Politics 2020

[Darkpriest]

Just now, Achilles said:

I can't tell if you're being intentionally hyperbolic so that you can troll or if you're just a bit obtuse.

The technology, its reach, and its scope have only come into existence in the recent past. That is why this particular technology is a unique threat now.

The tools to persuade have always existed. The tools to tailor and target specific messages at specific audiences have not.

And with that, I honestly do think you're intentionally wasting my time now. The last word is yours.

How do you meassure that? Do you have a hard evidence that certain information or action swayed opinion in a specific direction? To what extent?

NUMBERS AND HARD EVIDENCE PLEASE! 

Do you track such actions by all parties of the election cycle? Do you also track cases where a person seeing a certain ad said "of f.. that person is nutts, I will not vote for the person saying such things, even though i had them on my list up until now"? 

Or you have such opinion because someone else gave their opinion as they did not like a result of the election?

Can I put such theories about end of democracy due to opinion manipulation and illegal conditioning and brainwashing into a category of tinfoil hat conspiracies? 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

But Cuba is a one party state, people dont vote there in any meaningful way so social media is meaningless.....you cant manipulate a system like a vote where there is only one party to vote for?

But Belarus is different example of a deeply flawed Democratic outcome because in Belarus you had legitimate opposition parties and people voted for them but the actual counting of these votes was ignored  so when they announced the " results " they lied about who voted for who and claimed Lukaszenko was the winner

But fake news on social media is not the reason these elections are false or undermined 

 

Not sure there was an answer to either of the questions in there.

EDIT:

Let me ask the question another way:

Guard Dog's argument seems to be that so long as a society has something called "Election Day", democracy exists. Do you agree that this is the best way to operationally define "democracy"? Assume that election day, as executed, looks exactly like picture you painted of Belarus earlier.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Achilles

[Skarpen]

Let's indulge @Achilles for a second then and take the manipulation should be removed from SM as a working theory. Now the question would be the ones who decides what is information and what is manipulation? In laymans term the ages old question who watches the watchers? Wouldn't the power to decide what is the truth placed in any human being result in a way bigger threat to democracy then the "manipulation" we have at hand?

[BruceVC]

8 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Let's indulge @Achilles for a second then and take the manipulation should be removed from SM as a working theory. Now the question would be the ones who decides what is information and what is manipulation? In laymans term the ages old question who watches the watchers? Wouldn't the power to decide what is the truth placed in any human being result in a way bigger threat to democracy then the "manipulation" we have at hand?

This is valid point that I see as part of the current examples where numerous governments are expecting SM platforms to monitor and delete fake news and ideologically hateful comments...but who decides what is blatant fake news and hateful comments ....I bet  you only right wing comments have  been deleted but extreme comments from anyone on the left or certain offensive BLM will be left alone 

[Darkpriest]

You should be worried more by such. When both views seem to be at odds with something. 

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-20/banks-moved-2-trillion-defying-money-laundering-orders-icij

 

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/fincen-files-financial-scandal-criminal-networks

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/massive-fincen-leak-exposes-how-biggest-western-banks-finance-drug-cartels-terrorist

 

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Darkpriest

[Darkpriest]

@Gromnir

What would be your view on these candidates should mcc push trumps nominees? 

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/BigStory12/idUSKCN26C19S

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/BigStory12/idUSKCN26C1AD

Edited September 21, 2020 by Darkpriest

[Darkpriest]

@BruceVC

I wonder what is your opinion on actions of the Swedes

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-21/blackrock-probe-of-swedish-bonds-hit-by-secrecy-law-in-qe-debate

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, Achilles said:

Fidel has elections didn't he? Were those democratic?

Please tell me you are not serious. His name was the only one on the ballot. Although I do find it ironic how the Democrats decry the "death of democracy" while vigorously litigating to keep the Green Party candidates off the ballot. 

Since the 1960 election negative campaign ads have been a thing. On TV, on radio, hell in newspapers it's been going on since BEFORE the revolution.  In fact if you want to know how nasty tings got google the guy in Gromnir's avatar picture. 

Negative ads range from being true (but usually without context) to laughably false and are paid for by the candidates of pacs that support them. Now it's being done on social media by foreign actors. But what is the difference? Voters are boing manipulated? Voters are getting false info? So what? Where have you been? This isn't new. Just new rats in the same old sewer. If people of voting age haven't learned by now to take everything on social media with a grain (more like a boulder) of salt then we all screwed anyway. You can't fix stupid. 

[Gromnir]

5 hours ago, Skarpen said:

This is a weird accusation as I did point out that in my original statement. Your question was why people approve HK and not BLM. The answer is because of motivations of those protests.

 

nazis in skokie do not get less protection from the Constitution than does the Little sisters of Mercy. thank goodness. again, in the US, it is illegal for the government to use motivations and message as the basis for suppression. you admitting the protester motivations is your guiding principle on this kinda issue is an auto fail, which you nevertheless fail to realize.

and why on earth do you think the illegal nature o' the protesters is an appropriate rebuttal to the government's illegal behaviour? you somehow imagine cops and government, when confronting suspects, is subject to unwritten marquis o' queensbury rules? government need follow the rules just so long as does the suspects? only fair, yes? that can't possibly make sense to you, can it?

you are so weird-- perpetual wrong and weird.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 21, 2020 by Gromnir

[Skarpen]

7 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

you are so weird-- perpetual wrong and weird

And same to you. You are asking why people approve one protest but not the other. Now you are ranting as usual about something I never said.

Yes. Protestors motivations are important to me when I decide if I approve of the protest or not. I think almost all people do this. Why and how are the questions 99.9% people base their opinion about such events like protest. You can think it's wierd, but it's like your opinion man.

And where did I said anything about approving government unlawful response? As usual you are pullinf things out of your behind.

[Amentep]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Negative ads range from being true (but usually without context) to laughably false and are paid for by the candidates of pacs that support them. 

I think I mentioned there are attack ads locally attacking a guy for being a defense attorney (he defended murderes! Drug dealers! Rapists!) which ignores the fact that in our system of justice, everybody is entitled to a competent defence.

Don't get me started on PACs.  They're just an excuse to allow people to contribute more money than they're legally allowed to support a campaign and to attack opponents without directly connecting the smear and muck raking to the candidate, which is just wrong IMO.

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

You can't fix stupid. 

You can't really legislate to stop it either.

[Maedhros]

Political ads are banned here, both on tv/radio, and on posters outside etc (to avoid the biggest/richest parties dominating airtime), not sure how common that is around the globe? As far as I'm concerned, good riddance. I'm sure there's a lot of shady stuff on social media, but I prefer my exposure to politics be reasonable debates, and politicians actually talking about issues.

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

@BruceVC

I wonder what is your opinion on actions of the Swedes

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-21/blackrock-probe-of-swedish-bonds-hit-by-secrecy-law-in-qe-debate

Quote

 

Its very is controversial and I am very surprised the Swedish Central Bank is expecting not sharing the full information of the Blackrock as normal

All the people raising criticism you will  notice work for Swedish asset managers and financial companies that work in the bond market and they do understand how any normal purchasing of bonds and the value  of the bonds must be transparent which is true in all financial purchase like bonds

You can trust the Swedish Central Bank and you can trust all the Swedish companies to  honor the bond value under normal circumstances but there is real risk that by not sharing the Blackrock  report with the public when requested or more important the asset managers in the article you are creating real concern around the actual core calculation of interest bond  and the values of the bonds

Worst case one of the companies is not able to pay back the bond value at maturity date and in the case of these Swedish companies that realistically could  only happen if the company has gone out business. In any normal time these companies would be fine but under the global virus economic shutdown we dont know how many companies are going to go into liquidation, its unprecedented in the history of our global economies 

So now the bond debt wont get paid by the company which means the payment burden falls on the Swedish Central Bank...which means it falls more or less on tax payers. 

So they need to share the Blackrock report just so the overall debt burden is understood. I must be honest I am surprised this is not mandatory in some Swedish financial transparency law? 

[Guard Dog]

27 minutes ago, Amentep said:

 

Don't get me started on PACs.  They're just an excuse to allow people to contribute more money than they're legally allowed to support a campaign and to attack opponents without directly connecting the smear and muck raking to the candidate, which is just wrong IMO.

 

That is exactly what PACs are. The one thing you have to remember about the majority’s decision in Citizens United was the FEC was attempting to stop an activity in a private group that organizations like Unions were legally allowed to do. And always had been. So the question that court had to answer is do you regulate free speech for one group but not for another, do you curtail group free speech altogether with a decision, or do you allow MORE free speech by deciding the way they did. I think they made the correct decision. Less regulation of speech is better. Even if the outcome was ugly the alternatives were uglier. The status quo could not continue.

That analysis came out of memory of the details of FEC vs CU so if I got any details wrong it’s on me. I am sure Gromnir will let me know if I did.

[Malcador]

18 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Bruce's views are exactly those you'd expect from a white South African banker. The dude trolls like long lines behind a fleet of Chinese tuna boats denuding the Pacific but him being terrified of anything even close to 'violent left wing anarchists' on the streets is and has always been 100% consistent.

eg his views are also absolutely consistent with those he has expressed about more local issues like the Marikana massacre.

I am reminded of my favourite line from the Mars Trilogy about libertarians being "anarchists that want police protection from their slaves"

[Gfted1]

Justice Dept. deems New York City, Portland and Seattle 'anarchist jurisdictions'.

[Malcador]

3 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Justice Dept. deems New York City, Portland and Seattle 'anarchist jurisdictions'.

"We cannot allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance," Barr said. "It is my hope that the cities identified by the Department of Justice today will reverse course and become serious about performing the basic function of government and start protecting their own citizens."

 

Time to find some video of NYC, Seattle and Portland to see how much like 90's Mogadishu they are.

[Darkpriest]

2 minutes ago, Malcador said:

 

 

 

Time to find some video of NYC, Seattle and Portland to see how much like 90's Mogadishu they are.

You probably do not need to try hard. Just go to some downtown ghetto/poor nbh ransackes during riots and looting frenzy? 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, BruceVC said:

This is valid point that I see as part of the current examples where numerous governments are expecting SM platforms to monitor and delete fake news and ideologically hateful comments...but who decides what is blatant fake news and hateful comments ....I bet  you only right wing comments have  been deleted but extreme comments from anyone on the left or certain offensive BLM will be left alone 

And with this, I'm starting to question whether or not you're here in good faith.

[BruceVC]

7 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Justice Dept. deems New York City, Portland and Seattle 'anarchist jurisdictions'.

This is no surprise at all and should be an effective  incentive for the mayors in these cities to instruct the police to do there jobs and....stop people breaking the law 

The article contains the list of failures of law the cities have failed  to enforce and it all looks reasonable. But the quote below summarizes the actual reason  for this ruling

" We cannot allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance," 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Please tell me you are not serious. His name was the only one on the ballot.

I'm completely serious.

Your argument seems to be that so long as we have something called "election day" then we have democracy. By those lights, Cuba had a democracy.

By other lights, just having a day set aside for voting isn't enough to clear the bar. Other qualifiers are necessary.

Just trying to figure out which side of that fence you want to be on.

Quote

But what is the difference? Voters are boing manipulated? Voters are getting false info? So what? Where have you been? This isn't new. Just new rats in the same old sewer. If people of voting age haven't learned by now to take everything on social media with a grain (more like a boulder) of salt then we all screwed anyway. You can't fix stupid. 

As I tried to outline for Darkpriest, this isn't more of the same.

Are you not paying attention to what the people who helped to make these tools are saying or are you simply unaware? Or do you simply not care because you've already decided you have it all figured out and any new information is just a distraction?

Quote

You can't fix stupid. 

For the sake of our future, I hope you're wrong.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Achilles
clean up

[Malcador]

26 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

You probably do not need to try hard. Just go to some downtown ghetto/poor nbh ransackes during riots and looting frenzy? 

And once that's found the entire city is to be labelled thusly ? Hm, seems like something tailor made for rural people who think every urban area is a warzone.  Also belatedly noticed how funny a term of "anarchistic jurisdiction" is

Edited September 21, 2020 by Malcador

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

And same to you. You are asking why people approve one protest but not the other. Now you are ranting as usual about something I never said.

 

actually, we specific noted you and oro were hopeless causes. am not least interested in your opinion 'cause is nothing more than the mindless doggerel the alt-right echo box continues to vomit forth. your responses is however illustrative o' why we do not care 'bout your opinions... well that and the irrationality and self-contradictory nonsense. 

attributing skarp_one description o' blm protester motivations to the protesters as a whole? 

*chuckle*

nope.

is precise why the government don't get to define or ascribe motivations. heck, as already noted earlier in the thread, blm has never been able to win trademark recognition 'cause there is no singular and recognizable blm. is gonna be considerable variation o' protester motivation, but am suspecting almost none agree with skarp_one characterization.  nevertheless, skarp_one's imagined description o' blm motivations should be meaningful? sure ain't meaningful to us as. you don't matter. 

oh, and another reading comprehension fail. we specific said your focus on the illegal behaviour o' the protesters is flawed. we pointed out how you failed to recognize the illegal actions o' the government.  playing ostrich doesn't mean Gromnir needs ignore the genuine pivotal issue. 

in spite o' your earlier denials, both hk protesters and blm has resorted to violence. skarp_one fail from the get go. furthermore, am as disinterested now as previous in having a stephen miller wannabe explain to us how swell is the folks in hong kong and how vile is blm protesters. however, "other folks at least claim to be motivated by conscience, and bruce should have the extreme real example o' how the apartheid government o' sa used brutality under the guise o' law and order to suppress protesters and dissent." am genuine curious 'bout the self described conservatives o' conscience and others who manage to sympathize with the lawless and often violent protests in hong kong, but somehow see the blm protests as an existential threat.

the only reason we got any interest whatsoever in continuing to discuss with skarp_one his venomous pov o' the blm protests is in hope one o' those conservatives o' conscience will have the courage to step forward and either agree with you or reject. instead, we get silence from the conscience while oro and skarp drone on 'bout the chinese hegemony and leftist shills and whatnot. 

@Guard Dog

have explained multiple times what we think were wrong in citizens united. the Court weaponized free speech in a way we thought were dangerous. commercial speech has always receive less protection than full first amendment would afford a person. the transactional nature o' commercial speech meant that selling soap on tv were viewed different than advocating for a candidate running for office.

pacs is no less transactional than is tv soap commercials, and corporations should not be seen as having same fundamental rights as people. a corporation cannot run for office, but the reasoning o' citizens united makes one wonder why such is not possible.

here is the part @Amentep may or may not be aware and is the reason we were conflicted 'bout the ruling-- buckley v. valeo had previous removed the limit on individual contributions to pacs. buckley were way back in 1976 which decided pac spending by individuals were a free speech issue and individual limits were unconstitutional. so, sooper rich folks could contribute unlimited money to a pac, just as long as the pac were at leas s'posed not dedicated to financing a specific candidate/campaign. utter bs, but that were the law.  the Court in citizens united said it were unfair that pacs so favored the wealthy contributor. the Court opened the door to small investors banding together to make contributions on par with wealthy voters. sounds fair, no?

'course the reasoning o' the Court complete ignored the reality o' pacs and the threat o' hidden foreign investment and a whole host o' other issues. scalia wrote a nineteen page dissent in mcconnell which chided the Court for ignoring a few realities such as how soft money favored incumbents by a better than 3:1 margin. nevertheless, he went along with the majority in citizens united, albeit with a concurrence which were less than enthusiastic.

citizens united were required 'cause the Court so bungled the issue in mcconnell v. fec.  the problem is the Court addressed the wrong issue. pacs and corporations is not people for purposes o' elections or election contributions. to frame as a fairness question were misguided. 

https://www.nytimes.com/video/obituaries/100000003489698/john-paul-stevens-obituary.html

we should all weep for the mistakes made by the citizens united court. mccain-feingold might' been the most important election related legislation evar, and the Court killed it. shame.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

[213374U]

 

5 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

If people of voting age haven't learned by now to take everything on social media with a grain (more like a boulder) of salt then we all screwed anyway. You can't fix stupid. 

It's the fundamental problem with democracy and, more generally, with people making decisions. People of voting age are susceptible to bull****. Always have, always will be. The problem for some seems to be that the ability to individually customize and deliver bull**** keeps improving. Instead of trying to curtail that by decree -which amounts to stopping progress- work on teaching people critical thinking skills. May or may not work in a capitalist social context that necessitates a high degree of compliance and conforming, though.

I find it strange when the same people who vigorously stress that living without social media and other post-modern garbage is literally literally impossible also want the government to just wave its magic wand and make the side effects of it go away -- doubly so when it's the same people who otherwise don't trust the government to organize a piss-up in a brewery. That being said, it's nothing short of willful obtuseness to say that voters are being influenced less or just as much as in the past now when the time and resources devoted to that continue to grow. However, voter turnout relative to voting age population has remained relatively constant since the 1970s, so perhaps the sensitivity to such influencing isn't as high as one may think.

 

57 minutes ago, Achilles said:

And with this, I'm starting to question whether or not you're here in good faith.

Welcome to WoT. I can tell that you're going to have a wonderful time here.

Edited September 21, 2020 by 213374U

[Gromnir]

Trump targets Seattle, Portland, NYC, DC by threatening federal funding for ‘anarchist’ cities

some o' you already forgot or never noticed? were september 2.

hate to break it to @BruceVC, but this effort will be as impotent as were the near identical President's memo. furthermore, and apparent bears repeating as is not getting through, but the most consistent lawlessness being displayed in the noted cities is by the federal government sending troops where they is unwelcome and denying due process rights to detainees. 

keep in mind the funding cut threat were also used when trump threatened sanctuary cities over immigration issues, which an appeals Court quick and unanimous struck down on basis o' separation o' powers.

much ado 'bout nothing save for what should be the recognition o' a slow and inexorable slide towards tyranny.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 21, 2020 by Gromnir