) have done. Additionally, there's not really even any alleged underlying scandal. Burisma certainly tried to pay Hunter Biden in order to influence Joe Biden (there's no actual evidence of this either, but we know it from common sense as why else would they have paid him?), but it doesn't appear to have worked at all. The worst allegation in the emails so far is that Hunter introduced someone to Joe. It appears to literally just be an effort to get the words "Biden Emails" in the headlines to help Trump. I remember hearing all that about the Democrat/media emails we saw in 2016. Also the whole "but did they get the influence they paid for?" defense of the Clinton foundation (which has all but collapsed with her prospects at the presidency dashed). Ehh it's clearly different. The Clinton Foundation was directly run by the Clintons (including Hillary from 13-15), the scales of money we're talking about are very different (tens of millions vs <200$k), and we can easily see that Hunter has never really had influence over Joe. Come on, would you trust someone your crackhead son recommended to you? Only a complete moron would use their addict son as a back channel for illicit acts. Hunter Biden is clearly an unethical person who should never be trusted with political power, but he's not on the ballot. It's barely even an indictment of Joe's parenting, as Hunter is 50.
I know it's different. It's just that Democrats refused to acknowledge the issues with the emails or the Clinton Foundation so this is not going to break through to them regardless of whether the worst version is true or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
