Jump to content

Politics Generations


Amentep

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Gromnir said:

just let us know which one most set you on edge. will add to growing list o' zor dog whistles.

HA! Good Fun!

While I'll add 'dog whistle' to the list of excuses you make to deflect from your failures- and you still don't have to courage to actually call me a shill. Now, where's that Gfted quote... ah yes.

On 10/2/2019 at 1:04 AM, Gfted1 said:

r00fles! That's exactly the point. I never ever initiate conversation with you, I simply respond to your derp. Meanwhile, you exhibit a YEARS long obsession / creep with all things Gfted1, even if Im not taking part in the conversation! :lol: I does give me a warm fuzzy having all of this digitally recorded though. I should put that link in my sig for posterity.

Oh yeah, Trump eats boogers. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*chuckle*

your continued read and logic failures is not our problem.  reddit conspiracy theories is less compelling than you imagine. have hit exhaustion point with your frequent defense o' the indefensible and pretending your ignorance is conferring some kinda special grant o' knowledge.

*shrug*

gd had the sense to be conflicted by support o' ktchong, but you go out o' your way to invoke the resident self described "mayor of crazy town"? congrats.

@injurai

so complaining 'bout new knowledge when new knowledge is not the source in the nytimes piece?  what?

cherry picks one line from the nyt piece while ignoring the rest? 

your "news" guy makes it seem like a reveal that laura rosenberger, the director o' alliance for securing democracy, is a former clinton aide. didn't have to do much research to discover this fact 'cause the nyt states, "Laura Rosenberger, a former policy aide to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and director of the Alliance, sees Ms. Gabbard as a potentially useful vector for Russian efforts to sow division within the Democratic Party."

alliance for securing democracy is part o' the german marshall fund and does indeed get grant money from US and multiple european nations as well. transatlantic and bipartisan public policy think tank.

while looking for criticisms o' the german marshall fund we did find the following:

Russia Declares U.S. German Marshall Fund ‘Undesirable’

but yeah, is crazy to suggest russians is talking 'bout gabbard. lunacy.

again, the nytimes article weren't accusing gabbard o' any malfeasance. were pointing out just how curious were the criticisms and support o' gabbard from w/i and outside the party. it is strange that the russians talk 'bout her. is weird that white supremacists like her. is creepy that 4-chan gave her the "mommy" appellation. 

and the reason why the folks on cnn were laughing is 'cause they were laughing AT the guy making the accusation. "that's quite the allegation," says cnn regulars in response. when bakari sellers suggests there is no question gabbard is a russian asset, the cnn moderator stops him and asks, "how is there no question?" 

so you got one cnn commentator making a wacky accusation which literal nobody on stage actual agreed. proof o' cnn evil? how?

couldn't get past minute eight. let us know if we missed something good.

HA! Good Fun!

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just baffled that there's folks that think that opposing a wider American intervention in Syria (a view that I myself hold) and being clear-eyed and recognising that Assad is a murderous despot  are somehow mutually exclusive viewpoints to hold.

Edited by Agiel
  • Like 1
Quote
"Turned wrong way round, the relentless unforeseen was what we schoolchildren studied as 'History,' harmless history, where everything unexpected in its own time is chronicled on the page as inevitable. The terror of the unforeseen is what the science of history hides, turning a disaster into an epic.”

 

-Philip Roth, The Plot Against America

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Agiel said:

I'm baffled that there's folks that think that not supporting a wider American intervention in Syria (a view that I myself hold) and being clear-eyed and recognising that Assad is a murderous despot  are somehow mutually exclusive viewpoints to hold.

political polarization has robbed many o' the capacity to think independent. our friends in rl who see us more or less as a Conservative don't understand our trump animosity. similarly, given our trump dislike, when we do agree with trump on issues such as banning bump stocks or the President's reservations 'bout the quarterly report culture, we get weird stares.

in any event, the ostrich impersonations regarding assad are... unfortunate. we expect such transparent abandonment o' reason from iran, russia and the tinfoil-hat brigade, but we nevertheless manage to be disappointed.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gromnir

When a news station doesn't publish any hard hitting investigative journalism but simply builds mental connectives to sow uncertainty by saying "hmm isn't it curious that a, b, and c are saying x, y, and z about Tulsi? Should we not be concerned that she is <insert spurious and damning claim lacking any real evidence>" that underpins an ulterior motive of it's own. Or have we forgotten everyone has an agenda in a free economy. If Tulsi was a known threat, I'd imagine the something of real substance would have come out now by those who claim to be on top detecting warning signs. If she is a "threat" she would be an insider threat, not some foreign asset. As in a full-blooded American who doesn't want to see her fellow soldiers be put in harms way for what seems like costly and non-beneficial campaigns. "Bring the troops home" is not a new taking point, but it certainly threatens some contractors bottom line (which threatens the wealth of some sordid donor class who pretend themselves more American than the next generation.)

Plus, It's increasingly evident that the projection of soft power is becoming the name of the game, and the US is sorely behind in that realm. Well... they actually had a monopoly for years, but there is a new form of soft power that has completely blindsided America. Particularly in relation to IP and the democratic process. Tulsi's stance is not that absurd, especially had it not been for "AMERICAN ASSEST #1 TRUMP" for entirely borking American's position in Syria just recently. Oh and when we did try to get involved in Syria (short of launching our own Invasion) we made things far worse and only drove more of a wedge between ourselves and the region.

It's not like Tulsi wasn't the victim of a deep fake mole super-imposed It's clear some interest group finds her will for the nation in opposition of what is useful to them. Some oil group late the the US fracking party or not setup for Venzualen oil or something? Trying to cling to the old model of petrol dollars as long as possible? Who knows, but it is clear when a house of cards is build buy charlatans so much as a light breeze becomes a "threat," but once again it's a spurious slander based on a fear of how might her policies affect long ago planned campaigns and operations. Because apparently the people in charge don't actually have some rational that would all of a sudden clue in the president to the nuances of a situation once they became seated? I hope that's not the case.

Or should this be about "forgiving CNN" when they are unprofessional?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, injurai said:

@Gromnir

When a news station doesn't publish any hard hitting investigative journalism but simply builds mental connectives to sow uncertainty by saying "hmm isn't it curious that a, b, and c are saying x, y, and z about Tulsi?

you are repeating the nonsense from some random comedian with a youtube presence. for instance, as noted, the Alliance source is not some kinda throwaway bit added to make gabbard look bad in spite o' having zero credibility. is an organization which is part o' gmf, which is itself a recognized transatlantic public policy think tank. can find alliance contributions on cspan if you wish.

your criticisms o' the nytimes article are kinda general, so am left having to argue for and against you, which is wasteful.

is nothing untrue in the nytimes piece and they didn't accuse her o' being a russian asset. not anywhere or anyhow. whether or not you thinks the piece is too shallow to be worth printing, gabbard's criticism o' the nytimes were patent false. she were the one who done wrong and yet you are metaphorical banging trash can lids in defense o' gabbard?

oh, and is funny you bring up cnn, 'cause rt used the actual and real cnn response to pushback on bakari sellers' silly comments.

‘How is there NO question?’ EVEN CNN hosts gasp at guest’s claim that Tulsi Gabbard is ‘a Russian puppet’ (VIDEO)

is a brave new world where legit news organizations is dismissed out-o-hand and rando bloggers is given more credence 'not 'cause o' their qualifications or their track record o' investigative reporting, but 'cause they says what their audience wants to hear.

*shrug*

btw, the jacobin article we linked earlier has the depth you crave, and says exact same stuff as nytimes, but more harsh and more detailed. is a magazine article and not a couple column newspaper article, so greater depth is hardly a shock. 

HA! Good Fun!

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should be clear, I linked that video because it stitches together multiple things, I'm not endorsing every single word of said rando comedian. All I know is the guy is a former contributor to The Young Turks, which I don't like and I was probably giving him a shot for having left. Generally I find CNN talking head segments to be so unpalatable that I can hardly stand sieving through the BS and I've done it on many occasions. Perhaps I'm getting lax and consuming second hand indictments of them as they've failed me on so many stories with their 24 news cycle.

Also my early like of Tulsi is largely predicated on her speaking bluntly about certain issues which are persona non grata in debates, yet no less relevant discussions when shaping American policy. So there is a chance I'm cluing in on other's who like her as being some what sober when that might not be true.

That said, the continued sprinkling of spurious claims is bizarre from a CNN analyst, and my assumption is that those segments are generally written, okayed, rehearsed, and played out with some dynamic ad libing for breaking news or other domain sharing cross-talk. Am I to believe CNN just lets their pundits spill any drivel they want? If the rest of the panel never refuted the claim, only really had confusion and skepticism and douby of such a lofty claim, then still let him espouse his full view and take the last word. Is that just a rogue pundit? Honestly I have no idea how one is supposed to read CNN, it reads like planned talking point. The whole format is anti-intellectual to me. Yeah, and I'm being sloppy myself, but I'm just stitching together bits and pieces that I'm trying to find when I'm not at my day job. I'm not a professional political investigator and so many of them can't even built a report that isn't mostly narrative.

Now I had not even seen the supposedly better journalism article that you had posted earlier but I'll take a look. Just on a cursory glance I can see that much of my like from her comes from her strategic cutting through the ****-slinging in the 2016 election. Maybe she's just highly strategic. She felt like a sane voice during all the DNC hijinks the befell 2016. I had not realized she didn't support nuclear energy either which is pretty odd given it's track record and continued improvement. I do need to study her deeper, but that's why election cycles are so long.

But you can understand my frustration when criticism of a candidate like her takes the form of conspiracy instead of central refutation of her stances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the comments section is almost as illuminating as were the interview. how many fox regulars see the problem in the linked video being chris wallace as 'posed to mick mulvaney? too many.

HA! Good Fun!

 

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Agiel said:

I'm just baffled that there's folks that think that opposing a wider American intervention in Syria (a view that I myself hold) and being clear-eyed and recognising that Assad is a murderous despot  are somehow mutually exclusive viewpoints to hold.

The problem there is with conflating the overall Syrian government and Bashar Assad himself which is way too simplistic. The Syrian governmental apparatus overall use murder, torture and- even allowing for it being a civil war and being as generous as possible- their military tactics have been both harsh and far too often indiscriminate. Despite that they've also been the least worst realistic option since 2012. Bashar al Assad personally does not have enough power to be a despot, instead he personally is almost certainly the strongest moderating force in that government.

Bashar is far more head of an old style oligarchy than a Amin/ Stalin/ Hussein despot who can and will happily murder anyone who they even think opposes them including friends and high ranking people in their own government. Yes as above the syrian government 100% uses torture etc but Bashar Assad personally is by pretty much every single account about as far from the typical despot as you can get. Indeed, his program of pretty genuinely well intentioned reform was stymied by his own government. He simply doesn't have the power 'despot' or even 'Assad regime' ascribes to him. In terms of Gabbard the one semi extended interview I saw with her after the 2nd (?) debate had her not refusing to condemn Syrian government tactics- indeed she did condemn them- but a refusal to condemn Bashar Assad personally.

If Maher Assad were in charge otoh... For all its problems Syria should be glad that Bashar didn't die in a car crash along with his big brother or decide to stay an eye doctor since Maher would be far far worse than what we got.

20 hours ago, injurai said:

That said, the continued sprinkling of spurious claims is bizarre from a CNN analyst, and my assumption is that those segments are generally written, okayed, rehearsed, and played out with some dynamic ad libing for breaking news or other domain sharing cross-talk. Am I to believe CNN just lets their pundits spill any drivel they want? If the rest of the panel never refuted the claim, only really had confusion and skepticism and douby of such a lofty claim, then still let him espouse his full view and take the last word. Is that just a rogue pundit? Honestly I have no idea how one is supposed to read CNN, it reads like planned talking point. The whole format is anti-intellectual to me. Yeah, and I'm being sloppy myself, but I'm just stitching together bits and pieces that I'm trying to find when I'm not at my day job. I'm not a professional political investigator and so many of them can't even built a report that isn't mostly narrative.

The only US news talking head panelist show I have ever seen that I would give the time of day is The McLaughlin (RIP) Group. Opinion shows only really work as being informative when the panelists have an opinion worth sharing and there's enough diversity of view to get their views challenged and defended.

I'll be fair to CNN though, I saw that guy call Gabbard a Russian asset live, and he was at least challenged on it. I'm less than convinced he would have got the same challenge saying an equivalent something about, say, Hillary if on Fox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Gromnir said:

too many.

HA! Good Fun!

 

would like to know why 'walks back' is every outlet's default for unrepentant reconstruction of truth

 

am aware our hope for conviction is flickering and bemoaned but it's all there is to cling to

 whoindeed.png.29e90d8a32037b9bb699c4d3aa4322c9.png

All Stop. On Screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2019 at 11:27 PM, injurai said:

my assumption is that those segments are generally written, okayed, rehearsed, and played out with some dynamic ad libing for breaking news or other domain sharing cross-talk.

Really? That's some serious conspiracy theory tier thinking there...

I'd expect some preparation on the part of the anchor obviously and a general heads-up on the topic, but written out and rehearsed like some sort of play? Come on, that makes no sense.

@Zoraptor I doubt that the New Zealand media is any better with panelists and 24hour news.

Edited by smjjames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't. You occasionally get a decent long form interview on the publicly funded latish night shows that specialise in that thing but that is almost always the exception; and any panelist show tends to rapidly turn into a badly moderated competition to see who can talk over the most other people loudest- or worse, a soapbox for the 'moderator'. 'Dateline London' on the Beeb tends to be OK but yeah, panelist shows in general are not great. We don't have any indigenous 24hr news though, too expensive/ not big enough and we don't really have the 'culture' for it.

(I'd guess PBS has some decent panelist shows in the US, but we only really get the crap cable networks. PBS' Newshour show was pretty good when I occasionally caught it)

Edited by Zoraptor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have zero love and respect for Hillary Clinton. I hold her in lower regard than a strange insect found on the wall of my house that may or may not be venomous. But she is not stupid. However these groundless accusations that Gabbard, Stein, and apparently others are willing or oblivious Russian agents leads me to believe she has either taken leave of her sense or really thinks the "media" outlets that are subservient to her  will carry the water on what she knows is a lie. Well, don't know about the former but the latter is certainly true. 

"What can't be changed must be endured"

Robert Jordan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, smjjames said:

Really? That's some serious conspiracy theory tier thinking there...

I'd expect some preparation on the part of the anchor obviously and a general heads-up on the topic, but written out and rehearsed like some sort of play? Come on, that makes no sense.

@Zoraptor I doubt that the New Zealand media is any better with panelists and 24hour news.

I do not mean literally rehearsed like a play. I mean the format is used and abused for agenda's sake. Not for realization of investigative journalism.

The people prepare topics to be talked about, and will doctor their spin, feign their ignorance for the networks narrative. You have fact checkers to affirm what's patent lies, and what truth they can omit to make their point. You know certain content gets vetted and axed, when someone really gets brave and goes off script everyone knows to stop them cold. They sometimes cut to other content, or will even dismiss or cut a remote guest. Anyone trying to keep their job will find the narrow path to walk.

For developing and yet uncertain claims, that's where the real flexibility lies. Networks will drop ideas into their viewers minds, but delicately hedge the position as to not get stuck holding it. It's out their, and often you never seen the person who took the risky claim reneging on the FUD. They really want to cultivate certain emotional positions in their viewers. Clearly it all plays out live, clearly they ad lib, clearly unexpected things happen. There is a modality to how they operate.

Not sure how any of that is conspiratorial. It's well understood that networks manufacture consent to use a choice term.

Edited by injurai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@injurai The way you described it certainly sounded like you were talking about a prewritten production like a play or something. At least to me it did.

@Guard Dog I think she is still sore about Gabbard endorsing Sanders instead of her and is just looking for a scapegoat to blame in case the Democrats lose. The DNC already has plenty of problems that could contribute to them losing in 2020 like the funding woes and it's not clear that they've entirely learned the right lessons from 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outlined, edited, talking points & details committed to memory, to be discussed with other "network" safe pundits is maybe a better way to word "written, okayed, rehearsed, and played out."

Actually fake segments is overkill. What I'm talking about more is how the network envisions the effect of a segment and everyone works towards that. Rinse & repeat.

Edited by injurai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadian election today, have a feeling we may end up with a Liberal minority government, so Trudeau will hang on with NDP support. 

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Volourn said:

Nice that us Kanadians will vote for a racist and a sexist while mocking our Southern neighbours for supposedly doing the same. LMAO

At least he is less blatant about it, as far as I know anyway. I only know of Trudeau what gets mentioned here in the US. BBC liveblog shows that the liberals have an early lead, but it's probably not even 20% in yet, maybe 30%

@ktchong Each to their own. I still like G W Bush as a person better than I do Trump, and that's saying something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I see with the typical Bush criticism is:

1. The President isn't working in a vacuum. He has a full branch of people that are helping him lead. You get the impression that most of his big decisions were made with a lot of input and involvement of his full cabinet. LBJ had the same issue with Vietnam, and it is a shame how that affects his legacy.

2. It's a hard job. I didn't vote for him twice, but I don't fault his intentions or work ethic.

Trump, on the other hand, seems to be playing a game and dismissing most anybody that isn't a yes man. That is bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't vote in 2000 because I wasn't quite old enough (that happens when you're born in an odd numbered year, I'd have voted for Gore if I could though), but I did vote for him in 2004 on the thinking that we're in the middle of a war and we shouldn't change Presidents in the middle of a war or something like that (and maybe I wasn't convinced by Kerry, dunno). If that sounds naive, yes, I was more politically naive then.

23 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

The problem I see with the typical Bush criticism is:

1. The President isn't working in a vacuum. He has a full branch of people that are helping him lead. You get the impression that most of his big decisions were made with a lot of input and involvement of his full cabinet. LBJ had the same issue with Vietnam, and it is a shame how that affects his legacy.

He still gets the blame for decisions he makes though, and theres evidence that some of them may not have been helping him in the best way possible. Not sure if he was aware that the whole WMD thing was false or if he just got convinced by others, I've heard of both narratives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...