U.S. Politics

[bickster]

A week or so old now but quite funny on one level and totally scary on another

[bickster]

3 hours ago, villakram said:

The NSA had medium confidence in the evidence of Russian hacking, while the FBI and CIA had high confidence.  Two of these organizations came out publicly against Trump. Their evidence is based on hearsay and allegations from biased individuals. The organization with direct access to evidence is much more skeptical. Make of that what you will.

There is no evidence of criminal acts. Is it illegal to interact with people of a specific nation called Russia? Lots and lots of ethically and morally dubious goings on, but no evidence I am aware of in the public domain of an illegal act.

Investigate any wealthy person and a means to take them down will be found. This investigation is wholly political in nature and if it continues in this manner does not bode well for the health of democracy in the USA.

There is no evidence of criminal acts in the public domain yet three people have already appeared in court for arraignment. And the investigation is still ongoing... Mmm ok

You can bury your head in the sand but Russia has been interfering in elections all over Europe as well as America, it's not an isolated thing they've been doing. This is no conspiracy theory, the evidence is there, you just need to actually look

[sne]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

There is no evidence of criminal acts in the public domain yet three people have already appeared in court for arraignment. And the investigation is still ongoing... Mmm ok

You can bury your head in the sand but Russia has been interfering in elections all over Europe as well as America, it's not an isolated thing they've been doing. This is no conspiracy theory, the evidence is there, you just need to actually look

Of course they have.

Just like the US they want to make sure their guy, or at least the one most beneficial to them wins the "election"

US been doing it for ages themselves. And if it doesn't work they help stage a coup d'etat or force a change by sanctions.

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, sne said:

Of course they have.

Just like the US they want to make sure their guy, or at least the one most beneficial to them wins the "election"

US been doing it for ages themselves. And if it doesn't work they help stage a coup d'etat or force a change by sanctions.

Not sure what point you're trying to make. Nothing in there I can disagree with. I've never said the US hasn't done this too

[sne]

Just now, bickster said:

Not sure what point you're trying to make. Nothing in there I can disagree with. I've never said the US hasn't done this too

Not trying to be confrontational or disagree with you 

I think you are correct in what you say.

[peterms]

17 minutes ago, bickster said:

You can bury your head in the sand but Russia has been interfering in elections all over Europe as well as America, it's not an isolated thing they've been doing. This is no conspiracy theory, the evidence is there, you just need to actually look

Bloody cheek.  It's as though they saw our actions from 1917 until the present day as an extended and pervasive attempt to interfere in their internal politics and thought it gave them the right to do the same to us.

Bastards.

[peterms]

Quite interesting long piece here about whether economic disadvantage is quite as accurate an explanation for Trump's victory as race.

Quote

...Even before he won, the United States was consumed by a debate over the nature of his appeal. Was racism the driving force behind Trump’s candidacy? If so, how could Americans, the vast majority of whom say they oppose racism, back a racist candidate?

During the final few weeks of the campaign, I asked dozens of Trump supporters about their candidate’s remarks regarding Muslims and people of color. I wanted to understand how these average Republicans—those who would never read the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer or go to a Klan rally at a Confederate statue—had nevertheless embraced someone who demonized religious and ethnic minorities. What I found was that Trump embodied his supporters’ most profound beliefs—combining an insistence that discriminatory policies were necessary with vehement denials that his policies would discriminate and absolute outrage that the question would even be asked.

It was not just Trump’s supporters who were in denial about what they were voting for, but Americans across the political spectrum, who, as had been the case with those who had backed Duke, searched desperately for any alternative explanation—outsourcing, anti-Washington anger, economic anxiety—to the one staring them in the face. The frequent postelection media expeditions to Trump country to see whether the fever has broken, or whether Trump’s most ardent supporters have changed their minds, are a direct outgrowth of this mistake. These supporters will not change their minds, because this is what they always wanted: a president who embodies the rage they feel toward those they hate and fear, while reassuring them that that rage is nothing to be ashamed of...

 

[Keyblade]

3 hours ago, peterms said:

Quite interesting long piece here about whether economic disadvantage is quite as accurate an explanation for Trump's victory as race.

 

This thread is an interesting take on it.

 

[peterms]

32 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

This thread is an interesting take on it.

 

The Coates tweet that she is replying to is odd, he seems to be criticising the article for saying that people voting for Duke (and by extension Trump) did so for non-racist reasons.  It says exactly the opposite.

 

Edited November 27, 2017 by peterms

[mjmooney]

It seems pretty obvious that economic hard times are not the exclusive (or even primary) reason for the swing to the hard right. But as we saw with 1930s Germany, they always provide fertile ground for extremists to exploit. 

[StefanAVFC]

wtf is this shit

[Straggler]

19 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

wtf is this shit

He's been watching CNN again and seen something critical of him probably. He posted it just after lunch so he's probably had the TV on with his happy meal in his lap.  I just had a look on the CNN website and the main feature is a year of failure for  Trump so it's likely to be that

Also Trump is a complete clearing in the woods, but you didn't need me to tell you that 

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, Straggler said:

He's been watching CNN again and seen something critical of him probably. He posted it just after lunch so he's probably had the TV on with his happy meal in his lap.  I just had a look on the CNN website and the main feature is a year of failure for  Trump so it's likely to be that

Also Trump is a complete clearing in the woods, but you didn't need me to tell you that 

Even with his dislike of CNN, it's an absolutely insane statement made by the President of the United States.

Conservatives cried when Obama put Dijon mustard on a burger FFS.

[bickster]

Why does he single out CNN every time, does he never watch MSNBC? 

[Straggler]

18 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Even with his dislike of CNN, it's an absolutely insane statement made by the President of the United States.

Conservatives cried when Obama put Dijon mustard on a burger FFS.

But sadly it is just another insane thing to say on another insane day with an insane POTUS.  He has so little understanding of what he is talking about it beggars belief, but he is no more ignorant now than he was on the campaign trail.  Yes in one Tweet he has managed to display willingness to flout the constitution he is supposed to protect, he has demonstrated again his ego is in the maniac range, he has made himself a hypocrite (again) just days after lying about being Times man of the year and spreading fake news himself, but it doesn't seem to matter.  Trump and his insane statements remind me of this picture, its just so much that no one bit can kill him off (Also the GOP being a spineless, self serving, corrupt, uncaring, cesspit of human faeces is unlikely to do much about it):

 

[Keyblade]

Provided we all survive this, we're going to have some funny stories to tell our grandkids about 2016/2017.

[Davkaus]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Why does he single out CNN every time, does he never watch MSNBC? 

Obama left it on CNN and Trump's tiny hands can't work the remote.

[Straggler]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

Why does he single out CNN every time, does he never watch MSNBC? 

He does watch it, but he can't spell MSNBC so he has to use CNN instead.

[maqroll]

The Robert Reich doc "Saving Capitalism" is on Netflix and worth a watch.

 

[TheAuthority]