2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

elasto
Posts: 3102
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:50 pm UTC

(I thought it was clear I was referring to the US media as I doubt Trump cares much about what the UK media reports...)

Chen
Posts: 5266
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Chen » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:31 pm UTC

Hmm

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/trump ... gs-n705586

"Intel and law enforcement officials agree that none of the investigations have found any conclusive or direct link between Trump and the Russian government period," the senior official said.

According to the senior official, the two-page summary about the unsubstantiated material made available to the briefers was to provide context, should they need it, to draw the distinction for Trump between analyzed intelligence and unvetted "disinformation."


This is a wildly different story than the one other officials leaked to CNN. Frankly this is getting ridiculous.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:46 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Hmm

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/trump ... gs-n705586

"Intel and law enforcement officials agree that none of the investigations have found any conclusive or direct link between Trump and the Russian government period," the senior official said.

According to the senior official, the two-page summary about the unsubstantiated material made available to the briefers was to provide context, should they need it, to draw the distinction for Trump between analyzed intelligence and unvetted "disinformation."


This is a wildly different story than the one other officials leaked to CNN. Frankly this is getting ridiculous.


I can understand Trump's "Fake News" broadside to CNN during his press hearing today. CNN + Buzzfeed + Slate need to calm the fuck down.

Washington Post says they had this information for months, but couldn't find any proof of it. So they never published a story. CNN hears that its on the intelligence briefing (and it was in the intelligence briefing because intelligence knew that all of the newspapers had the allegations). Then Buzzfeed just publishes all of the rumors at once.

Yeah, none of us like Trump. But fake news stories about rumors and allegations don't help anybody.

----------------------

In other news, Trump agrees that it was Russia who hacked the DNC finally. So it does seem like he'll listen to intelligence when it gets to him.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

elasto
Posts: 3102
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:23 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I can understand Trump's "Fake News" broadside to CNN during his press hearing today. CNN + Buzzfeed + Slate need to calm the fuck down.

...

Yeah, none of us like Trump. But fake news stories about rumors and allegations don't help anybody.

As an outsider who gets his news from non-US media, that's basically my understanding too - that the whole thing is just unsubstantiated rumours. Hence my query as to how the US media is handling it. Sounds like not very well...

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:49 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:I can understand Trump's "Fake News" broadside to CNN during his press hearing today. CNN + Buzzfeed + Slate need to calm the fuck down.

...

Yeah, none of us like Trump. But fake news stories about rumors and allegations don't help anybody.

As an outsider who gets his news from non-US media, that's basically my understanding too - that the whole thing is just unsubstantiated rumours. Hence my query as to how the US media is handling it. Sounds like not very well...


Depends on who you define as "US Media".
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:51 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 6899
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:50 pm UTC

If you're getting your news from CNN or Fox you need to turn off your TV. I read the NY Times and the WPo and the BBC. None have been too far over the top. May WPo needs to relax bit.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:54 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:If you're getting your news from CNN or Fox you need to turn off your TV. I read the NY Times and the WPo and the BBC. None have been too far over the top. May WPo needs to relax bit.


I had to edit my statement because: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/p ... .html?_r=0

Alas, NYTimes has made the mistake too. Although its less click-bait than Slate / Buzzfeed.

Washington Post has their Opinion pieces front-and-center, and they're almost all liberal tearjerker opinions that honestly deserve to be in the Huffington Post instead. It takes a bit of practice to distinguish between Washington Post opinions and their "legit" news articles. I find that WashPo has very solid journalism... as long as you wait for it.

Washington Post's opinion columns are diverse though. IIRC, Jeb Bush has posted WashPo opinion columns last year for example. It definitely "slants left" overall, but if you're "in the know" I think WashPo is pretty good. Their daily drivel is kind of crap though.

I think the "daily newspapers" have proven themselves to be irrelevant. Daily is too slow for news now but too quick for journalistic integrity. I've been thinking of picking up a subscription to a weekly paper and just totally give up on the daily crap. Bonus points: less to read when I only do it once per week.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:22 pm UTC

I typically get my solid news from BBC or NPR, then go to NYT and WashPo for opinion pieces.

Speaking of the BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38587505

Oop, meant to post this one: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

KittenKaboodle
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:36 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KittenKaboodle » Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:32 am UTC

sardia wrote:If you follow his tweets, he's saying that it's a witch hunt. Makes sense if you follow his logic.


Personally, I'd like to see Trump's birth certificate, not that I can read Cyrillic, but still...

elasto
Posts: 3102
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:17 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I think the "daily newspapers" have proven themselves to be irrelevant. Daily is too slow for news now but too quick for journalistic integrity. I've been thinking of picking up a subscription to a weekly paper and just totally give up on the daily crap. Bonus points: less to read when I only do it once per week.

This is very true.

One rare exception is the Guardian's 'long read's, which are a thousand+ words in length and look like they take weeks to months to research. Proper old fashioned investigative journalism. They seem to do about a couple a month.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:17 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
morriswalters wrote:If you're getting your news from CNN or Fox you need to turn off your TV. I read the NY Times and the WPo and the BBC. None have been too far over the top. May WPo needs to relax bit.


I had to edit my statement because: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/p ... .html?_r=0

Alas, NYTimes has made the mistake too. Although its less click-bait than Slate / Buzzfeed.

Washington Post has their Opinion pieces front-and-center, and they're almost all liberal tearjerker opinions that honestly deserve to be in the Huffington Post instead. It takes a bit of practice to distinguish between Washington Post opinions and their "legit" news articles. I find that WashPo has very solid journalism... as long as you wait for it.

Washington Post's opinion columns are diverse though. IIRC, Jeb Bush has posted WashPo opinion columns last year for example. It definitely "slants left" overall, but if you're "in the know" I think WashPo is pretty good. Their daily drivel is kind of crap though.

I think the "daily newspapers" have proven themselves to be irrelevant. Daily is too slow for news now but too quick for journalistic integrity. I've been thinking of picking up a subscription to a weekly paper and just totally give up on the daily crap. Bonus points: less to read when I only do it once per week.


If you don't read it already, the Economist has always been a reliable publication. One of my favorite news sources, if I'm being honest.

elasto
Posts: 3102
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:35 am UTC

Vahir wrote:If you don't read it already, the Economist has always been a reliable publication. One of my favorite news sources, if I'm being honest.

I nearly mentioned it too as something I hear trusted friends recommend - but didn't because I can't vouch for it personally.

I really should start reading it if only because quality journalism needs our support now more than ever.

Also worthy of note is that the BBC is going to invest in a fake news debunking unit.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2467
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:28 am UTC

elasto wrote:Also worthy of note is that the BBC is going to invest in a fake news debunking unit.

Sounds good1,2, but to be useful it needs also to highlight stories that are Fact Checked and found to be true. Then it can, in its positive version, be a 'badge worth earning' and the lack of such a badge cannot be casually taken as an implicit endorsement, rather than merely not yet on the radar.

Not that I expect "officially endorsed by the BBC" to be plastered all over the websites or facebook-frontends of CNN, NBC, FoxNews, AlJazeera, RT, Breitbart, The Daily Planet, The Smallville Ledger or The Sunday Sun (where deserved).

(Also, imagine a 'fact-check aggregator site', like Rotten Tomatoes is for reviews.)


And have you noticed how Trump is doing the "accuse people of the same things that he has otherwise personally benefited from" thing again. Accusing news sites of (anti-Trump) fake news, when even his own appointees have said there's basis in what is said, just like he's previously accused others of having privilidged backgrounds, abusing charitable foundations, etc... Right now, I'm thinking that almost any claim Trump tweets against others is a 3am Freudian slip revealing his own deep, dark secrets...

1 Assuming you don't find people who assume the BBC is the propaganda arm of the British government, of which there are many.
2 Assuming you don't find people who assume the BBC is the propaganda arm of the pink lefty commie elements of Her Majesty's maybe-Loyal Opposition, of which there are many.

elasto
Posts: 3102
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:34 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:Sounds good, but to be useful it needs also to highlight stories that are Fact Checked and found to be true.

It already does that. That's just normal news stories. It runs those all the time already ;)

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4774
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby HES » Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:50 pm UTC

Ninja'd by elasto.
The BBC is to assemble a team to fact check and debunk deliberately misleading and false stories masquerading as real news.

Fake news is debunked as fake
Real news is reported as news
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:03 pm UTC

HES wrote:Ninja'd by elasto.
The BBC is to assemble a team to fact check and debunk deliberately misleading and false stories masquerading as real news.

Fake news is debunked as fake
Real news is reported as news

You guys are misunderstanding the problem. Fake news isn't a fact checking problem, it's a power problem. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fa ... fake-news/
People share stories they know are false to influence others and to catalyzed a discussion. When you see a fake article about how Clinton's foundation is corrupt, the point is to spread the appearance of illegality.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8728
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:07 pm UTC

I just say that unless a news story comes from a reputable source, it's fake until proven otherwise. And if it's only partially reputable, it's completely unreputable. Sorry, but you don't get to quote RT or Press TV because one or two of their programs were good.

Chen
Posts: 5266
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Chen » Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:16 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I just say that unless a news story comes from a reputable source, it's fake until proven otherwise. And if it's only partially reputable, it's completely unreputable. Sorry, but you don't get to quote RT or Press TV because one or two of their programs were good.


I mean consider the NBC article that I posted earlier. It pretty much directly contradicts the CNN article regarding the briefing that was sent out with these unverified memos in them. What do you do in that case? I'd normally consider both sources reputable.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8728
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:19 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:I just say that unless a news story comes from a reputable source, it's fake until proven otherwise. And if it's only partially reputable, it's completely unreputable. Sorry, but you don't get to quote RT or Press TV because one or two of their programs were good.


I mean consider the NBC article that I posted earlier. It pretty much directly contradicts the CNN article regarding the briefing that was sent out with these unverified memos in them. What do you do in that case? I'd normally consider both sources reputable.


Good journalists WILL contradict each other; if they never do, that's tantamount to proof of rigging. Some of them will even push an agenda, which is to say all of them to some extent, and that get's into yellow journalism but journalism nonetheless. It's when you get journalists that are clearly pushing an agenda and ignoring facts to do so, let alone making up facts, that you get into not journalism.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5564
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:42 pm UTC

The problem isn't the reporting of fake news, it's the gullibility of the readers who hear fake news. When people give credence to beforeitsnews.com because they actually believe that regular news outlets are "part of the conspiracy", or they discredit sites like snopes.com for similar reasons, I don't really see any solution.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8728
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:16 pm UTC

ucim wrote:The problem isn't the reporting of fake news, it's the gullibility of the readers who hear fake news. When people give credence to beforeitsnews.com because they actually believe that regular news outlets are "part of the conspiracy", or they discredit sites like snopes.com for similar reasons, I don't really see any solution.

Jose


A simple test done when registering for the vote, kicking out anyone who denies the Moon Landing and so forth? Sure, it's intentionally disenfranchising people for their political beliefs, and is a big step towards fascism...

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5564
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:26 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:A simple test done when registering for the vote, kicking out anyone who denies the Moon Landing UFOs and so forth? Sure, it's intentionally disenfranchising people for their political beliefs, and is a big step towards fascism...

FTFY

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8728
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:00 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:A simple test done when registering for the vote, kicking out anyone who denies the Moon Landing UFOs and so forth? Sure, it's intentionally disenfranchising people for their political beliefs, and is a big step towards fascism...

FTFY

Jose


There are people who deny that UFO's exist?

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2467
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:03 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:A simple test done when registering for the vote, kicking out anyone who denies the Moon Landing UFOs and so forth? Sure, it's intentionally disenfranchising people for their political beliefs, and is a big step towards fascism...

FTFY

Jose

I'd be Ok with that. UFOs undoubtedly exist. (Visiting alien spaceships, on the other hand, are doubtful... ;))

(Ninjaed?)

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7301
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:47 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
A simple test done when registering for the vote, kicking out anyone who denies the Moon Landing and so forth?

How about, "the Russian government has blackmail material on Donald Trump"?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8728
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jan 13, 2017 7:08 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
A simple test done when registering for the vote, kicking out anyone who denies the Moon Landing and so forth?

How about, "the Russian government has blackmail material on Donald Trump"?


That assumes that Trump could ever be blackmailed.

"Mr Trump, we have you on audio talking about how you grabbed women by the, and I quote, 'by the pussy'"
"Yeah, I did a lot more than grab those pussies. And that makes me smart, I bet my opponent wouldn't even know what to with a pussy and she claims to have one. Tell me, how do you know she has one; have you ever seen it?
"Mr Trump, we have proof you haven't paid anything in taxes"
"Yeah because I'm smarter than you, because I can get away with not paying taxes, unlike you idiots"
"Mr Trump, we have video evidence that you raped and murdered a 13 year old girl"
"Yeah, it proves I'm better than you, because I got away with it. Our previous president, if he even was born here, couldn't get away with that, because he's so weak. Do you really want a weakling in control of the nuclear launch codes?"

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5564
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Fri Jan 13, 2017 7:10 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:There are people who deny that UFO's exist?
Whenever I can't read the tail number on a passing airplane, it's a UFO. But there are those that claim that the airline is based at some distant star, and their aircraft travel faster than light.

Those are the enlightened ones. Are you sure you want to deny them the vote? :)

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1697
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: disoriented

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Jan 13, 2017 7:18 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Zamfir wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
A simple test done when registering for the vote, kicking out anyone who denies the Moon Landing and so forth?

How about, "the Russian government has blackmail material on Donald Trump"?


That assumes that Trump could ever be blackmailed.

"Mr Trump, we have you on audio talking about how you grabbed women by the, and I quote, 'by the pussy'"
"Yeah, I did a lot more than grab those pussies. And that makes me smart, I bet my opponent wouldn't even know what to with a pussy and she claims to have one. Tell me, how do you know she has one; have you ever seen it?
"Mr Trump, we have proof you haven't paid anything in taxes"
"Yeah because I'm smarter than you, because I can get away with not paying taxes, unlike you idiots"
"Mr Trump, we have video evidence that you raped and murdered a 13 year old girl"
"Yeah, it proves I'm better than you, because I got away with it. Our previous president, if he even was born here, couldn't get away with that, because he's so weak. Do you really want a weakling in control of the nuclear launch codes?"


I keep hoping that there is something the Republicans are willing to stand up to him on, but so far I've been surprised at the utter spinelessness of them.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

morriswalters
Posts: 6899
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jan 13, 2017 7:57 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:I keep hoping that there is something the Republicans are willing to stand up to him on, but so far I've been surprised at the utter spinelessness of them.
Wait 7 more days until he can actually do something before calling them spineless. They are, but they haven't really been tested yet.

@ CorruptUser
We all lie as a matter of course. Language encourages it. You won't fix the problem at the polls. It isn't new but the internet makes the New York Times and Sam Smart ass effective equals.

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1051
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC
Location: couldn't even find coffee in copenhagen

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:46 pm UTC

So, a week before the Trump Administration takes office...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/o ... is-way-out

New rules issued by the Obama administration under Executive Order 12333 will let the NSA—which collects information under that authority with little oversight, transparency, or concern for privacy—share the raw streams of communications it intercepts directly with agencies including the FBI, the DEA, and the Department of Homeland Security, according to a report today by the New York Times.


Aren't these organizations part of the executive branch? Considering the promises Trump has made, comments suggesting he thinks the first amendment is too expansive, the ideas motivating the (not-yet-guaranteed) incoming attorney general, a republican congress which might just give into anything Trump asks for...whatever the worst that could happen is, I guess President Obama is okay with it.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1195
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:32 pm UTC

Probability of a secret being kept is inversely proportional to the ... uh ... fourth? ... power of the number of people who are in on it, so maybe getting the data streams shared is a way to increase the number of honourable, decent people in a position to blow the whistle on Trump's bullshit when he lies about what's in it, not that Trump gives a shit how many whistles get blown, of course.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7497
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:30 pm UTC

Except it's an executive order. Trump can rescind it as easily as Obama put it in place.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:11 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:Except it's an executive order. Trump can rescind it as easily as Obama put it in place.


Why would Trump repeal it? Other than it having Obama's signature, it gives power to law enforcement which is exactly what Trump campaigned on.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2467
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Sat Jan 14, 2017 6:34 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Zohar wrote:Except it's an executive order. Trump can rescind it as easily as Obama put it in place.


Why would Trump repeal it? Other than it having Obama's signature, it gives power to law enforcement which is exactly what Trump campaigned on.

At one point Trump said that he "would rescind all of Obama's Executive Orders". But, then again, he later said he might not rescind every EO, and later still that he would rescind perhaps 70% of them, and (as with many of Trump's 'promises' to his voters) it is unclear if he ever intended to do anything of what he said, or whether that "90 minute meeting that was supposed to be 15 minutes" (a lie in itself, but that's Trump for you, so meh...) after which he was so obviously subdued in front of the press had privately shown him the sort of realities that made him reverse on the wall/fence (back to "not a fence but a wall", again, apparently, but who knows), keeping the "good bits" (the expensive ones) of the Affordable Care Act, no longer draining any swamps (just adding millionaire alligators and son-in-law snapping turtles) and all that.

It really is a new type of politics. Reminds me of Nietzcshe. The Blonde Beast overlords getting the slaves to revolt against thrir former masters by overturning the prior Slave Moralities in favour of the new system, etc, etc... Or however you want to interpret it, but the parallels (e.g. the Church gaining power through getting its adherents to do as it says, not do as it does itself) are easily made from here in this comfortable armchair of mine.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Jan 14, 2017 6:55 pm UTC

Nietzsche was a moron. He literally thought that will to power was a real thing. Like you could make things happen by thinking it really hard.

Trump is bad for the country, but he's mostly bad because he's espousing Republican talking points. The other bad part is more corrosive. The part where he takes advantage of the paparazzi esque nature of the public. Notice how the news aren't talking about his conflict of interest anymore? Or how he treats women or talks about torture? There's just an endless tidal wave of scandals, but none of them have time to sink in with his supporters. They think that since the media stopped saying one thing, it's just bullshit.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2467
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Sat Jan 14, 2017 7:19 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Nietzsche was a moron. He literally thought that will to power was a real thing. Like you could make things happen by thinking it really hard.

I'm not qualified to argue against the Moron Theory. He's not exactly everyone's favourite philosopher (for some tangible reasons and a few erroneous ones as well), and I think that taking even a well-opinioned authority at straight face value without room for criticism would be tantamount to creating a religion (see also the Nietzchians In Spaaaace! of the Andromeda TV series for the Roddenberrian take on it), which is something he himself was initially rejecting

But you must admit that a lot of Trump's success seems to have been down to repeating "Crooked Hillary", "Crooked Media" and all the rest, basically willing his purported world-views into (effective) reality. If that isn't "think hard and it will happen", it's "say it often enough and the mud will stick", to the same end.


No, the Nietzche thing (and I've hardly ever written his name before, and it's an uncomfortable combination of consonants to try to get right each time!) isn't a big argument, just a casual aside. Take it or leave it. I could probably tell you how I think the whole darned election seems to fit into the myth of Ragnarok, given half the chance, but it wouldn't make it any more politically savvy than trying to also shoehorn it into Bambi and/or Avatar and/or The Taking Of Pelham 123... ;)

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:16 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
sardia wrote:Nietzsche was a moron. He literally thought that will to power was a real thing. Like you could make things happen by thinking it really hard.

I'm not qualified to argue against the Moron Theory. He's not exactly everyone's favourite philosopher (for some tangible reasons and a few erroneous ones as well), and I think that taking even a well-opinioned authority at straight face value without room for criticism would be tantamount to creating a religion (see also the Nietzchians In Spaaaace! of the Andromeda TV series for the Roddenberrian take on it), which is something he himself was initially rejecting

But you must admit that a lot of Trump's success seems to have been down to repeating "Crooked Hillary", "Crooked Media" and all the rest, basically willing his purported world-views into (effective) reality. If that isn't "think hard and it will happen", it's "say it often enough and the mud will stick", to the same end.


No, the Nietzche thing (and I've hardly ever written his name before, and it's an uncomfortable combination of consonants to try to get right each time!) isn't a big argument, just a casual aside. Take it or leave it. I could probably tell you how I think the whole darned election seems to fit into the myth of Ragnarok, given half the chance, but it wouldn't make it any more politically savvy than trying to also shoehorn it into Bambi and/or Avatar and/or The Taking Of Pelham 123... ;)

You need to think about the context here. Is it really his worldview? What does coal regulation have to do with Trump's real estate empire? Nothing. Neither does abortion,(except for women he sleeps with). Trump is taking advantage of the Republican world view, and succeeding in advancing that. What you're referring to is why A. establishment republicans supported Trump, B conservatives supported trump, and why C middle class whites supported Trump.
A voted for Trump, expecting him to lose.
B. Voted for Trump because he's pledged his SCOTUS picks to be conservative + abortion.
C. is the interesting one. They voted for him for a bunch of reasons, a lot of them dumb or misinformed. Assuming they aren't rankly hypocritical or lying, Democrats have an opening in 2 years. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/14/us/w ... trump.html
Pick an outsider, doesn't matter who. Make sure he's clean, and uninvestigated, and you talk about jobs that pander to them. Bam, you just stole half the white middle class vote. You won't keep them in 4 years, but who cares, you couldn't really help them anyway.
I voted for Obama the last time. I don’t agree with a lot of what he said, but I felt he was honest.

I voted for Trump because I wanted change. I feel like our economy has totally tanked. People do not have disposable income. I feel the last eight years have been a joke. Obama was out for himself. I don’t think he really respected the office. I think it was more about him being a celebrity than a president.

You'll see that a lot of the statements are just filled with rank hypocrisy, or are blatantly false (they'll be in for a rude awakening). But it doesn't matter, because they'll be all riled up in 4-8 years, and the other party takes their vote. The rest are just people looking for a false sense of security that Trump offered. You can't do much about that without big changes to the Democratic platform.
All you gotta do is be honest and likeable, and you'll get their vote once. Assuming the other's party media campaign doesn't manage to tank your likeability. The feeling of security is a huge elephant in the room. You're gonna lose a big chunk of the swing vote if all the white people are freaking out about blacks, muslims and dirty foreigners. It might be worth it to back off on the police. Let cops get away with brutality , at least until whites feel safer.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1195
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:07 am UTC

sardia wrote:Let cops get away with brutality , at least until whites feel safer.
I'm really not sure whether that works. Despite all the propaganda about WMD ready to hit London inside 45 minutes, Britain invading Iraq didn't make the people on the No 30 bus feel much safer on 7 July 2005, did it? Escalating a civil war doesn't seem like a great way to help the civilians feel safe, even if you can convince them that it'll make them safer. Is "Finally someone's puttin' dem uppity Niggers back in their place" really a more common sentiment among potential voters than "Oh, shit, more racial tensions? We did NOT need that" in swing states?

Sidenote: I really have closing a quote like that, because I know there's supposed to be a punctuation mark before the close-quote but none of them seem correct.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Sun Jan 15, 2017 2:03 pm UTC

I doubt the former is more common, but it's still a significant fraction. I don't know that it supports sardia's argument though.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Jan 15, 2017 5:54 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:
sardia wrote:Let cops get away with brutality , at least until whites feel safer.
I'm really not sure whether that works. Despite all the propaganda about WMD ready to hit London inside 45 minutes, Britain invading Iraq didn't make the people on the No 30 bus feel much safer on 7 July 2005, did it? Escalating a civil war doesn't seem like a great way to help the civilians feel safe, even if you can convince them that it'll make them safer. Is "Finally someone's puttin' dem uppity Niggers back in their place" really a more common sentiment among potential voters than "Oh, shit, more racial tensions? We did NOT need that" in swing states?

Sidenote: I really have closing a quote like that, because I know there's supposed to be a punctuation mark before the close-quote but none of them seem correct.

There's a lot of votes that could be on the line by siding against cops (rightly or not) doesn't look good in the eyes of the working middle class whites. What matters is perception, not truth. The view of the economy is going to shoot up way faster than actual growth in the next few months. Why? Because all the Republicans who were reflexively saying the economy is shit are going to change their minds because the Republicans are in charge now. The same thing applies to police brutality and racial tensions. It doesn't matter that racial tensions are caused by structural racism bubbling up. It only matters that whites see the awful news, and don't feel safe. Same with the perception of violence vs the reality that violence is at historical lows. Or the idea that violence rates are averages which masks spikes and valleys in the cities.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mdf1973 and 25 guests